Jump to content
IGNORED

Duggars by the Dozen 35: Five Months with no Pregnant Duggars. How much longer will it last?


HerNameIsBuffy

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, AussieKrissy said:

Did she have one at around the same time as Kendra? Or was she the one pregnant at Kendra's wedding?

Or am I getting all confused with Lauren's (???) mother who had Duke (???) around the same time as Gideon (???) 

I think you're probably getting her confused with Lauren's mom, who just had her youngest in February (within a couple days of Gideon). So Lauren's mom had a baby just a few months before Lauren got married.

Kendra's mom is pregnant right now. She wasn't pregnant when Kendra got married, though. I think her current youngest is 2 or 3 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 595
  • Created
  • Last Reply

My mom just became a great-great-aunt now that her sister is a great-grandmother. It's funny to think about since my mom still has minor children herself.

And speaking of young grandmothers, Rifca Stanescu became a grandmother at the age of 23. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/rifca-stanescu-became-wor_n_833108.html Her mother became a great-grandmother at 40. 

It's a pretty sad story, really, as it means little girls had to become parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

She is. I think she's due in December? She's one who could hypothetically be having babies at the same time as her daughter for the next few years, because she's only 38. I'm not sure if the Caldwells are full on quiverfull or if they've taken measures to space their children and will do so in the future, though. She did say that they were hoping she could have at least a couple more.

I am shocked. Didn’t Kendra’s Mom get pregnant AFTER Kendra???? And now she’s pregnant again? Wow... how did you find out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, luv2laugh said:

I am shocked. Didn’t Kendra’s Mom get pregnant AFTER Kendra???? And now she’s pregnant again? Wow... how did you find out?

No no, she's still pregnant with that same baby. She got pregnant sometime back in the spring and is due (I think) sometime in December. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I became a grandmother a month before my 38th b-day. The nurses at the hospital where my granddaughter was born kept referring to me as "her sister"...I had to tell them over and over that I was the mother/grandmother. But, I was 18 when my daughter was born. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

And yet almost every time someone tries to caution about expecting everyone to have Michelle Duggar's fertility, one of the justifying responses will be a "great aunt Susie" story. 

I think my "great aunt Susie story" is more a lesson in "just because you think your body is done, doesn't mean it is". My great-great grandmother had my great grandfather when she was 49. There was a six year gap between him and the kid born before him. We have no stories handed down (about how she felt) but I am sure that poor woman thought she had the last one at 43 only to find herself preggo again six years later. I cannot imagine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given Michelle’s super fertility I’m actually surprised she wasn’t the case of a 46 yr old expecting her last baby.

I know the Holt family mom (forgot her name) had a baby like a year ago. They were pretty quiet about it too and didn’t really announce it until the baby was born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would caution people looking at great-grandmothers and such who have a large age gap and then a new baby mysteriously born at a very unusually late age. Check for teenage daughters. I have at least one instance of that in my family tree (last baby born at the age of 38 and then surprise twins 11 years later at the age of 49, except in reality they weren't hers, they were her teenage daughter's). And another where the baby's unwed mother died and the baby was adopted by the mother's much older sister. That sort of thing was actually pretty common, and it was often kept very hush hush because it was considered so shameful.

Basically, if I see a woman ~100 years ago having a surprise baby in her late 40s, I'm generally inclined to assume that the baby isn't actually her biological child. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's much more likely to have been a secret adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

I would caution people looking at great-grandmothers and such who have a large age gap and then a new baby mysteriously born at a very unusually late age. Check for teenage daughters. I have at least one instance of that in my family tree (last baby born at the age of 38 and then surprise twins 11 years later at the age of 49, except in reality they weren't hers, they were her teenage daughter's). And another where the baby's unwed mother died and the baby was adopted by the mother's much older sister. That sort of thing was actually pretty common, and it was often kept very hush hush because it was considered so shameful.

Basically, if I see a woman ~100 years ago having a surprise baby in her late 40s, I'm generally inclined to assume that the baby isn't actually her biological child. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's much more likely to have been a secret adoption.

Thanks for your assumptions. It's not the case. In fact it was much talked about in my family when I was younger and the older relatives were still living. People often thought he was a grandson. He was not.  But whatever you want to assume makes no difference to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FaithAndReason said:

Thanks for your assumptions. It's not the case. In fact it was much talked about in my family when I was younger and the older relatives were still living. People often thought he was a grandson. He was not.  But whatever you want to assume makes no difference to me. 

I'm sorry you were insulted. I meant no offence. I've been doing genealogy for 20 years and just sharing what I've found to generally be the case. That doesn't mean it's always the case, and I certainly was not claiming it was the case specifically for your particular relative. It's just something to keep in mind when researching one's family tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got to say, nerd that I am, that this thread is combining some of my favorite things to learn and quibble about - statistics, childbearing, and the sociological and historical backgrounds of childbearing patterns. And anecdotal info. My heart is going pitty pat. I love this stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

but I feel like she seems a bit more frazzled with the three kids than she did with just two.

This is absolutely a thing.  Even though my husband worked and I was home with them when you're outnumbered even when you're together is a real game changer.

I would do it all again and you adjust to it, but when you've got two toddlers and a newborn frazzled is a good word for it. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Knight of Ni said:

Wait... hold on just one minute. Are you telling me that someone 8 years older than me is a grandma?!?! 

Yeah... this was me too. As a child born in the 80s it gave me a holy crap moment reading that. I know people can become grandparents in their 30s but she's born in the same decade as me so it seems even weirder to me.

I have two siblings born in 1980, and they have 4 going on 5 children between them but the oldest, my niece, just started kindergarten this fall, and her sibling isn't even born yet. Grandkids for her Mama seems crazy.

Then again I also had a jar when kids born in 2000 and later started having kids. Time goes so fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, singsingsing said:

I would caution people looking at great-grandmothers and such who have a large age gap and then a new baby mysteriously born at a very unusually late age. Check for teenage daughters. I have at least one instance of that in my family tree (last baby born at the age of 38 and then surprise twins 11 years later at the age of 49, except in reality they weren't hers, they were her teenage daughter's). And another where the baby's unwed mother died and the baby was adopted by the mother's much older sister. That sort of thing was actually pretty common, and it was often kept very hush hush because it was considered so shameful.

Basically, if I see a woman ~100 years ago having a surprise baby in her late 40s, I'm generally inclined to assume that the baby isn't actually her biological child. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's much more likely to have been a secret adoption.

Honestly,  I've always wondered if this was the case with Michelle. She's so much younger than her siblings. I don't know the exact ages of her siblings so I don't know if the timeline works out,  but I've always suspected....

And, of course,  this has no basis in fact,  so I hope i haven't broken any rules or offended anyone somehow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm 41. My eldest is a teen, my youngest is a toddler. Some of my friends are trying for their first baby at 40 or have little kids. They see 20 something moms immature, and these young moms see them too old haha.

In my opinion, being a +40 year old mom is harder (for body and mind) than being a young mom. Of course I'm not talking about teen mothers!

I can't imagine being a grandma, but I could have had a daughter at 20, and be a grandma now, without involving a teen pregnancy. I would be energetic enough to help with a grandkid. But if I imagine getting pregnant now (and having a baby at 42) I get really scared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, singsingsing said:

I would caution people looking at great-grandmothers and such who have a large age gap and then a new baby mysteriously born at a very unusually late age. Check for teenage daughters. I have at least one instance of that in my family tree (last baby born at the age of 38 and then surprise twins 11 years later at the age of 49, except in reality they weren't hers, they were her teenage daughter's). And another where the baby's unwed mother died and the baby was adopted by the mother's much older sister. That sort of thing was actually pretty common, and it was often kept very hush hush because it was considered so shameful.

Basically, if I see a woman ~100 years ago having a surprise baby in her late 40s, I'm generally inclined to assume that the baby isn't actually her biological child. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's much more likely to have been a secret adoption.

I do not know how this holds up globally but in Sweden women in the 18 and 19th centuries had far more babies after 40 than today even with modern fertility techniques. Why? Today with birth control the women who can have their babies before 40 will have them before that and will be very motivated to protect themselves once they have had the number they wanted. When women were unprotected their whole fertile life they had many more babies in the later parts of life. I have not found any page in English about this but here is where the information comes from: https://www.scb.se/sv_/Hitta-statistik/Artiklar/Aldre-mammor-vanligare-forr/. If you look at the first diagram you can see that the numbers of births for women between 40-45 are up compared to the 1970s but way below the 1800s. 

Informal adoptions like the one you describe happened (there was one in my family too) but it is wrong to assume that all later pregnancies you see will be fake. The reason it was believable to try to hide a grandchild like that is because it happened for real quite often and much more often than now. Because having children at a later age wasn't as socially acceptable after WWII when it largely could be avoided we think that the current trend of later pregnancies is the strange part, it is the low numbers of most of the later half of the 1900s that is the strange part and we might today move to a more accepting climate for babies in the later fertile years and in some cases the years just beyond that with treatments. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being an older mom is easier financially. It’s common where I am for women to work for a long time and wait to have babies when they’re older. It’s just too hard financially in your 20s (for many people) and easier to wait. Especially if you only want like two kids.  I want to have kids but many of my peers are worried about facing discrimination at work once we become moms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, singsingsing said:

It's just something to keep in mind when researching one's family tree.

This definitely happened in my family too.  The youngest of my great grandparents 10 children (born in the 1930s) was actually their eldest grandchild.  It was never discussed.  My grandfather was an adult living hours away and knew nothing.  My great aunt (second youngest) told me that one day she arrived home from school, there was a baby and her mother told her that this was her sister, and that she was not to ask any questions.  She didn’t.  They never told anyone who the parent was.  (The daughter who is assumed to be the mother died unexpectedly without saying anything.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Kendra’s mom looks so young (even younger than 38) so it’s crazy to think she’s a grandmother. 

She really looks like she could be Kendra's sister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weirdest surprise baby story I've heard happened in my mother's hometown more than 40 years ago. A couple was trying for baby for decades with no results and gave up when they reached their 40s. Until one night the wife was rushed to hospital in the middle of the night with what they assumed was appendicitis. Few hours later she gave birth to a healthy full-time baby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, elliha said:

 Informal adoptions like the one you describe happened (there was one in my family too) but it is wrong to assume that all later pregnancies you see will be fake. The reason it was believable to try to hide a grandchild like that is because it happened for real quite often and much more often than now. Because having children at a later age wasn't as socially acceptable after WWII when it largely could be avoided we think that the current trend of later pregnancies is the strange part, it is the low numbers of most of the later half of the 1900s that is the strange part and we might today move to a more accepting climate for babies in the later fertile years and in some cases the years just beyond that with treatments. 

Please don’t mischaracterize what I said. I’m talking about women who had a big age gap between kids and then suddenly had another baby at the age of 47, 48, 49+. Yes, it happened then and happens now, but the reality was and is that it is quite rare and was more likely to be a secret adoption. I absolutely never said that all later pregnancies were fake! And I need to reiterate, once again, there is a huge, huge difference between a 43-year-old woman having a baby, which is fairly unremarkable, and a 49-year-old woman having a baby, which has always been fairly unusual. NOT NECESSARILY FAKE. I’m not sure why people are arguing with me about things I never said. I’m not accusing any of your great-great-aunts personally of having secret babies out of wedlock. I promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have the strangest behaviors around fertility. I do have a friend who's convinced she can have a child in her 40s because her mother did and so is not even worried about it at 35 with no partner. She's also certain that because the studies about declining fertility at 35 we're so bad nothing in the must be true. And then there are people who are desperate to have a baby by 30 no matter what because they are completely convinced that it's impossible after 35. Wouldn't it be great if science actually try to look into this in any real way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2018 at 5:48 AM, singsingsing said:

Please don’t mischaracterize what I said. I’m talking about women who had a big age gap between kids and then suddenly had another baby at the age of 47, 48, 49+. Yes, it happened then and happens now, but the reality was and is that it is quite rare and was more likely to be a secret adoption. I absolutely never said that all later pregnancies were fake! And I need to reiterate, once again, there is a huge, huge difference between a 43-year-old woman having a baby, which is fairly unremarkable, and a 49-year-old woman having a baby, which has always been fairly unusual. NOT NECESSARILY FAKE. I’m not sure why people are arguing with me about things I never said. I’m not accusing any of your great-great-aunts personally of having secret babies out of wedlock. I promise.

Not attacking - just wondering if there’s any way of knowing which is more common - very late birth after a gap - or secret grandchild ? It seems like it might vary over time and culture?  I know in some cultures - even going back centuries - a grandparent ( or aunt, or grandparent )  raising a young parents child is very common - but the need for it to be secret isn’t as strong as in others.  So whether or not future generations know Mary as Stella’s daughter or granddaughter - might depend on how much of their family history was recorded.

In family A , births outside of marriage are seen as extremely taboo - When 48 year old  Stella’s  16 year old daughter Ann gives birth to Mary, the family covers it up and presents Mary as Stella’s surprise change of life baby. Ann treats Mary as a sister. No one discusses it. 

In Family B . It’s a family upheaval when 16 year old Ann comes home pregnant, but the family adapts. Mary ends up being raised more by Grandma Stella, but the family and friends know Ann is the mother.  How it’s recorded for future generations to interpret would really depend on how well the family kept records. 

Does that make sense? 

Anecdotally, of course, but in my family, going back a long time, there have been various combinations of late in life pregnancies after a gap, pregnancies out of wedlock ( before it was the norm ) grandkids raised like kids - but acknowledged as the grandchild, and continual pregnancy  well into the late 40’s. And second or third groupings of children due to a new partner. 

But, of course, those are all outside the average. There are also, of course, some people who never had children - and whether that was by choice or circumstance is unknown. And, to go down yet another speculation path - there are quite a few families who had only A few kids - long before reliable birth control was a thing. How did people do that? Good at NFP? Switch to non-procreational sex ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.