Date
1 - 20 of 23
Giving Birth at 45? A possibility? #romania
|
krausj2@...
In others' experience, is it conceivable that a woman might have given birth at age 45 in 1897?
In a distant branch I'm trying to trace, I've found Rachel Holdengraber, whom I know -- from a JewishGen indexed birth record -- was born 28 Feb 1852. Then, I have birth records for some of her children with her husband Nathan Davidovich going back as early as 1872, suggesting that date is likely accurate.
A later Yad Vashem record lists Malka Davidovich as the daughter of Rachel and Nathan and coming from the same small town in Romania. (In addition, I have a distant relative's memory of a connection that matches other details.)
I cannot find a birth record for Malka, but a MyHeritage site produced by some of her descendants has her born in 1897. Her own children are born in 1924, 1927 & 1930, so it's unlikely she was born much before 1897 -- when her mother Rachel would have been 45. Even if she were born a few years earlier -- if Malka's descendants knew only a birthday and not an exact birth year -- it's hard to see how Rachel could have been any younger than 42 when she gave birth.
Does this seem possible to others with more experience? All the puzzle pieces fit, but this age seems a serious wrinkle.
Thanks for any thoughts you might have,
Joe Kraus krausj2@... |
|
|
|
Miriam Deutscher
Why not?
I personally know someone born to their mother when she was 47 about 60-70 years ago. And a woman who had a child at the age of 48 when she already had many children. I.e. naturally and not the result of modern fertility treatments. Miriam Deutscher |
|
|
|
Definitely possible. There's a Hungarian census report of 1869 for my great-grandmother showing her as a 9 year old - and the marriage registration of her and my great-grandmother that confirms her birth in 1859. Her oldest daughter was born in Dec. 1881 - and following my grandmother's birth in 1892, she continued to have children every 2 to 3 years until the last born (whom I knew) in 1905 - that is at the age of 45.
I know of other women in more recent time who had "surprise" late pregnancies - which I recall being referenced as "change of life" babies (an antiquated term I presume.) Susan H. Sachs susan.hersh.sachs@... |
|
|
|
tzipporah batami
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 03:03 AM, Miriam Deutscher wrote:
Why not?Definitely likely. The women had large families until they couldn't have more. It is very common in Chassidic or Agudah families and was very common in Europe. Feigie Teichman |
|
|
|
Professor Ryesky
Possible. But information in the records can also become distorted (whether inadvertently or intentionally).
My grandfather's official birthdate is six months before the official birthdate of his older sister (same parents). -- Ken Ryesky Petach Tikva, ISRAEL |
|
|
|
David Bernstein
It is definitely possible.
My father was born in 1922 when his mother was 48. His 5 older siblings were all born 2-3 years apart followed by a gap of 8 years until he was born. If I saw this in the record I probably would have been skeptical, but I knew all of these people when they were alive and a confident in the data. -- David Bernstein |
|
|
|
I have one cousin who was born in 1939 when her mother was about 44. Although my cousin refuses to believe it, I have found all the records on her mother from her arrival manifest and most census and marriage records. Her mother got progressively younger at each step! Arrival in 1900, age 5; 1905 census, age 10; 1910, age 15; 1915 census, age 17 (lost 3 years!); 1936 marriage, age 29 (lost 12 years!!!)
More recently, my ex gave birth to her latest daughter at the age of 45. -- Jeff Goldner Researching Goldner, Singer, Neuman, Braun, Schwartz, Gluck, Reichfeld (Hungary/Slovakia); Adler, Roth, Ader (Galicia); Soltz/Shultz/Zuckerman/Zicherman (Vitebsk, maybe Lithuania), Wald and Grunfeld (Secovce, Slovakia fka Galszecs) |
|
|
|
Janette Silverman
My great-grandmother was 43 when her youngest son, my grandfather, was born in 1903. She had had 12 children born over a 25 year period. There's no question at all about her age.
Janette Silverman Phoenix, AZ & Santa Fe, NM |
|
|
|
jbonline1111@...
I know more than one person who gave birth after age 40 and even closer to 50. My mother-in-law had 9 children. My husband was third from last. His eldest sister and eldest brother were adults when he was born, meaning his mother was at least 40. Two more sons were born several years apart after him, making her closer to 50 by the last one. The last one was born in the early 1940s. A childhood friend's mother was about 50 when my friend was born in 1947. There were two adult siblings in their 20s at that time. |
|
|
|
Stephen Weinstein
The record for a natural pregnancy (conception via the normal method, not IVF) is age 59 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562591/Worlds-oldest-mother-thought-it-was-cancer.html
-- Stephen Weinstein Camarillo, California, USA stephenweinstein@... |
|
|
|
Jill Whitehead
Yes, my great grandmother had twelve known children (her eldest son claims she had 14 - but I have not found the other two, one may have been born and died on the boat when migrating), one in Rajgrod in Poland in 1865 (when she was about 20 years old) and the other eleven in Hull, UK between 1870 and 1895, when she would have been 50 years old.
Large families meant they started young and finished late. She was still having children at the same time as her eldest daughter (b 1865) was having her own children. My grandmother was 10th out of 12 (or 12th out of 14) and she was born in 1887, two years before her eldest aunt married and started having children herself. My great grandmother had her last child at the same time as her daughter was having her third child. This situation was repeated with my great grandmother's much younger sister (by 20 years!) - she also had 12 children, all in Hull, over a similar sort of time frame of 25 to 30 years. Jill Whitehead, Surrey, UK |
|
|
|
Susan Watchman
--"change of life" babies are a known thing (called that because it happens when the woman thinks she is in menopause but isnt quite done yet) and there would be women who had later menopause. Susan Watchman Phoenix, Az |
|
|
|
Michael Hoffman
My mother was 44 years of age when my youngest brother was born in 1952.
Michael Hoffman Borehamwood, HERTS, UK |
|
|
|
EdrieAnne Broughton
There's a distinct difference between giving birth at 45 with many previous births and giving birth for the first time at 45. Both my Grandmother and my Great Grandmother gave birth at or after 45. I gave birth once at 38 and never again, not by choice. I imagine it has to do with physiology. A woman is born with a finite number of 'pre-eggs'. At onset of menses an egg ripens each month unless she is pregnant and some women stop ripening and sloughing an egg during breast feeding. A few rare women continue ovulating while pregnant. When her eggs are gone, she's done without modern science. So by theory a woman who has had multiple pregnancy has 'banked' those eggs that would have ripened while she was pregnant and nursing so extending the time she could get pregnant, delaying menopause. Sorry this is so technical and graphic but having experienced this in real life and having a doctor sit there and 'explain' it I decided to share.
Edrie Broughton, Vacaville, California
|
|
|
|
Albert Braunstein
here is an article about Dawn Brooke who became the world's oldest mother aged 59 years. Previously the record was held by a 57 year old American woman.
Albert Braunstein
Melbourne, Australia
|
|
|
|
mbekken@...
Just FYI, yes, there are a finite number of eggs, but it is way more than will ever be ovulated. A woman is born with about a million eggs, and is down to around 300,000 at puberty. One per month times perhaps 40 years of fertility would only use about 480 of these, so there are plenty left in normal circumstances whether or not she was pregnant. Menopause stops the eggs from ripening, due to hormonal changes rather than the hormonal changes occurring because there are no eggs left. Here is a link: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/9118-female-reproductive-system#:~:text=During%20fetal%20development%2C%20you%20have,age%20and%20menstruate%20each%20cycle.
Marijke Bekken, Reno, NV |
|
|
|
Albert Braunstein
Marijke Bekken wrote: "Just FYI, yes, there are a finite number of eggs, but it is way more than will ever be ovulated. A woman is born with about a million eggs, and is down to around 300,000 at puberty. One per month times perhaps 40 years of fertility would only use about 480 of these, so there are plenty left in normal circumstances whether or not she was pregnant. " To suggest that there. are plenty of eggs left by menopause is incorrect. According to gynecologist Dr Jen Gunter, author of The Menopause Manifesto, by menopause there are only 100 to 1000 eggs (primordial follicles) and they are incapable of ovulation. Although there are 300,000 at puberty and one a month is lost each menstrual cycle with ovulation, the vast majority of eggs are lost by follicle atresia. See also the explanation in the article below. In America the average age of menopause is 51 years, so a woman of 45 could become pregnant but this would depend on the quantity and quality of her eggs. If the 45 year old woman has gone through menopause then she will be unable to conceive through natural methods. Dr Albert Braunstein
Melbourne, Australia
|
|
|
|
Michele Lock
I have a sister-in-law here who became pregnant at age 46, without aiming to. So a birth at 45 years old is certainly possible.
I think (at least here in the US) that we hear news stories about women over 40 who have difficulty conceiving. But of course, we don't hear news stories for those women who don't have these difficulties and who are able to conceive. On a related note - I once knew a Jewish social worker, who told me that back in the 1950s in the US, it was considered dangerous for a woman over 30 to give birth, which was why so many women hurried to get married and have children. Boy, that would have been news to our great grandmothers. -- Michele Lock Lak/Lok/Liak/Lock and Kalon/Kolon in Zagare/Joniskis/Gruzdziai, Lithuania Lak/Lok/Liak/Lock in Plunge/Telsiai in Lithuania Rabinowitz in Papile, Lithuania and Riga, Latvia Trisinsky/Trushinsky/Sturisky and Leybman in Dotnuva, Lithuania Olitsky in Alytus, Suwalki, Poland/Lithuania Gutman/Goodman in Czestochowa, Poland Lavine/Lev/Lew in Trenton, New Jersey and Lida/Vilna gub., Belarus |
|
|
|
Alan Cohen
Michele Lock wrote that back in the 1950s in the US, it was considered dangerous for a woman over 30 to give birth, which was why so many women hurried to get married and have children. When I was learning obs and gynae as a medical student in the UK in the late 1950s I was taught the optimum age for child-bearing was 18 and any woman having their first pregnancy at age over 30 (categorised as an 'elderly primip') was considered a much higher risk. I don't know the modern statistics but guess biology hasn't changed much Dr Alan Cohen |
|
|
|
michaelisrael3@...
My mother was 45 years old when I was born in 1950. I am the youngest of six children.
Michael Israel |
|
|