Historic Notation.

+1 vote

A historic notation notes a woman as a distant grandparent but other than having a different fathers name on the marriage certificate , not matching up with any of that families sibling or children's descendants DNA and I've checked about 30 people  , they note this horrific timeline for childbirth through their own calculation of events. I was just trying to get some opinions on what the chances of this birth timeline of being reality. I don't know a whole lot about child birth but it doesn't look practicable to me. I've never seen any genealogy like it. I guess you couldn't really get a retraction from an out of print book but they should be forced to do so in certain situations. 

She was Born in 1767 and Married at 33 in 1800 

First Child 

Born 1801

She would of been 34 years old at this birth. 

Second Child

Born 1803

She would of been 36 years old at this birth. 

Third Child

Born 1809

She would of been 42 years old at this birth. 

Fourth Child

Born 1814

She would of been 47 years old at this birth. 

Fifth Child 

Born 1819

She would of been 52 years old at this birth. 

in Genealogy Help by Richard Hellstrom G2G4 (4.8k points)
Unlikely for this time period.  Women were generally married by their early twenties, sometimes as early as sixteen.  Even today natural pregnancies after mid-forties are unusual.  More likely that the birthdate is off by ten years or it’s two different women.
I totally agree and I think the signed consent is a red flag too because the woman was 33 and that would of been more traditional for a girl between the ages of 12 and 22.

I used my mom's kit to try to match Margaret Offill Underwood Descendants and she matched 3 out of 77 and out of those three that she matched  , I only matched one. One of them that she matched was from Mary Rucker's family so it's more like 2 out of 77. That's really odd for some one who's suppose to be a distant grandmother. Now I need to get the Underwood and Offill family involved. I think I could get it certified by an expert that she was not my distant grandmother. Even our thru lines are void of that descendancy. I'll keep researching it for now though. Maybe they can add something by checking the DNA kits.

I've made a lot more kit comparisons and I don't see any representation for this claim. Actually , my relationship with the descendants of my supposed grandmothers is just absent when it comes to DNAMessage me for kit comparisons.
Message me for kit comparisons- GedCom's and etc.....

I agree that if the last child's date of birth is accurate that then the mother's dob is probably inaccurate. It doesn't have to be 'out' by that much though. Have you got any record for her dob?

 Just to add to previous comments.  Age at  first marriage differs quite a lot between area, class and period. In Western Europe the 'typical' marriage pattern by  end of the 18th C was for later marriages with women  marrying in their mid twenties . By then, although young brides can be found  and are  quite common in some families, it was not the norm in society as a whole) . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern  The marriage pattern in the US  seems to have differed with a tendency to earlier marriage https://www.nber.org/papers/h0080

( It's quite an old paper so there are probably more recent papers.) 

I've asked the library in Madison , Virginia but I've not heard back from them yet. Hopeful but I never count on those records from the 1700's !

Please log in or register to answer this question.

Related questions

+2 votes
2 answers
+6 votes
3 answers
240 views asked Jan 27 in Genealogy Help by Paul Schmehl G2G6 Mach 8 (88.9k points)
+7 votes
7 answers
+3 votes
2 answers
+1 vote
0 answers
+1 vote
1 answer
98 views asked Jan 23 in Genealogy Help by Paul Schmehl G2G6 Mach 8 (88.9k points)
+3 votes
2 answers
60 views asked Jan 17 in Genealogy Help by Terri Swift G2G6 Mach 2 (20.6k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright