My two cents worth... I've learned the hard way that there are really
very few absolutes and fixed rules in genealogy; just about everything
comes down to possibility and probability and the proper
interpretation and assessment of those possibilities and
probabilities....
It certainly was not impossible for a woman of 50 to give birth, but I
think it would have been highly improbable (and much more improbable
in 1817 than it is today). So if I were faced with such an issue, I
think I would be aggressively looking for other possibilities (with
higher probabilities). For example:
a. Was it possible that the birth mother was, in fact, younger than
your assumption?
b. Are there any other possibilities in your sociological/familial
mixture that would yield better probabilities as an explanation?
And I've learned that more frequently than we want to admit, we run
into these kinds of issues, and just have to let it go by explaining
the dilemma.
Lou Poole
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Davidson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:13 AM
Subject: [VA-ROOTS] How Old was Too Old to Have a Baby...in 1817?
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
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
