Is it possible to have a baby at 51?

[benny1982]

Hi

In December 1835, my great, great, great grandmother Clara Emma Auber was born in Shoreditch, London. Baptised on 24 April 1836 at St Leonards Shoreditch. Daughter of John & Elizabeth Auber. She was the youngest of 9 children. Her mum Elizabeth (nee Helsdon) was born in July 1784 in Bethnal Green, London. So making her 51 when she had Clara. Is this possible?

The previous child was born in June 1827. Elizabeth would have been just turning 43 at the time. Clara is not living with her mum and dad in 1841. Nor is her elder sister Emma who was still unwed aged 28 as she was born in May 1813. Emma bore two illegitimate children, one in 1840 and one in 1843 and lied on their birth registrations. The 1843 one was born handicapped as his 1863 death cert says he had spinal deformaties and blindness since childhood. In 1861 he is down as Blind.

In 1845, Clara's elder sister Elizabeth gets wed aged 27 to Matthew Coombs. In 1851 they are in Clerkenwell and Clara is living with them aged 15, a servant. The mother Elizabeth (nee Helsdon) was living in Shoreditch aged 66. She died in 1858 aged 73 and it was only her heart that gave out. In 1851 Emma was a single mum living in St Luke, a bootbinder.

In 1856 when Clara wed, she put her father down as John Auber on the marriage cert. Surely, if she was baptised as John & Elizths last child then she must have been. I know some grandparents did cover up the birth of a base born granchild, but didnt people only baptise children if they actually were? I thought they are more likely to lie to a registrar than a vicar?

Could it be that Elizabeth felt she was too old to bring up a baby aged 51 explaining why Clara stayed with siblings?

Ben

[v.wells]

Baptizing and christening are pretty much the same thing - naming of a child in the parents' religious faith.

And yes it is possible to have children at age 51. My grandmother pushed out 10 children from 1895 to 1914 - nearly 20 years. My father barely knew his older brother's and sisters as they were married and had children when he was barely out of shorts!

[benny1982]

Yeah I suppose if Elizabeth had many children before, she'd have been ovulating later on and maybe stopped having periods when she was maybe 55. I have worked out that with all the other children born before Clara, then the mum Elizabeth would have been 6 years pregnant, so she might have menopaused at 55 ish.

[Marie C..]

Yes! It is possible to have a baby 51 and beyond, especially coming at the end of a long period of child-bearing. Now if the woman was 57 then I'd question it!

[Neil Wilson]

It has been known for mothers to look after their daughter's babies when they were born out of wedlock. Whether this was so in your case it would be hard to prove/disprove.

[benny1982]

Hi

I just checked again and Elizabeth had 10 children before Clara, 4 who died in infancy, so Clara probably was a late arrival of the family, the 11th child. Also I just worked out there was no birth control in those days. So Clara probably was their last child, born to a mum aged 51.

Ben

[Peter Goodey]

I thought they are more likely to lie to a registrar than a vicar?

I don't think that's a reasonable assumption.

I'm with Neil on this one!

[Ladkyis]

I am more inclined to think that the child was born to one of the daughters and was 'claimed' by the grandmother. People would lie about anything to anyone if it was for the sake of propriety. This child could have been the offspring of one of the younger daughters.

[Marie C..]

Having re-read these posts I think that it seems quite likely that Clara could be her sister Elizabeth's child. However my money is on Clara being legitimately a child of "old age".
Are there any births and infant deaths recorded ,with parents John and Elizabeth Auber, between the the penultimate child and Clara?

[benny1982]

Hi Marie C

No. There were no births inbetween John G Auber in 1827 and Clara in 1835. Would this help your theory at all?

So is it possible they lied even to a vicar to cover things up as that was a sin to lie in church in those days.

Emma Auber and Clara were missing in the 1841 census, yet 22 year old Elizabeth was still with the parents. Clara was baptised Clara Emma Auber.

Any further thoughts please?

Ben

[Marie C..]

Yes! that changes things a bit. Guess Clara must have been Emma's then!
And grandparents tried to cover up.... as they did . Illigitimacy was such a stigma then.
Even the vicars labelled such babies at baptism as "base-born". Poor wee mites! Any caring mother would do what she could to protect her grandchild from the stigma.
Marie

[arthurk]

On a balance of probabilities, I think I'd go for Elizabeth (the younger) as the mother. But could you give us the dates of all of John and Elizabeth's children? - I've often noticed that women tended to produce children at pretty regular intervals, so suddenly having a gap of 8 years seems a bit unlikely, even at the end of childbearing. (Not totally impossible, though.)

I'm also inclined to think that the question of lying to the vicar may not be relevant. Once a lie has been invented, it has to be maintained. And the vicar may even have connived in the deceit to save the child from the embarrassment of being illegitimate.

Arthur

Edit: Overlooked the bit about Emma (and I'd discounted her because I made a mistake working out her age in 1835). Maybe she is more likely than Elizabeth.

[Marie C..]

Right!
Are we all agreed on this?
Yes! it is possible to have a baby at 51 but in this case we think it more likely that the baby, Clara Emma, was Emma's baby .... and the lie was told in the best interests of the child.
But we were not there and can only assume.
Marie

[benny1982]

Hi

John and Elizabeths children were born in 1806, 1808, 1810, Emma in 1813, 1815, Elizabeth in 1818, 1821, 1822, 1824 and 1827. Clara was born in 1835. Emma would have been 22. Elizabeth only about 17.

Clara's middle name is a hint wouldnt you agree?

Emma later had 3 illegitimate children in 1840, 1843 and 1850. She fibbed on all the birth registrations. As said, both Emma and Clara are missing in 1841 and I cannot find either of them. Emma would have been about 28 (probably rounded down due to 1841)and Clara 5.

Maybe Emma gave Clara to Elizabeth once Elizabeth married as Emma lived in poor conditions as a bootbinder whereas Elizabeth's husband Matthew was a printer.

Any further ideas?

Edit: If Emma had 3 baseborn children from 1840 o 1850, whose to say she didnt have one before??

[Marie C..]

I wonder where Emma and Clara were on the 1841? Were they together or not? Maybe Emma was in service somewhere and Clara with her or with other relations.
I no longer have a sub to the A .. site so can't find them?
If they were together I guess it wouldn't tell us anything further. And yes! I agree that Emma could have given Clara to her siter to raise as she was in the better financial position . Did Elizabeth and husband ever have any children of their own?
Marie

[benny1982]

Hi Marie

In 1841 Emma would also have had her son Edwin who was about 9 months as born in September 1840. That may be easier in finding the 3 of them.

Bit of a coincidence that they both (alongside baby Edwin) cannot be found in 1841 so I assume they were together. If they were together, yes that might not tell anything further but I do think that would be another hint.

Matthew and Elizabeth did have their own children from 1846 to 1861. They had about 5 I think.

I reckon now that Emma was the mother of Clara.

Ben

[Guy Etchells]

I would suggest that it was far more likely that the child was the daughter of John and Elizabeth.
I would further suggest a pregnancy during 1831/2 which ended in a miscarriage or still-birth.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Clara as Emma's daughter.

Before even thinking of illegitimacy being a stigma, take a look at the relevant parish register and see how many illegitimate children were actually recorded in that parish.
If there were very few then there could be the possibility of a cover-up.
If it was a more common occurrence in that parish dismiss the idea.
Cheers
Guy

[BeeE586]

I used to hear my grandmother talk about babies being born to a woman 'in the change', i.e.when she thought menstruation had stopped because she had 'missed' a month here and there and thought she was safe. 51 is not impossible in these circumstances.

Regarding birth control - weren't condoms made of calf skin known in the time of the Eighth Henry, later known as guinea pouches ? I have to thank Lovejoy for that snippet.

Eileen

[benny1982]

Hi

I am with Guy on this one. There is nothing to say that either Emma b1813 nor Elizabeth b1818 was the mother. Just because Clara was with Elizabeth in 1851, doesnt mean she was her daughter.

I have wondered if maybe Elizabeth Snr had a baby in about 1831ish that died or miscarried. Maybe Clara was the last legitimate offspring of John & Elizabeth.

Ben

[benny1982]

Hi

Having again reviewed things, and I have asked a few people for other opinions, it probably does seem more likely that Clara was an illegitimate grandchild after all. And that Emma Auber born in 1813 was the mother.

There is no concrete evidnce, but a lot of circumstantial evidence that supports the claim like Clara having Emma as a middle name, both Clara and Emma missing from rest of household in 1841, and Emma having 3 more illegitimate children.

Also, if Elizabeth did have children inbetween 1827 and 1835, yes there may have been miscarriages but I would have thought that some would have survived and there are no gaps in the births of the previous children born inbetween 1806 and 1827.

Emma Auber's 3 more illegitimate childrens birth say several fibs. In the frst two in 1840 and 1843, they say the father is "Joseph Auber, carpenter". The 1840 birth for Edwin says her maiden name was Obey, the 1843 one for George says "Emma Auber formely Auber". The 1850 one for Matilda Auber says father was "Henry Auber, carpenter" and the mothers name it says "Emma Auber formerly Helsdon". Helsdon is Emma's mum Elizabeth's maiden name.

In 1841, a David Obey, married man, born c1811, carpenter, lived in Clerkenwell. And why did Emma use Obey as a made up maiden name?? And use "Carpenter" for fictitious fathers occupation for the 1840 birth??

In 1858, Emma registered her elderly mum Elizabeth's death.

In 1851 and 1861 Emma says that she is widowed, another lie, and when Edwin and Matilda marry in 1864 and 1868, they say their father is George Auber a clerk. By 1871 Emma is living with Joseph Stevens, and her niece Jane Auber, who is the daughter of John George Auber born in 1827, Emma's brother. So I know it is the right Emma Auber born in 1813.

With all that, I think that the same applied for Clara and Emma got her parents to take the child on as their own to save face.

Ben

[Marie C..]

Well Ben!
Now you have got all that lot "sorted" to your satisfaction,I just want to point out that there is another thread on here where a baby is born to a woman aged 50!
Marie

[benny1982]

Hi

Where is that then Marie C?

Ben

[arthurk]

The 1840 birth for Edwin says her maiden name was Obey, the 1843 one for George says "Emma Auber formely Auber"....

And why did Emma use Obey as a made up maiden name??

"Obey" (pronounced Oh-bee with the stress on the first syllable - and sometimes found as Obee) is a surname found in the Maidstone area, among other places, and wouldn't sound very different from "Auber". If the family weren't fully literate, they may not have had a settled way of spelling their name.

One further thing that occurs to me - do you have anything relating to Emma's death? If it was Clara who notified the registrar, did she give a relationship? And did Emma (or her spouse) leave a will naming Clara?

Arthur

[benny1982]

Hi

Emma died in 1886 and the death was registered by a coroner. She was living with Joseph Stevens, a frame maker in 1871 and 1881 census. I have checked and I dont think she left a will as I have looked at the Probate Indexes. But, her son Edwin born in 1840 left a will when he died in 1898 but I havent viewed the original, and I suppose he left it to his children.

But, dont you think Clara's middle name is a clue though? And the fact they were both not with the rest of the family in 1841? Plus Emma having 3 more illegitimate children after Clara's birth?

In October 1840 Emma was at Union Buildings in Hoxton and by May 1843 at Seymour Place in Clerkenwell but where was she is 1841???

Ben

[Marie C..]

What do you mean"where is that then?" Ben,
Are you meaning where is the thread/post with the other woman who had a baby at 50!
If so I can't remember where it was.... on here somewhere...I will have a look for it but how I don't know.
And I don't know where Emma and Clara etc were in 1841 . I looked on Find my past with no luck. They must be somewhere.
But then I can't find my Granny on the 1901 anywhere in the country. (You find my Granny and I'll find your Clara! )Could the name have been mistranscribed?Orbay? Owby, Obay? Obby,Orbear.

[Lenore]

My husband's aunt had to get married at 50. (Just when she thought she was safe!|oopsredfa)

Best wishes,

Lenore

[benny1982]

Maybe Clara was with Emma in 1841 but Emma farmed her out when her 1843 child was born probably because of the disabled baby, and for Clara to practise in service as in the 1851 census aged 15 she was a "Servant" while living with Emma's sister.

[benny1982]

Hi

I think that I have found another illegitimate child for Emma Auber. On 22 Feb 1855 a George Auber was born at 27 Galway Street, St Luke, the son of John Auber & Emma Auber formely Helsdon.

This is another lie on Emma's behalf as her previous child Matilda was born in 1850 illegitimate and was registered as father Henry Auber, carpenter, mother Emma Auber formely Helsdon.

This time, it was Mr John Auber who registered George's 1855 birth. I am now wondering if it was Emma's brother John George Auber who registered the birth on her behalf to cover up. John was already married to Jane and had a daughter Susannah born in May 1854.

I think if this is so, it looks more and more likely that Emma was the mother of my 3xgreat gran Clara born in 1835. If she lied on all her 1840, 1843, 1850 and 1855 childrens births, then she probably did hand Clara over to her parents John & Elizabeth.

Ben

[Marie C..]

Poor Ben,
That's another cert you are going to have to get.. or have you already got it?
Your Emma Auber(where does the Helsdon come from?) seems to have tried out first one brother and then the other. I thought she was Auber by birth?
Marie
ps I never did find that thread again where the relative had a baby at 50. I guess it's in the BG ether somewhere.

[benny1982]

Hi

Yes she was born Emma Auber in 1813. Her mothers maiden name was Helsdon, Elizabeth Helsdon born in 1784 who wed John Auber in 1806.

Emma appears to have used her mothers maiden name for the 1850 and 1855 births and given fictitious fathers, Henry and John. I have just recieved the cert.

In her 1840 childs birth she says "Father Joseph Auber, carpenter, and her name is Emma Auber formely Obey".

in her 1843 childs birth she says "Father Joseph Auber, carpenter and her name is Emma Auber formely Auber"

In her 1850 and 1855 childs births she says the father is Henry Auber, carpenter and John Auber carpenter, and Emma Auber formely Helsdon.

Ben

[Marie C..]

John Auber and Elizabeth (nee Helsdon).Of course.
All I can think of is... have you found a John Auber(carpenter) who might be a one of the fathers or a Joseph or a Henry? If not then either the fathers were one or other of the men she was living with or, more alarmingly, she had no idea who the fathers could have been. In which case you are banging your head against a brick wall.
Whereas you could send off for a marriage cert of this latest find and see who gives as his father.... another £7.00. Is it worth it?
M

[benny1982]

Hi

I think the fathers names were purely fictional. It was done to conceal the illegitimacy. I think she would have had an idea who the fathers were, unless she was on the game of course. The George Auber born in 1855 died as a baby. I think this brickwall has been pulled down in terms of fathers. I have looked into this thoroughly.

Emma must have completely made them up I cannot find any references to a Joseph, Henry or John Auber carpenters. She did later marry a Joseph Stevens, who was a carpenter and later picture frame maker. Emma's daughter Matilda is living with him in 1861.

I still think that Emma was the mother of Clara Emma born in 1835, meaning she had 4 children over a 19 year period. The middle name is a good clue.

Ben

[Marie C..]

Yes I am sure you are right Ben.
They go to their graves keeping their secrets with never an inkling that one day some of their secrets may be revealed.... but not all.
M

[benny1982]

Hi Marie

I think the only brickwall I am having with is who the real fathers of Emma's 5 illegitimate children were but Joseph Stevens is a candidate for the later ones. His wife Grace died in 1861.

I dont think he was the father of Clara b 1835 but who knows?

Ben

[pottoka]

Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive

I can't remember who said that, but it sounds as though you are tying yourself in knots, Ben, trying to sort this out. I'd go for Clara being Emma's, because of the gap between Elizabeth's last baby and Clara, and because of the second name. I can imagine Emma's parents covering up for her first baby, but when the next came ... and the next ... She must have been very attractive.

Our ancestors really had no idea what trouble they were storing up for us, did they?

[Guy Etchells]

We keep hearing of this gap but looking at the frequency of births the gap was possibly only one pregnancy.
Looking at the history of the previous births I would not be at all surprised that (John &) Elizabeth Auber had a number of early miscarriages throughout her childbearing years.
Without knowing the exact dates (only the years) it is possible for early miscarriages between 1810 & 1813 ; 1815 & 1818 ; 1818 & 1821 ; 1824 & 1827 ; 1827 & 1835 (in the first posting this was 1836?).

There is nothing in the above sequence that rules out Emma being the daughter of John & Elizabeth Auber.

If the date between John & Elizabeth's last child and Emma had been close then that would have made it more likely that she was their grandchild but it was not.
Any theory that Emma was illegitimate is just wild speculation and is not supported by any facts other than Elizabeth being 51.
If you doubt the birth of Emma to a 51 year old mother then you must start doubting the other births perhaps even as far back as 1824 or 1827.
Cheers
Guy

[benny1982]

Hi Guy

Clara Emma was baptised in 1836, but born in Dec 1835. Sorry about the 1835 1836 confusion.

Here are the exact dates of John & Elizabeths childrens births:-

1 December 1806
9 November 1808
9 November 1810
3 May 1813
29 December 1815
3 January 1818
11 July 1820
23 February 1822
8 September 1824
June 1827
24 December 1835

This may help a bit

I suppose it is possible to have a baby naturally at 51 then. If she was pregnant 10 times before the 1835 birth, then Elizabeth may well have been at least 6 years pregnant throughout her adult life, probably meaning that she be ovulating for a few years past 50, the average age for the menopause.

Ben

[Marie C..]

Seeing it down on the list like that is easier, Ben.
From 1806 to 1837 is a mite too long in my humble opinion.
I think it was not Elizabeth sen. child . She and John passed it off as theirs to save face but it doesn't really matter as yo are never going to find out for sure.
Who was the John Auber, the printer, born 1831 in Shoreditch who married an Emma?
Were the Aubers Huegenots? Seems several of them came over before 1750 from France. ? M

[mfwebb]

Sorry for coming late into this thread and adding my 2 pennorth.

I suppose it IS POSSIBLE to have a baby at 51 -- but I would personally regard it as rather unlikely and would explore all other possibilities before very reluctantly having to accept it.

I think it far more likely that this was an illegitimate grandchild; and I wouldn't be swayed into thinking differently even if illegitimate births were common in that particular parish at that time. I suspect some grandmothers would do anything to avoid the stigma of illegitimacy for THEIR grandchild even if other grandmothers weren't so proud.

[v.wells]

My grandmother had 9 children over a 20 yr period but then she was 42 when last one born.

[benny1982]

Hi

There wasnt a John Auber born in 1831. He was born in 1827 and wed Jane Connolly in 1851. Jane died in 1867.

Looking at the dates of the previous chidrens births, John & Elizabeth seemed to have children evry 2 to 3 years.

I am gald that I cleared up the Roberts mystery, but the Auber one is proving a bit difficult.

Ben

[georgeyone]

My best friend's mother was 56 when she had him he was only 17 years old when she died and 18 years old when his dad died I can't emagine only knowing your parents for such a short time Sad that?

Paul

[Marie C..]

1881 census Ben,
John Auber or Auben, 53 (born 1828 ... , my mistake in addition) born Shoreditch, printer.
Emma Auber wife 40
Olaf Scholeka lodger born Sweden.
4 Bateman's Buildings London Middx
1341029

RG11
0129/73
p. 31
Was this one one of yours too?

[benny1982]

Hi

John's first wife Jane died in 1867 and he married an Emma Whittaker in 1871. But his first wife was Jane, so the 1855 birth is yet another illegitimate Emma Auber child birth.

Ben

[benny1982]

Hi

I did read that there was temporary hormone boosts before the menopause at around 50 so this MAY account for Elizabeth giving birth at 51. But she'd have still been 50 when the babe was concieved.

But, I can still be safe knowing that John & Elizabeth Auber are still my flesh and blood whether they were Clara's grandparents or parents so they are part of my genealogy. Clara is my 3xgreat grandmother and born in Shoreditch, a true Cockney.

Ben

[Nicolina]

I go along with it being a grandchild as well. Back in those days women didn't normally have kids that late in life. If the Grandparents, unofficially, adopted their own grandhild then they wouldn't be exactly telling porkies to the Vicar.
My maternal grandmother raised my cousin and her illegitimate daugher, until my cousin married. I was well into my teens before I found out who her real parents were. (was I really that naive?)

[benny1982]

Hi

Yes, she is more likely to be an illegitimate grandchild. It probably wasnt a case of adoption, just they pretended to be the parents to cover up for Emma. I would still count that as lying for the baptism even if they did informally adopt the child because they were still only the grandparents but in a way the baptism is kind of true as the parents were still blood kin, just grandparents. I reckon it was only really grandparents that informally adopted children.

Ben