Genealogy Chat

What age did mothers stop having children in the 1700s?

Is 47 too old?

Don´t know about the 1700s but have just found one on the 1841 census who was born in 1786 & reckons to have a 2 years old.
I´m a bit suspicious as she has 2 daughters in their 20s. Think it far more likely the little one belongs to one of them.53 seems a bit old to be having a child.

Mine was 44 and had twins. Also the age difference between my gran and her eldest sister was 18 years. So could be. :-D

Thanks for your input wisechild and Lynn.
Found four and a half year gap between marriage and first child being christened so possibly the children weren't small babies when christened so making the mother younger when giving birth???

wisechild, relatiionships and marital status aren't shown on the 1841, so one of the 20s year olds could be a daughter-in-law.

Possible Potty, but have names & births of her children from the IGI.
The little one is shown as daughter on the 1851 .

My grandmother was eight years old when baptized and my gt. grandfather was aged 7 - several children were baptized at the same time.

My grandmother was 47 when she had her last child.

There was'nt an age when women stopped having children.

They stopped when they could no longer have them. So 47 could be likely just as it could be today for some women

Thanks to everyone for their replies.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear jax. I did mean when was it physically impossible to have more children rather than out of choice!

A british woman gave birth at age 59 and is believed to be the world's oldest natural mother, ie a natural pregnancy not IVF

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560739/UK-woman-59-worlds-oldest-natural-mother.html


A more recent case was a 53 yr old who concieved naturally despite being on the pill!

http://pregnancyover44y.blogspot.com/2012/01/grandma-whos-mum-again-at-53.html

Whilst these birth are the rare exception, it does show what can happen.
I believe twins are also more common in older mothers for some reason.

That's amazing - I don't think I'd have the energy!

Thanks, Kucinta

hi,
my dads grandmother was 54 when she had my dads uncle .x :-D

Suzanne

I'm really surprised to hear that women have had children naturally in their fifties.
I've never heard before of any woman giving birth after 45.

my dads mum was the eldest of 10 children,my dad was her 3rd child,dads grandmothers last child dads uncle norman was only a couple of yrs older than my dad. uncle normans first child is only 1yr older than me ,im my dads first child.x :-D

An important factor in all this is also how many children the mother had & how many survived to at least 4 - 5 yrs old. Having just 3 - 4 children over her fertility time (plus a functioning male) would almost mean the woman was in generally better physical health therefore she would likely be fertile for longer.

My eldest forebear was 45 yrs old, married at 18 yrs old, & in her childbearing years emigrated to New Zealand with her husband, by sailing ship. They started to clear land for a farm on very isolated rugged hill country (because that is where the ship foundered) started a small sheep farm & had her last child - the 14th when 44. All survived & worked the farm learning the trsde skills from their father who was a shepherd. Mother taught not only the housekeeping skills, fed & housed extra labourers & bushmen who came looking for work, & was the schoolteacher for all the children but became the wisdom & direction for numerous families who later came to live in this wild area. She certainly has my admiration particularly after visiting the area which is still very isolated but great farming country

pelo

In my personal experience of researching, births after the age of 40 or just after were rare, although not unknown, as examples have shown. I have found a small handful in their early 40's but believe 44 was the oldest I have come across.

A more likely explanation would be that the child was born to an unmarried daughter but brought up by the grandparents as one of their own.

Interesting comments pelo and Inspector Green Pen.

I guess there are various factors to consider but 47 doesn't sound so old now!

My grandmother had her 6th and last child when she was in her late 40s in 1927. My aunt (the child in question), who is now 84, recently described herself as a "change baby". I hadn't heard the expression before - fairly self-explanatory, but I suppose they must have thought they were fairly safe by that time!

My grandmother lived to be 84 and was aged 50 when she had my mother, the last of 10, in 1927. When she was born mum's eldest brother was 28.

change babies or menopause babies are not that uncommon.

But another reason for some late births is that a mother has had a family and those children are now a bit older and oops she is suddenly pregnant and so that child is not brought up alone she will have another so that child is not alone. I have come across this a couple of times and worked with someone whose mother did exactly that in the 60's.

Many women think they have finished the menopause once their periods have either become very erratic and stopped, but often these menopause babies are born around a year or so after mother thinks its safe. That odd egg lying in wait to be fertilised, it a little b*gg*r. I do believe that women are advised that it can take several years after last period before they can have unprotected sex and be fairly confident they will not get pregnant.