Why didn t Laura Ingalls Wilder s baby son have a name?

Laura and Almanzo had a baby son who died around 4 weeks of age, but was never given a name. Typically people name their children at birth, having chosen a name before the baby even arrives. So why did their baby go 4 weeks without ever being given a name? Was the naming process different back then? Did they know he was Ill and decided not to name him because they felt he was going to die? I ve tried looking up the answer through Google search, but have found nothing. I was wondering if anyone here happened to have an idea. I m very curious.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Edna
    Lv 7
    8 months ago

    They hadn't given him a formal name, because he was only 4 weeks old and they hadn't decided WHAT they wanted to name him. As I recall in the TV series, Laura Ingalls Wilder and her husband called him "Baby Wilder".. That wasn't unusual in those days. There were no "birth certificates" to be filled out when a baby was born.. The baby's name was written in the family Bible when the parents decided upon a name. .

    In the TV show, their baby died suddenly in his sleep from what is now known as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) - for which there is often no explanation, even today. The Wilders' baby died in his sleep, and his parents found him dead in his crib the next morning. When they put him in his crib the night before, he appeared to be a normal, healthy 4-week-old baby.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 months ago

    He's named and loved in Heaven.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 months ago

    Her book implies she actually had PPD and had trouble bonding with him. There's also several indications that her son suffered from "spasms," so they were likely far more focused on his medical status than his name.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 months ago

    He was only 12 days old when he died.Wikipedia claimed they hadn't chosen a name by the 12th day.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Pippin
    Lv 7
    8 months ago

    He was less than 2 weeks old.  While families certainly usually picked, or at east discussed names during pregnancy (you didn't have to know the gender to pick names) for whatever reason, they had not agreed on one before he died. (I've always suspected that perhaps Manly wanted to name the baby for himself, but Laura wanted a simpler name. (Perhaps Charles ...?)  So they hadn't agreed.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • GB
    Lv 5
    8 months ago

    If their son was a sickly baby, their concern would have been to have him baptized before he died. He would have been given a name at his baptism. It's more likely that they simply did not have his name recorded.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 months ago

    Well they did not have ultrasound back then. So you never had a lot of time to decide if you tried to name a child at birth. We knew that we were having a daughter, so we had time to choose her name. Back then, you don't know if your having a girl or a boy. So yes times were different.

    • VirgoDiamond
      Lv 4
      8 months agoReport

      A person still could've decided. Choose names for a girl and a boy, that way you are prepared either way when the baby was born. That's what my husband and I did, as well as everyone else that I know.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Jill
    Lv 7
    8 months ago

    Are we completely sure he was not named? I ask simply because often people in the past were reticent and private about losses in a way unimaginable today. For example, Teddy Roosevelt never mentioned the existence and death of his first wife. Today we might assume he did not care about her. The reverse was true. Her loss was so utterly devastating that he never referred to it again. Speaking about deep emotion was thought to cheapen it.

    • Pippin
      Lv 7
      8 months agoReport

      There is no name on the gravestone.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 months ago

    My mother was born early 1920’s (so I’m getting to be an old fart). I found out that beyond her 5 grown siblings there were 2 babies who died before they reached 1 year old. I asked what were their names? She said they were just called “baby” and weren’t given a name until they turned 1 year old. Blew my mind but infant mortality was high back then so that’s how they did d things.

    • Pippin
      Lv 7
      8 months agoReport

      Which was NOT a common practice in western societies anyway. They might be CALLED 'baby', but were given a name, generally at baptism.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.