> in the medieval and early modern era the wealthy had many more surviving kids than the poor Per Figure 2 of Fertility trends by social status by Vergard Skir

> in the medieval and early modern era the wealthy had many more surviving kids than the poor Per Figure 2 of Fertility trends by social status by Vergard Skirbekk[1], we see that -- globally -- high social class begins to exert an overall negative pressure pressure on fertility relative to the lower classes as early as the start of the 1700s. So, yes, "Always" was a wrong description on my part, as we do see the opposite relationship during the early premodern and late medieval periods. It would have been more accurate of me to say something like: "historically, we see that the rich and educated upper echelons of society have apparently struggled with fertility for hundreds of years". > contraceptives did not exist Contraceptives did indeed exist. The much fabled Silphium springs to mind. Those of higher social class would certainly have had better access to experienced practitioners and the various abortifacient concoctions which might have currently been in fashion. > physical survival was a challenge [...] so the wealthy were the ones who could afford to keep their kids alive and healthy in large number On the other hand... there were much stronger incentives for agrarian family units to have children. More children meant more labor. More labor meant more land productivity. Agricultural success often went hand-in-hand with copious production of children. [1]: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol18/5/ https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol18/5/