Average Life expectancy of someone living in the Tudor period | Tudor Life and Times | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Average Life expectancy of someone living in the Tudor period
September 16, 2014
1:16 pm
Avatar
LiliB
United Kingdom
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
September 16, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

So, does anyone have any idea how old the average noble woman would live to, compared to the average peasant? I know the life expectancy was far shorter than our own today due to illness, bad hygiene and bad diet.

Was being rich enough to ensure you lived a longer life? I don’t think so, I think (personally) The rich were equally at risk of dying young, due to childbirth, duels and fighting to protect their lands/titles.

What does everyone else think?

- ** LiliB **

September 16, 2014
3:13 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Oh average the life expectancy of a person lived generally to around 35 to 45 years. Woman probably died a lot earlier due to be worn out from the rigours of childbirth.
Royality/nobility tended to live a little longer but I think that might be down to diet. There were a few men and woman who lived well into and past their 70’s however.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 17, 2014
1:16 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You might find this article intereasing..http://queryblog.tudorhistory……cy-in.html

Boring stuff alert..

It’s a mattter of stastics.

When we talk about averge life expectancy, we are looking at the 3 different types of average…the mean ( where you add up all the numbers or representible sample and divide by the number of sample points) which gives us the quoted range of 35-45. The average being 40 with a plus/minus of 5 yrs.

Then we have the mode which in this case is the age at which most people died….because this wasn’t recorded in the overwhelming number of pple who were alive at the time…we can only guess , and guess badly what age that might be.

Finally we have the median..again it’s hard to have an exact result since he don’t know all the figures but it would be the middle value of all the results written down.
http://www.purplemath.com/modu…..anmode.htm

Common sense tells us that people don’t just die off at 45 ( except in Logans Run when it was 30…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..%28film%29).

The stats are skewed by a very high childhood mortality rate, upto 90% of children died of diseases, starvation , diarrhea and causes like a simple infection which we have the ability to cure quickly an easily now.

Starvation was high amongst the lower calsses. War-fare and pregnancy/chld-birth caused massive deaths amongst adults in the prime of life. But for most people, if you live to be 15 , the chances were high that you are able to live another 40, 50 or sometimes 60 or 70 years more.

It's always bunnies.

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427580

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1711

Posts: 23074

Newest Members:

FloydArect, walwera, jffrsnfrst, Bearustault, KdyyaVzacype, loveawake.ru

Administrators: Claire: 959