I would appreciate your feedback on this.  My gg-grandfather (born 
about 1817 in the Essex/Middlesex/King and Queen Co., VA area) was 
taken-in as an infant/toddler by a related family, and he was given the 
surname of his new "father" (but the new first/given name that his new 
parents gave him was actually the child's "biological surname"...I guess 
they wanted to keep that "connection").  The woman who I BELIEVE 
was his biological mother would have been right at the age of 50 when 
she gave birth to the child, and I wonder if that seems 
reasonable....versus if that fact alone means that I should be looking at 
someone else as his mother.

The woman in question was dead by 1820 (a female her age no longer 
appeared in her household on the 1820 Essex Co., VA census), and she 
certainly COULD have died RIGHT AFTER giving birth in 1817.  I suppose 
that this death could be further evidence that the biological mother was 
fairly old to be having a baby (but then again, a lot of mothers died as 
a result of childbirth in those days, irrespective of age).

Note: It appears that the biological father died between 1820 and 
1822.  As such, if he was truly the father, then he seems to have given 
the infant/toddler to his relatives to rear while he was STILL ALIVE.  
Perhaps he was unable to care for the child on his own (and the 
biological father could have been in ill health himself, since he also 
died by at least 1822).  There is an 1822 chancery court case at the 
Middlesex Co., VA courthouse that may shed some light on all of this 
(the LOVa does not have that document in their collections, since their 
Middlesex chancery cases stop in 1820).

Anyway, I was wondering just how "unusual" having a child at the age 
of 50 REALLY was in 1817.  Do any of you have a similar situation in 
your family research?  Thanks!

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html