Not really a relevant comparison. Most of that increase is at birth and in the first five years of life; LOTS more infant mortality back then.
Get past five years old, and life expectancies between the current period and a century back even out a lot. That IS a statistic.
So the comparison between her and sixteen year olds a century back is less misleading that you might think.
Yeah. I read 30 to 40%. I can't imagine the heartbreak.
So the comparison between her and sixteen year olds a century back is less misleading that you might think.
Not really but if you wanna go with that, fine. You should read mortality sheets. Plenty of teens died of mysterious ailments. Women died in childbirth. There were no guarantees and medicine was not what it is now. It isn't the infant mortality rate that made life expectancy 40 yrs old.
Actually, in the Tudor time period, at least as relates to the nobility, and members of the court, the average life expectancy for a man was in his 50-60’s. The average life expectancy for a woman was into her early 30’s. The things that killed most women were childbirth, complications or fever after childbirth (this was what killed the 3rd and 6th wives of Henry VIII), and multiple miscarriages or pregnancies.
As women died so much earlier, they were having babies at a much younger age. In Tudor Englandit was not unusual for men to be in their 50’s and be on the second or third or even 4th wife. Men who were in their 50’s were married to girls who were 13 or 14. Surely you don’t think that should be done today?