Scholten, Catherine M. Childbearing in American Society: 1650-1850, New York: New York University Press, 1985.you will be amazed but it could still be a different person as well. margie --- On Wed, 1/20/10, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] How Old was Too Old to Have a Baby...in 1817? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 2:11 PM My suggestion is to find the average life span during that period. I believe 50 was old for the 1700 & 1800's. However, I do have female ancestors who lived into their eighties in 17&1800's. While researching my ancestors I attributed an ancestor to her grandfather, who had the same name as his son. Someone pointed out to me that the senior may have been too old to father a child. I was able to connect the son to my ancestor and resolve that issue. Anita Wills, Executive Director The Mary & Patty Bowden Foundation http://bowdenfound.org "If you believe people have no history worth mentioning, it's easy to believe they have no humanity worth defending." — William Loren Katz June 18, 2009 ________________________________ From: Lou Poole <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 10:06:58 AM Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] How Old was Too Old to Have a Baby...in 1817? 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 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