Genealogy Chat

My mother had her last child two weeks before her 44th birthday and my sister had her last child 2 months after her 45th birthday. Both conceived naturally.

You would not think I worked for years on the Post Office counters.

My maths is far better now than it was at school, but still pretty basic +/- stuff. :-D

Think you need to have a calculator near by :-D

Having a child at age 42 is much more likely. My grandmother had her last child at the same age.

Kath. x

Born 1873 and had a child in 1915..........she would have been 42

Oops - miscalculated.

She was born in 1873 - making her only 47/48 when last child was born, still a good age though.

Maths never my strong point......

Good job I posted on here as I would never have gone back over all my BMDs. I have them for both g/grandparents and all 7 children.

Thanks for your comments/help.





:-D

Is she listed here

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

You say that your g/grandmother would have been 57 or 58 in 1915 when this child was born and that her first child was born in 1897. If the age you give for her in 1915 is correct that would make her about 40 when her first child was born which I would suggest was unlikely in those days. Are you sure of her age?

Would you like to give us some names so we can check for ourselves?

Kath. x

You say you have birth and death certificates.... Would that be for the child born in 1915 or for your great grandmother.?

I'm wondering if she was as old as stated.
If she was in her late 50s, I would doubt very much that she was the child's natural mother.

Was there an older daughter / step daughter whose child might have been incorrectly registered?
Do you have a baptism record for the child born in 1915, which shows the same parentage?
Some people would not be so ready to falsify a church record.

Could you give us a little background prior to the 1915 birth, so that we can see the fuller picture, please?

Gwyn

I think it's unlikely that she was the mother, I wonder if she registered the child as hers because the natural mother died and the father was serving or had already died in the war?

Just trolling through my paperwork and I have noticed that my g/grandmother had a child in 1915 (have the birth/death certs).
Now she would have been 57/58 at this time!!

Prior to their deaths her 2 surviving daughters, who in 1915 would have been 3 and 4, recalled a baby in the home.

Now her 2 older daughters would have been 13/14 and 11/12 in 1915. My grandfather her eldest child was born in 1897.

Am I being unreasonable in thinking that in her late 50s she was in all probablility not this childs mother, and if so, this then brings up wherher she was the birth 'mother' of my other 2 g/aunts who were born when she was 54-56. Or was she just fertile for a very long time. She was a very healthy woman, lived well into her 80s (her 2 daughters lived until they were 98 and one of her sons was 102).

Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.