RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: coombs on Monday 15 May 17 12:53 BST (UK)
-
If I can get confirmation on it being the right person, it looks like one ancestor was 31 when she had her first baby in 1725. That would make her 45 when she had her last child in 1739.
I know today women can have their first baby in their 30s but in our ancestors times it tended to be in their early 20s.
-
Hi Coombs
Haven't we had a similar thread about this before as I seem to remember posting about this?
Caroline
-
My GGGrandfather (1792-1857) married Susannah Carpenter (1788-1859) at All Saints Newland, Glos., 1825. Her first child was Thomas, born 1827, child mortality, making her 39. Her age at death was 71 from her death certificate. Only trouble is I can find no baptism for her. There's plenty of info on her siblings and parents. In the 1851 Census her birthplace was recorded as Tintern Abbey. This is credible although the family moved around the FoD, Chapel Hill, Newland/Redbrook and over the other side at Lydney.
-
My GGrandfather (1792-1857) married Susannah Carpenter (1788-1859) at All Saints Newland, Glos., 1825. Her first child was Thomas, born 1827, child mortality, making her 39. Her age at death was 71 from her death certificate. Only trouble is I can find no baptism for her. There's plenty of info on her siblings and parents. In the 1851 Census her birthplace was recorded as Tintern Abbey. This is credible although the family moved around the FoD, Chapel Hill, Newland/Redbrook and over the other side at Lydney.
Blimey that is a record, having your first child at 39.
-
She had 3 children. Following Thomas, Mary, 1829 to 1892 and James (my greatgrandfather) 1831 to 1901. Presumably she hit the menopause.
-
She had 3 children. Following Thomas, Mary, 1829 to 1892 and James (my greatgrandfather) 1831 to 1901. Presumably she hit the menopause.
Doing my maths that means she was 43 when she had her last child.
-
Well, without all the baptisms, nothing is sure. Her parents were married at Upton Bishop 13Apr1785. I subsequently found Thomas bapt Whitchurch 22Jan1786, then William bapt 3Feb1788. So unlikely Susannah was born 1788. Then came Robert 1791, Mary 1793, Ann 1796, John 1797, James 1800 and Richard 1801.
Her age in 1851 Census was given as 61. I suppose it will remain a mystery which year she was boirn in.
-
I reckon she was born in the 1789-1791 gap, she'd still have been 36 when she had her first child.
Isn't it annoying when it seems parents baptised every child apart from the direct ancestor.
Today it is probably much easier for women to have their first child at 35 or older thanks to fertility treatment.
-
Hi Coombs
Haven't we had a similar thread about this before as I seem to remember posting about this?
Caroline
Is it this thread? Successful Pregnancy age 50/51
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=770275.msg6232712#msg6232712
-
If I can get confirmation on it being the right person, it looks like one ancestor was 31 when she had her first baby in 1725. That would make her 45 when she had her last child in 1739.
I know today women can have their first baby in their 30s but in our ancestors times it tended to be in their early 20s.
My grandfather was 67 when my father's older sister was born. My grandmother 36 at the time. They had been married 5 months!! My father was born 4 years later.
It runs in the family, Dad 41 when I was born 46 when my brother was born. Mum then 41. To jump forward two generations, my daughter was 41 when my granddaughter was born!
-
Hi Coombs
Haven't we had a similar thread about this before as I seem to remember posting about this?
Caroline
Is it this thread? Successful Pregnancy age 50/51
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=770275.msg6232712#msg6232712
Although this is more about first pregnancy rather than last pregnancy. Ie having a firstborn at say 30-40.
-
No, it's not that thread.
Not sure where it was but I remember writing a post! It could have been on one that was totally unrelated and the posts just went off track!!
It's my age I think - need to eat more oily fish - the grey matter needs some attention!!
😁😁😁
-
No, it's not that thread.
Not sure where it was but I remember writing a post! It could have been on one that was totally unrelated and the posts just went off track!!
It's my age I think - need to eat more oily fish - the grey matter needs some attention!!
😁😁😁
Hi Caw
Could it be this one?
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=448815.msg6242026#msg6242026
-
Hi Coombs
That's the one!
Thanks for finding the thread - not sure how to copy a link like that from my iPad .
Still going to eat more oily fish though. At least I'm not going totally off my trolley - yet!
My Dad was 42 when I was born - not really looked at any ancestors who were old first time parents. I will have to examine my tree.
My daughter 38 when our last grandson was born.
Caroline
-
My paternal grandmother born 1845, married 1883, first child, my father born 1886, second and final child born 1888.
-
There seem to be a lot of late babies in my family and quite a few having their first child late. Well later than the average age at the time.
My Mum was 41 when I was born, her mum was 39 when she was born (first at 35). My great gran had her first at 29 and last at 47. I also have several great aunts, great great aunts etc who married late and had their first at 40 give or take a couple of years.
-
My mother-in-law was 45 when she had the last of their 13 children. Several of their grandchildren have an aunt & uncle younger than them because mother-in-law was still having children after her eldest 4 were married.
-
I reckon she was born in the 1789-1791 gap, she'd still have been 36 when she had her first child.
Isn't it annoying when it seems parents baptised every child apart from the direct ancestor.
Today it is probably much easier for women to have their first child at 35 or older thanks to fertility treatment.
Yes, looking at it all yesterday afternoon, I reckon the 1851 Census age of 61 is correct. I will amend the Tree to show birth year of 1790. Thank you all very much for your input.
-
My Gran was 37 when Dad was born. Grandpa was 40. Dad was their only child, and they had been married just a year when he was born. They married in 1921, so I suspect that WW1 and even the Boer War could have interfered with them finding life partners until later in life!
Grandpa's sister was 46 when she married, and my Mother did tell me that she had a miscarriage - so that would have been really old for a first child, had the pregnancy run its full term.
A lot of the other female members of that generation did not marry - again, perhaps the influence or consequence of the wars?
-
A friend of mine got married at around 40, then they adopted 2 boys, then at age about 45 or 46 she had her FIRST and after that, another! All without help from IVF or anything like that ::) ::) ::)
And they are all still alive! (Except her husband ??? ??? )
One drawback to late pregnancies - people who didn't know the family often thought she was her kids grandmother instead of mother ::) ::) ::)
Dawn M
-
My parents married fairly late, Dad was 40, and Mum 35. I was born in the first year, and my brother born 5 years later, when Dad was 46 and Mum 42. Dad went to visit Mum at the maternity home, and was told by the sister that she had to ask permission from Matron for grandparents to visit! Things have changed somewhat in the intervening 72 years.