Genealogy Chat

My g-grandfather was born 26th December 1867 and his brother was born 29th August 1868 according to christening records. This means there were 246 days beteween them, less than nine months.

The younger brother was not on the 1871 census so I guess he was a very premature baby that died after his christening. But 246 days between births? Does anybody know how soon after childbirth a woman can conceive? Just how premature would this baby have been?

Women are advised not to have intercourse for at least 6 weeks after giving birth.

So from 6 weeks on providing she is producing an egg every month it could be as quick as 8 weeks,

And the old wives tale that you cannot get pregnant whilst breastfeeding is just that an old wives tale.

I would hazard a guess that this 2nd child was so premature as so be unable to survive in those days. Personally I would order the Death Certificate to assuage my curiosity. It will tell you exactly how old the child was. I have a few where the child only survived hours.

My ex mil had 2 children within 1 year, my husband and his younger sister. There was less than 3 months between his birth and her conceiving his sister.

Fascinating. So how premature could a baby be in 1868 I wonder and survive long enough to be christened? These were very poor people living in the East End of London.

Going by weeks, there were 35 weeks between them. To be born at 35 weeks is normally fine, but assuming she conceived 6 weeks after her previous child was born, the 2nd one would only be 29 weeks' gestation. Might have survived a day or two at best I would say as it would be unable to feed and would almost certainly have had significant breathing difficulties.
Jan

Well, the little fellow was christened on 10th October, so he survived for at least 42 days.

Then it makes no sense. There is no way a baby of 29 weeks could have survived that long at that time. The only possibility is if he were a little more mature, but she would have had to get a move on!
Jan

That inclines me towards a different theory then.... that my g-grandfather's birth date was falsified in order that he would not appear illegitimate!!!

Maybe. A bit unusual, but who knows. Possibly didn't want to shock the vicar! Is his birth near their marriage date though?
I would be inclined to get the other child's death cert as suggested, if you really want to know.
Jan

I would seriously doubt that in the late 1860's women were given advice about not having intercourse for a specific length of time after giving birth. The husband would be claiming his 'rights' as soon as he thought fit

Is there a cert for the older child's birth?

He was born in Ireland, Reggie, so the family moved to Whitechapel between the two births.

Birth dates were sometimes falsified to make them fit within the 42 days allowed before registration must have been done.

My friend tells me that her father ( b. 1920s) had '2 'birthdays because of this.

Gwyn

The fact that women are advised not to have intercourse for six weeks after giving birth doesn't mean that they all followed that advice! Also, I would think that it is comparitively modern advice (post-NHS?) and unlikely to have been given in 1868, particularly to poor women who probably never went near a doctor.

There were two sisters at school with me who were barely ten months apart, so, in the above case, conception in the last week of January and birth at 7 months. Not desirable, but possible - just!

Yes, conception it is possible, but this child survived for 6 weeks it seems. Even at best 30-32 weeks' gestation I just don't see it. The baby would not suck and swallow adequately apart from anything else.
Jan

Sad to say, I'm with Reggie and Joan on this. It was the wife's duty to submit whenever required. I've just Googled to see if I can find out how enshrined in law regarding marriage this was. Even thirty years ago, a lady I knew said that she didn't always want sex with her husband everytime he was demanding it. I was shocked and really upset for her but she explained she felt she had no choice as it was considered a requirement as part of her marriage duties.

Attitudes really have changed in the last few decades. The previous ones had been on the go for a very long time.

I'm now going to look back at a family on my tree to look at the reg quarters to calculate intervals between births as they were a very large family. She was married age 19 in 1874 just before the birth of her first child. She subsequently had children in 1896,1897,1899,1901,1902,1904,1905,1907,1908 (died),1909,late 1910/early 1911,1912,1914,1916,1921. She had her last child when she was forty-six so had sixteen children who lived long enough to have their births recorded in about twenty-seven years

Not my idea of fun.

Sorry, I've just thought that my reply might sound as though I'm disagreeing with all the others. I'm not; just that sadly, women didn't have it as good as fortunately most of us do today (by comparisson).

Tori Spelling currently pregnant. The baby was conceived 4 weeks after she gave birth.

Rose

Paul,

You say the dogs are on the baptism records. What dates are actually listed on the birth certs?

Rose

When did dogs start getting baptised? I know my friend had a birthday party for her poodle, but really ......

I have a friend who gave birth to her second child exactly 9 mths after the birth of her first. She had no medical help and gave birth at home completely unexpectedly. The baby was small but healthy, didn't require any hospitalization. A complete surprise to everyone...including the mother :-)

my sister was born in aug 1955 & my brother born june 1956, only 10 month's between them, so my mum got pregnant 4 week's after my sister's birth.my brother was full term.