+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Loves to help with queries
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    186
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Need your opinions/experiences.

    Hi All...Happy New Year.
    I just wanted some opinions or experiences on the following. I have a relative who was married in 1906. Their only child was born in 1920. So far I haven't come across such a long time between marriage and children. In fact, quite the opposite. Does anyone else have such a long time frame for children in their research? Thanks

  2. #2
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change. Pam Downes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    (now) Sussex, England
    Posts
    6,512
    Thanks
    1,504
    Thanked 1,342 Times in 1,105 Posts

    Default

    My great-great-grandparents married in 1864 but their first child wasn't born until 1875.
    Even today you hear of cases where people have been married for many years with the wife miscarrying multiple times.

    Have you checked the GRO Historic Births index to 1911 and the ordinary GRO Index after that (both give the mother's maiden name) to make sure that they didn't have a child/children who died very young, i.e. especially before the 1911 census?

    Pam
    Vulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Lesley Robertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,068
    Thanks
    531
    Thanked 1,307 Times in 1,004 Posts

    Default

    Pam beat me to it! I was about to ask whether they only had one surviving child!
    Alternatively, what did he do for a living? For example, if he was military, they might have had ages in different residences...

  4. #4
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    635
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 117 Times in 106 Posts

    Default

    Lesley makes a good point. However, sometimes nature just works that way. A school friend was born many years after her parents' marriage. She had no siblings. When she married, she and her husband decided not to delay having a family, just in case she too had problems. And she did, although eventually she had a child. My inlaws married in 1945 but their only child was not born until 1950. I could cite two other examples more contemporary to yours if you need. pwholt

  5. #5
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    St Austell, Cornwall
    Posts
    1,087
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 132 Times in 98 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pat fowles View Post
    Hi All...Happy New Year.
    I just wanted some opinions or experiences on the following. I have a relative who was married in 1906. Their only child was born in 1920. So far I haven't come across such a long time between marriage and children. In fact, quite the opposite. Does anyone else have such a long time frame for children in their research? Thanks
    How strange - I was pondering exactly the same thing yesterday.
    My gt gt aunt married in July 1892. The first child appeared in April 1901, followed by 1904, 1906, 1909 & 1912.
    GRO shows no births 1892-1900.
    1911 Census shows 4 children (3 living, 1 dead).
    Father was a School Caretaker/Miner, so not away from home ...

    Jane

  6. #6
    Knowledgeable and helpful thewideeyedowl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    South West England
    Posts
    975
    Thanks
    100
    Thanked 509 Times in 367 Posts

    Default A child comes when it comes...

    Happy New Year to you, Pat...

    No, I do not think it is in any way strange - though, admittedly, unusual - that a child (often an 'only') is born ten years or so after the parents got married.

    It happened to me: my one and only descendant was born 16 years and three months after I got married. After all those years, the child was a complete and utter surprise - and has continued to be so (!).

    And it happened to my maternal grandfather: the only child of his marriage was born was born in 1914, eleven years after he and his wife had wed in 1903. (There was also another child by another woman, but that's another story...)

    At the other end of the scale, sometimes there is late 'extra' child: my great-great Ezard grandparents had nine children - the first eight were born in the first 18 years of their marriage (1840-1858) and their last child was born at the time they were celebrating their 25th wedding anniversary (1865). Hannah, my great-great-grandmother, was then 45. (This was definitely their own child; they were not passing off a daughter's child as their own, a 'cover-up' I found in one of the IoW lines.) So I reckon it was a love-match between those great-great-grandparents.

    Swooping off.

    Owl
    Families don't make sense - they make history.

  7. #7
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hampshire. Near Basingstoke
    Posts
    579
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 45 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pat fowles View Post
    Hi All...Happy New Year.
    I just wanted some opinions or experiences on the following. I have a relative who was married in 1906. Their only child was born in 1920. So far I haven't come across such a long time between marriage and children. In fact, quite the opposite. Does anyone else have such a long time frame for children in their research? Thanks
    Hi Pat

    Not quite that long but my wife's family has a great aunt marrying in 1910 and then having her first child in 1920 but there was a good explanation to do with biology and infidelity. She ran off with a travelling salesman in early 1920 and shortly afterwards became pregnant. History doesn't record why she and her first husband (she married the salesman in due course) didn't have any children because plainly she was able to have them. She had a second child with her soon-to-be second husband after being divorced by her first husband.

    Probably not what you were looking for but I sympathise with your underlying interest in why it took so long to have a baby. Maybe........!

    Tony
    "People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.” Edmund Burke

  8. #8
    Super Moderator Lesley Robertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,068
    Thanks
    531
    Thanked 1,307 Times in 1,004 Posts

    Default

    In case anyone is wondering, I deleted an Off Topic post and its follow-up because it related to events that happened after 1978, and the query relates to events in 1920.

    As it says in out T&C, we do not allow posts that could involve (potentially) living people.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Lesley Robertson For This Useful Post:

    stepives (06-01-2018)

  10. #9
    Loves to help with queries
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    186
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Thanks

    Thanks everyone for your replies. It's a very interesting topic. The person in question was my Dad. He didn't have any siblings. His parents were married in Lagos <1906> and his mother returned to Southport Lancs to give birth (which I also find a bit odd). Can't find a record for her arrival in the UK then, but I do have her departure back to Lagos with my Dad when he was a few months old.

  11. #10
    Super Moderator Lesley Robertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,068
    Thanks
    531
    Thanked 1,307 Times in 1,004 Posts

    Default

    It was fairly common back then for women in the tropics to head back when they found that they were expecting. The child (and mother) mortality rates for Europeans in tropical counties were high. Indeed, I’m surprised that she took him back before he was 1.

    Don’t forget that even something as simple as the directives for midwives to wash their hands before attending a mother in labor were only sent out in the UK at the end of the 1800s as medics finally accepted the link between bacteria and disease! It took over 200 years between discovery of the bugs and the link being accepted by the top of the medical profession....

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Select a file: