Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Female Fertility in 18th/19th Century
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Julie | Report | 30 Aug 2014 14:15 |
Does anyone have any information or documented cases regarding the maximum childbearing ages of women in the 18th & 19th centuries? I ask because I have an instance where if (& I appreciate that it is a big if) the marriage, baptism & burial entries are correct, I have a relative who had 13 children baptized in the second half of the 18th century, with the youngest 2 born when she was 51 & 54 respectively. This seems a little unlikely to me. I don't currently have a definite baptism record for the lady concerned & I am well aware that ages at burial in parish registers cannot be relied upon, so at moment I am inclined to suspect that the age at burial is inaccurate. |
|||
|
Karen in the desert | Report | 30 Aug 2014 14:39 |
|
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 30 Aug 2014 14:54 |
Karen, Thanks for the thought, it is something I had considered. However the first daughter to bear her mothers name died in infancy, a later child given the same name would have been too young to have these children. The parish registers for the small village concerned are quite legible & clearly have the same names listed for both father & mother for all 13 baptisms. Whilst the mothers name is a quite common name, the fathers isn't. When put together this does I feel suggest all 13 baptisms relate to children of the same couple. |
|||
|
Monica | Report | 30 Aug 2014 14:56 |
My grandmother was one of 11 children born between 1889 and 1902, her mother was pregnant for almost her entire married life, she was 23 when she got married and 37 when her husband dropped dead from a stroke, in 1902 other wise I'm sure she would have had several more children. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Flip | Report | 30 Aug 2014 15:03 |
There is also the possibility the parents baptised some of their grandchildren as their own, to cover up for their daughter's indiscretions. It certainly happened - I was looking at a thread earlier where 2 children were baptised by parents that were actually grandparents. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 30 Aug 2014 15:24 |
Flip, I had a similar thought, but the location is a small village where everyone would have known everyone else & their business, thus covering up an illegitimate birth would have been very difficult. |
|||
|
Gwyn in Kent | Report | 30 Aug 2014 22:18 |
Are you sure that the father wasn't widowed and then married a 2nd wife with the same name as the first? |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 30 Aug 2014 23:02 |
Gywn, yes I have that a few times in my tree as well, but there is no burial for a first wife or marriage to a second of the same name - the family lived in the same village throughout. |
|||
|
KathleenBell | Report | 31 Aug 2014 00:25 |
Could some of the baptisms have been when the children were older? What I mean is that when the baptisms took place when the mother was 51 and 54 perhaps the children being baptised were actually older than babies and so born when the mother was slightly younger. |
|||
|
SylviaInCanada | Report | 31 Aug 2014 03:46 |
It is NOT impossible for a woman to have children into her 50s ............... then AND now |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 31 Aug 2014 09:51 |
Kathleen, as all the other children appear to have been baptized quite soon after birth & there doesn't seem to have been a problem with absence of a clergyman at the time, I am more inclined to think the births weren't too far away from the baptisms in terms of date. |
|||
|
Andrew | Report | 31 Aug 2014 10:01 |
Another possibility.... |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 31 Aug 2014 11:50 |
Andrew, there are other baptisms in the same registers where the child was illegitimate - including one for a relative of the same family. As a consequence, whilst your suggestion can't be discounted as a possibility, I am inclined to think it isn't the case. |
|||
|
DazedConfused | Report | 31 Aug 2014 12:06 |
My g/g/grandparents had many of their children baptised on the same day, as did his brother (same day, same church) so the ages of these children ranged from small babies to children aged to around 14/15, the only one who was not baptised was my g/grandfather who was 16 and he probably refused. |
|||
Researching: |