General Chat

Keep it in the family is a term springs to mind.

JoyLouise, the linked article said that the child was to be the woman's son & his (male) partner's. The partner's sister donated the egg while the son's contribution fertilized it. A lovely & loving way to combine their DNA.

Thank you Joy, that sounds reasonable.

Kense, without checking, I'd hazard a guess at no one after the age of mid-fifties.

I reckoned with the menopause sometimes being as late as mid-fifties and most women being thoroughly worn out well before that age in the nineteenth century they would struggle to carry a baby to full term.

My own inclination would be not beyond fifty because of those same circumstances.

I await correction. ;-) :-D

I didn't say you shouldn't have an opinion Barbara. I just pointed out that this topic should be allowed on this site. It shouldn't be reported.

On my tree there are a couple of women who supposedly had babies when aged fifty or so. Does anyone know what would be the oldest a woman could have been, to have a baby in the nineteenth century?

Det, the American woman carried the baby for her daughter who had no children, I believe. I admire her decision - selfless and loving.

The other case has made me realise that it was our generation who spawned the 'me generation'. :-(

There is no upper age for IVF treatment in Britain, although the NHS will generally only support treatment for women up to the age of 42. In Spain there is no maximum age limit but most clinics will treat women up to the age of 50.15 Oct 2017
https://www.thetimes.co.uk › article

That’s why many older British women go abroad for the procedure.

We can’t really compare the American woman with the Indian. The former was acting as a surrogate, with no intention of being a 24/7 carer, whereas as the latter was doing it for herself.

Of course you're allowed an opinion, Barbra, as is everyone.

I don't know the royal family but I do think the Queen has set a good example of how a figurehead ought to behave. The others could do worse than follow her example.

As far as government is concerned, who is governing? A right shower, if you ask me.

My honest opinion on the old lady and the baby subject (if it is a true story) is that some folks are just plain barmy and I'd think the same wherever it happened. They have lost their noodles!

Am I not allowed an opinion if you don't like Royal family up to you as for politics .I don't go there to much it's up to PM & Goverment to do there job if they ever resolve situation & the subject here is still awfull old lady having a baby .shouldn't have been allowed.would it have happened in this country ? PS this is general chat board .

Agreed, Kense and La Gooner. :-D :-D

David, I think Sarah has earned the right to slumber peacefully - the sleep of the righteous ... and all that. Don't you?

And it makes a change from political Clap Trap

Why shouldn't it be on the boards? It is a more relevant topic for a genealogical site than Harry & Meghan.

Why is this on the boards what life is that child going to have .unbelievable .!!

Yes Dermot I remember OF the Dionne quins,

although very vaguely....think there was some kind of film made of the event....

By the way, my only reason for mentioning Sarah and Abraham was was rheir

advanced age and the fact that Sarah was barren (OT)

No offence was intended by me to any one..

Yes but they had no life at all taken away and used like circus animals.

Just seen OP and why that was reported is beyond any sane person reasoning.

As an aside - does anyone remember the Dionne identical quintuplets (all girls) born in Canada, c.1934.

Nature itself throws up an occasional eye-opening event.

Likewise Margaret - it's back again! GR glitch or a desperate member? :-S

Bob's post with the story URL creeps me out TBH.

You spoke too soon, Island, it's been RR'd again.