A possible mother age 50 would definitely raise a red flag to at least investigate
further into the matter, but it certainly is possible.  Especially back when families 
were larger and women gave birth every 2 years or so - the mom's equipment was primed
and in working order. LOL! And how many couples have thought they were empty-nesters
only to find out they're going to have a surprise addition to the family? My little sister
is 12 years younger than her next oldest sibling.  She was definitely an "oops" baby!
But seriously, physically it is certainly possible.  


Vickie Elam White



---- Bill Davidson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> 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