[bluGill]

You are missing something: 200 years ago you were lucky if 1 in 5 kids lived to 5 years old - disease was a big killer. As such you dare not get attached to your kids if you do you will be heart broke when they die. So you let the kids do whatever, the ones that survive great, the ones that don't well odds are it wasn't the risk taking that got them anyway. (you also had to work hard to find enough food for this family)

Don't read the above as kids were allowed to do anything. They were cared for, but it wasn't as close as modern families would care for them. If the kid is mostly safe that is good enough.

[bombcar]

I don't think mortality was 80% by 5 years, even 200 years ago.

But if you have ten kids, you won't be able to pay as much attention to each one as if you only had one, so even if you're perfect you'll have the kids doing more things without the parents knowing.

[waveBidder]

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-big-problem-in-br... In the mid 1800's Germany it was ~50%, so every other. not as dire as gp, but definitely enough to change relationships.

[bombcar]

I'd be interested to see it broken down between literal infant mortality (those children who didn't survive birth, basically) and the rest.

From there, it seems the single biggest remaining factor is malaria.

(50% feels about right given reading accounts of "back then" and browsing graveyards)