Genealogy Chat

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.
If other researchers have come across similar instances where women in their early fifties have borne children, it would be of some interest.
Julie

I have had a similar query myself in the past, but never got to the bottom of it. I found it too hard to believe the mother had given birth at 54 yrs old.
Just a thought......I'm wondering how sure you are that it is the same woman who is the mother to all 13 children....could it be that one of her first born daughters (who was given her mother's Christian name) is having her children baptised in the same church and/or parish? Worth checking out :-)

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.

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.
Age of the end of menopause varies quite a lot, from mid 40s to mid 50's or even later. women can and do get pregnant late in life, these days its much easier not to get pregnant-back then there was no effective birth control.
I think it quite possible that all the kids had the same mother.

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.

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.

Are you sure that the father wasn't widowed and then married a 2nd wife with the same name as the first?

Very confusing to track at first, but I have known this in my tree.

Gwyn

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.

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.

Kath. x

It is NOT impossible for a woman to have children into her 50s ............... then AND now

and without artificial means being involved.


I remember reading in a biology text once that this was more likley to occur when you had a woman who had had a number of children over the eyars.


Also remember that a woman is fertile for up to 2 years AFTER menopause



You will find many references to "late babies", or comments such as "I thought I had finished with all that"



The moral now is to make sure that care is taken for an extended period if a "late baby" is not wanted ......................


only they didn't have "protection" back then, other than the wisdom of the local wise woman.



from Wikipedia ................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50

The oldest verified mother to conceive naturally (listed currently in the Guinness Records[7]) is Dawn Brooke (UK); she conceived a son at the age of 59 years in 1997 while taking oestrogen.

It has been speculated that the hormone replacement therapy which she had may have contributed to her ability to ovulate past menopause.



and what about this one :-0 :-0 ..............

American woman who, widowed at 39 years and menopaused at 49, became pregnant almost miraculously by her concubine just before 59, near 1890, to give birth at the age of 59 ½ to a son, who she had breastfed until 65, that he was 6 years.



and just to prove it is not* a modern phenomenon ............

The Royal Cornwall Gazette of January 2, 1819, reporting the birth of twins, on previous Christmas Eve (December 24, 1818), to Mrs George Saunders, wife of a London shoemaker, in the 59th year of her age. Her last previous child had been born 35 years before that.




that Wikipedia article, and the table, is interesting reading ......... and I think answers your question!






Edited Aug 30 ca 6:15 pm:- to add "not"

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.

Sylvia, many thanks for the link to the Wikipedia article, very helpful. I don't know why it didn't come up when I did an online search myself!

Another possibility....

In a small village, it might well be impossible to hide a pregnancy. If one of the daughters did give birth, could the entry in the parish register be in the name of the grandparents to avoid the stigma of showing an illegitimate birth??

Against the rules, but.....

Andy

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.

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.

Once you have removed all the possible results and solurces, all that you are left with it the truth, hopefully. So it looks like she was still having babies at 54. If she lived in a rural community, the chances are she may have had quite a healthy diet with lots of veggies. Unlike someone living in town with possibly a far poorer diet. All which can contribute to her wellbeing as a whole.