RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: mikehardy on Sunday 12 January 14 16:53 GMT (UK)
-
Difficult subject for a bloke to comment - here goes!! :-\
I have an ancestor who gave birth to 5 children between her age 40 - 50 if my research is to be creditable! Also it transpires that the couple were married 17 years before the first child arrived! same research.
I am beginning to doubt my research - what do you think.
Mike.
-
Most unlikely to have had five children between ages of 40 and 50.
Even more unlikely to have been married 17 years before birth of first child.
Back to the drawing board, if it was me!
-
Are you sure there weren't a series of children who died, or miscarriages, ahead of these possible births?
-
Maybe after 17 years they took in a lodger...
-
Difficult subject for a bloke to comment - here goes!! :-\
Why? - It takes two to tango, Mike ;D ;D
-
It's perfectly possible to produce 5 children in 10 years, though by age 40 fertility is supposed to be waning. In fact the 2 year gap between babies was exactly the norm at the time.
Some possible explanations:
- husband infertile but another man fathered the children( the Lodger scenario)
- babies not the couples' but adopted from family members/neighbours
- a series of babies in the early years of the marriage all died/miscarried due to one partner having a disease which eventually was cured.
-
Do you have the birthdates of these children, or the baptism dates?
Remember that whilst most children were baptised within a few hours, days or weeks max of birth, some families were more casual about this and some people were baptised as adults.
-
Any idea what the husband's occupation was ? Would it have kept them apart for 17 years ? Or, is it possible he was in prison ?
-
Thank you, Interesting response, the details re my dilemma are fully covered in my post 'Isaac Hardy - Anne Everett' Norfolk lookup board, and could not get any response to my particular query.
The children in Question - all born and baptized within a month: Mary Ann 1873, John 1875, James 1789, and Frances 1791.
I cannot find a plausible marriage re Isaac and Anne that fits (c1782 ish) I am very confident re the baptism events and the names of the parents from the baptism register. And from your comments I agree the marriage of a Ann and Isaac 17 years before the first born is a none starter.
I have looked at all the parish marriage register's surrounding the children's birth/baptism parish. Nothing. You might say a brick wall looms.
Mike.
-
yes they produced a child every couple year until they were late 40s early 50s latest - i just found an extra one of my great grandma and i didnt know about it was on the grave and she was 50 - (baby died age 2)however they had had a GAP of 5 years inbetween so its hit and miss at that age -
the 17 years of marriage before the first born seems a bit iffy though -
Have you looked into the possibility there may not have been a church there and there was one built nearby so they might not have been able to baptise the early ones ?
At a stretch he could have been in prison/shipped to Australia for a while ?
I think that Annes comment is perfectly plausable as they may have been adult baptisms but if that was so why no all the same time ?
I had one of mine baptised age 6 as they went to Amercia for a few years and came back and baptised him later -
there are several possibilities as to why and hopefully you will solve it at some stage
do the marriages of the children include the fathers occupation on them at all - does anything tie in there ?
-
Is this the marriage you were looking at?
Isaac Hardy
Spouse's Name: Ann Everet
22 Nov 1766
Thetford, Norfolk, England
-
I've a few where a man marries a second wife with the same first name as the first wife which gives the impression the poor woman is having babies very late in life....
Given the 17 year gap between marriage and children arriving, perhaps wife one died quite early on?
-
i think that is a strong possible what Red said as i found one who had children after the wife had died - i found another marriage for a different lady for him only she had the same first name too !!!
(and we found they had been having children during the time when wife 1 was alive as well as there were several illigitimate children with the second lady on the next census 1841)
-
As so often seems to be the case, unfortunately it would appear there may be two couples with the same names.
FreeReg has a William Hardy baptised in Thetford in 1773 to Isaac and Ann Hardy, followed by Isaac Joseph in 1775 and John in 1777.
These overlap with the dates of the children you mention.
Bev
-
Thank you, I have considered the marriage in 1766 but it is 17 years before the first child, Mary Ann in1783. The Thetford marriage Produced children in the 1770's all baptized in Thetford with the mother 'Ann' I think in this case Ann is one family and Anne is another. Anne Hardy (nee Everett) and Isaac were definitely producing children from 1783 -1791, there must be a marriage somewhere in Norfolk c1780 ish. The baptism register (for Saham Toney) shows the parents to be Isaac and Anne late Everett.
Mike.
-
Looking for Isaac Hardy in Norfolk on FamilySearch results in the 22 Nov 1766 (Isaac Hardy - Ann Everet) marriage followed by a baptism for an Isaac Hardy to Isaac and Ann in Thetford on 21 May 1769. Maybe it is only the one couple with variations in the name of the mother :-\
-
There's also a burial of an Isaac Hardy at St Mary's Thetford on 11 Aug 1770 (though it doesn't give any age) which could explain the later Isaac Joseph baptism.
-
I know of a couple, married for many years without children and so they adopted .Hey presto, baby on the way.I lived with them after the folllowing story.
It is quite common for women to get so tense about the fact that they do not get pregnant that they just don`t conceive. As soon as the tension goes( either thriough adoption or caring for a child) they become pregnant( assuming "relations" are normal between the couple).
I went to live with a long married childless couple when I was evacuated. Within months the wife was expecting her first baby at 40+ years of age.
She retired to bed for the rest of the pregnancy and I went to live with the first couple. However I was not the" reason" for that pregnancy, that was the adoption. Viktoria.
-
I have found this info on the net to support my view that it was highly unlikely that women in the 1780's could have regular births at 2 year intervals between the ages 40 - 50.
-
Personally, I believe that the marriage you have is the right one - they married in Thetford and appear to have had at least 5 children there:
William (bc.1766-1768) bur.13/6/1768
Isaac bp.21/5/1769 bur.11/8/1770
John bp.27/12/1771, bur.1775
Isaac Joseph bp.10/5/1775
John bp.16/3/1777
then we have the 4 children baptised at Saham-Toney which states Ann's maiden name of Everett.
Ages given at burials can be notoriously inaccurate - I note from their burials at Saham-Toney that Isaac bc.1740 bur.7/6/1825
and
Ann Hardy bc.1742 bur.21/7/1801
If she was born just a few years later, say circa 1746, she'd have been 45 when youngest born which is perfectly feasible bearing in mind she'd been having children from ca.1767 every 2/3 years. Just a gap between 1778 and 1782 - having said that there is a George Hardy bp.26/8/1781 at Saham-Toney shown with parents Isaac and Elizabeth!! This couple don't seem to have had any other children and wondering whether 'Elizabeth' should actually be Ann.
Annette
-
Could it be that the children belonged to a relaitve who was unmarried and the older couple passed them off as being theirs?
I know this used to happen a lot- if a teenage daughter had a baby, her mother would say it was hers and the child would grow up thinking grandma was her mother. I guess the same would have happened with nieces, cousins etc especially if there was a childless couple in the family.
-
Perhaps they tried an old farming remedy to the childlesssness, - changed the bull.
-
hi ive just been sorting out a similar ptoblem for a friend and said she would eb pushing it a 46 and the last child had she got married at 16 but then found their marriage - which was a little bit earlier than we thought so she was 54 when she had the last child - just send the msge to my frined now get this name and
Marriage: 9 May 1776 St Bartholomew, Great Harwood, Lancashire, England
John Wolstanholme & Betty Baron
last child born 1814 Baron she certainly wasnt !!
I told my friend who Im trying to help that i THINK its the offspring of a daughter and they hid it (seen this before in family trees)
Baptism: 21 Aug 1814 St Bartholomew, Great Harwood, Lancashire, England
Jonathan Wolstenholme - Son of John Wolstenholme & Betty
So, im sort of thinking up to 46 is ok then that the full stop so you have to think about if its a child of a daughter and they tried to cover it up
hope that helps
Andrea
-
no that is not always the case...my own gr grandmother had 3 children after the age of 40, the last one being when she was 49, there was a 4 year gap between each of them.
-
yes, i believe womens fertility varies - my mums friend had twins at 55 after being told she couldnt get pregnant again after a 10 yr gap -
the older days i guess women were physically leaner ate less sugary foods - maybe more active - not sure why chart would be different that todays figures but I guess people drink and smoke more so that kids of has an effect on fertility ( as well as mans fertility there you go )
but anything is possible - just because someone reaches a certain age it doesnt mean they cant concieve - these days people are generally warned of the dangers of concieving later in life - and the risk of miscarriage ect
I would say anything is possible dont rule anything out
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50
-
Not sure of the medical facts here but I seem to recall that there was/is a sexually transmitted disease, maybe syphilis, which initially causes babies to be lost but which eventually works its way out of the parents' system, leaving them to produce healthy offspring.
Have I remembered correctly?
-
I know older women who talk about "change of life babies" a burst of fertility before menopause
-
Hi, Bykerelads, you are correct re: syphyllis. It featured on one of the WDYTYA programmes.
-
I've often wondered what folk's attitude towards all the many children they produced in the 17/1800's was.
Did they welcome the pregnancies?( potentially fatal to mothers + the arrival of more mouths to feed) Were the babies accepted or resented?
Did they actually know what was causing them to become pregnant and therefore what to do to stop it happening? ( no contraception available but not having sex surely was an option)
It's significant that after WW1, in my families at least, family size fell suddenly from 10 or more children to just 1 or 2. As soon as the knowledge and means to avoid pregnancy was available, people were very keen to stop having children.
-
I can't answer all of those but they certainly knew what was causing babies!