Nephews and Nieces older than their Uncles and Aunts

[Mutley]

I have been corresponding with someone doing a one name study for one of my lines.
They have sent me information 1600-1700's and I have sent them details 1900-1950 ish.

They have, understandably, queried the births of some of the children of my grandmother assuming by the dates that they should be the children of her elder children instead but they are not, they're hers alright.

It made me think about Parish Records - for example

William, son of William and Mary baptised 1870
Son William also marries a Mary in 1888

move on through baptisms to

John, son of William and Mary born 1889

We would assume that John is the grandson of the first William and Mary, son of the second but how would we know if it was the other way around seeing as Granny Mary could still have kids in her 40's?

How unusual is this?

[elyam]

If that was pre census you'd never sort it out.

[Alan Welsford]

What you have there is the example where some of the textbooks say that a helpful incumbent will often refer to William SMITH Senior, (or the Elder) and William SMITH Junior, (or the younger).

Yes, I wish! - Not in parishes I've looked at.

More likely to refer to William SMITH (Labourer) and (erm) William Smith (Labourer). :confused:

Because of the rules often followed about inheritance of fathers and brothers names, if you are lucky William (Senior) and Mary will already have produced a John, before their son William (Junior) and Mary produce one.

But, because parents reused names of children who had died young, even that wouldn't be 100% conclusive.

Another complication you haven't mentioned is incumbents who discount the wife out of the child-making process. :D

"Baptised John, son of William SMITH"

In these cases, even if William & Mary's son William marries a Sarah, you are still stuffed!.

Alan

[busyglen]

I would think that this could have easily happened especially in the days of large families. Mum still having children, after her eldest was married with children of her own.

It's not something I have thought about before, but I am sure this did happen, and as you say, it could cause a lot of problems for us trying to sort it out. The trend would be to say `no that can't be the son of XXX it must be the son of the son'....etc.

Not quite the same thing, but because my father was in the RM and abroad a lot, our family was born in stages. I was born in the 2nd stage with two younger brothers. When my eldest sister who is 13 years older than me had her first child I was 11, and my youngest brother was only 7. It was strange to be an aunt at 11. So, it could happen, if a child was born to a young mother, who went on to produce up until the end of her child bearing days.

Interesting thought Mutley! :)

Glenys

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

My step-daughter has two children aged 24 and 20, then two more children from her second marriage, aged 10 and 6. The 24 year old will have her first baby this year, so the 6 year old will become an Auntie ...... and I shall be a Gt.Grandmother. :D

[Alan Welsford]

My g.g.grandmother was still producing children after her granddaughter (my grandmother) was born.

My grandmother was apparently always amused by having an uncle who was younger than her, and an aunt of the same age as herself.

It must have happened a lot.

[Margshep]

Not as strange as it sounds, and add to that the fact of infant deaths, and ths same name being used more than once. Happened in my tree, 15 survivng children, the eldest 2 having family names, and using AGAIN the same family names, complete nightmare. Then to add to the confusion, cousins marrying each other, I kid you not. But hey its fun!!

[Jan1954]

Picture this...

Pharaoh Smith married and had a son, Peter.

Pharaoh's youngest brother was called George, born 2 years before Peter.

George and Peter married sisters.

So, Peter's uncle George was also his brother-in-law :confused:

[suedent]

Picture this...

Pharaoh Smith married and had a son, Peter.

Pharaoh's youngest brother was called George, born 2 years before Peter.

George and Peter married sisters.

So, Peter's uncle George was also his brother-in-law :confused:

I've got a situation like this in my tree.

Also my g-grandfather married twice, his children by this second marriage, my nan & her two brothers, were younger than a lot of his grandchildren by the first marriage.

[MythicalMarian]

Never mind the family tree - I have exactly this situation with my living cousins! No names, obviously, but one of my female cousins had her first baby before my aunt (her mum) had finished producing her own offspring. Therefore, the two youngest uncles of 'baby X' are younger than he is.

However, regarding the family tree as such, as busyglen has said, I should think this wouldn't be too rare an occurrence, given the size of Victorian familes, with mum producing well into her 40s and the eldest sons and daughters marrying early on. Even my own gran had 13 children, so that my eldest two uncles were married before she produced her youngest girl. As it happened the uncles did not have children for a few years - but we could easily have had the same scenario again.

The oldest known and proved mum in my tree was 48 when she had her youngest - and that pesky Marian Harding who is my user-namesake was 46. The thought of having a two-year-old at my age doesn't even bear contemplating.....|help|

[suedent]

In my own family it came very close to this situation in my generation. My dad is 22 years older than his youngest sister & she's only 2 year older than me.

My dad's grandmother was was of at least 16 (there were reputedly 21 altogether). My great gran was one of the youngest, there were 4 younger than her & yes they were younger than some of the nephews & nieces.