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

[singsingsing]

33 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

 

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 ? 

Yes, I have instances of both scenarios happening in my family. I'm talking about secret adoptions in the context of a 49-year-old woman claiming that a newborn baby is hers. In that case, if the baby is actually not her biological child, it would be a secret adoption. But it absolutely happened where a daughter, sister, niece, or even another member of the community got pregnant, an older woman adopted the child, and it was fully known. But in that case, it wouldn't look like a 49-year-old woman gave birth to a child.

Again, yes, it can happen. 49-year-old women can have babies. Apparently I've been super unclear about what I'm actually saying, so I want to make sure that I'm not unintentionally misleading people as to my meaning. When I say that it's more likely that a 49-year-old woman whose next youngest child is 8 or 10, who suddenly has a newborn baby, has actually adopted someone else's baby (often but not necessarily her daughter's), I'm not saying that every woman in her late 40s who has another baby after a lengthy gap is actually the child's grandmother. I'm saying it's more likely to be the case, but not necessarily. I'm saying be skeptical, especially if you're using it to bolster a claim that many women in their late 40s can have babies. It may be that many of those women had actually adopted those babies. But not all of them.

[elliha]

1 hour ago, 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.

A woman who is older will have lower fertility so gaps will almost always be larger. An older woman is more likely to not get her period back while breastfeeding so gaps may be even longer by not ending breastfeeding. Here is from the article I refer to:

"Statistiken visar att det var nästan tio gånger vanligare att 40‑44‑åriga kvinnor fick barn i början på 1870‑talet än idag och bland 1800‑talets 45‑49‑åriga kvinnor var det 20 gånger vanligare." This quote says: Statistics show that it was almost 10 times more common for 40-44 year old women to have babies at the beginning of the 1870s than today and among the 45-49 year olds of the 1800s it was 20 times more common. 

 

[singsingsing]

Just now, elliha said:

A woman who is older will have lower fertility so gaps will almost always be larger. An older woman is more likely to not get her period back while breastfeeding so gaps may be even longer by not ending breastfeeding. Here is from the article I refer to:

"Statistiken visar att det var nästan tio gånger vanligare att 40‑44‑åriga kvinnor fick barn i början på 1870‑talet än idag och bland 1800‑talets 45‑49‑åriga kvinnor var det 20 gånger vanligare." This quote says: Statistics show that it was almost 10 times more common for 40-44 year old women to have babies at the beginning of the 1870s than today and among the 45-49 year olds of the 1800s it was 20 times more common. 

Yes, I'm well aware of that. But more common absolutely does not mean common. Of course it was more common for women age 45-49 to have babies in the 1800s than today. It was more common for women to have babies in general. Also, what are these statistics based on? Are they looking at genealogical records or vital statistics like birth registrations? Because if more women in the 1870s were adopting the babies of younger family members and registering the births as their own, the statistics will be skewed. It also matters a lot what '20 times more common' even means - what are the chances of a 49-year-old having a baby today? 1%? .5%? .01%? If a 49-year-old woman today has a .01% chance of having a baby today and in the 1870s it was a .2% chance, that obviously doesn't mean it was ever likely for a 49-year-old woman to have a baby at that time.

[singsingsing]

Not to derail the discussion, but do we know who these people are?

Obviously there's Jeremiah (? I hope I have the right twin, haha), and Elijah, but I don't recognize the others. Of course people are always speculating about potential courtships (myself included, let's be real), but I'm wondering if they're from any of the families we follow here. 

[tabitha2]

That one at the left... Those arms I find fundies produce beautiful daughters but average looking or less than sons for some reason but he is yummy! 

[singsingsing]

After creeping Elijah's Instagram a little, I actually think the girl closest to the wall might be his sister, but I'm not 100% sure.

[SweetJuly]

I vote courtship!

Need the twin double-wedding to score at the Duggar Predicition Competition.

 

[HereticHick]

9 minutes ago, SweetJuly said:

I vote courtship!

Need the twin double-wedding to score at the Duggar Predicition Competition.

 

What we need is a Duggar twin double wedding, and during the reception, a married Duggar will announce that...they are expecting twins.

[Mama Mia]

1 hour ago, singsingsing said:

Yes, I'm well aware of that. But more common absolutely does not mean common. Of course it was more common for women age 45-49 to have babies in the 1800s than today. It was more common for women to have babies in general. Also, what are these statistics based on? Are they looking at genealogical records or vital statistics like birth registrations? Because if more women in the 1870s were adopting the babies of younger family members and registering the births as their own, the statistics will be skewed. It also matters a lot what '20 times more common' even means - what are the chances of a 49-year-old having a baby today? 1%? .5%? .01%? If a 49-year-old woman today has a .01% chance of having a baby today and in the 1870s it was a .2% chance, that obviously doesn't mean it was ever likely for a 49-year-old woman to have a baby at that time.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that it’s common for women in their late 40’s to get pregnant - now or in the past. Nor is anyone disagreeing that secret adoptions with grandchildren passed off as children hasn’t been a thing.

just questioning how you would know which is MORE likely? And that it would likely vary among time periods/ cultures/ etc......

[singsingsing]

12 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

I don’t think anyone is arguing that it’s common for women in their late 40’s to get pregnant - now or in the past. Nor is anyone disagreeing that secret adoptions with grandchildren passed off as children hasn’t been a thing.

just questioning how you would know which is MORE likely? And that it would likely vary among time periods/ cultures/ etc......

I don't know with scientific certainty that it's more likely. That would be very difficult, if not impossible, to actually assess (because how do you prove a 49-year-old woman 200 years ago actually gave birth to a baby rather than adopting? In the vast majority of cases, you can't). All I know is that it's always been very unusual for a woman in her late 40s to have a baby, and there are many, many instances of women of a similar age adopting their grandchildren/nieces/nephews/etc. The point is that if you come across a woman in your family tree who suddenly has a new baby at the age of 49, you should be skeptical and consider other possibilities. Secret adoptions were relatively common, whereas having a baby at that age was quite uncommon. Not impossible. Not unheard of. Just uncommon. And that's my only point.

And I'm really going to have to bow out of this debate now. Others are obviously more than welcome to keep discussing it, but I've said everything I can possibly say on the matter, and it's getting to the point where I'm going in circles and entering dead parrot territory!

[Cheetah]

1 hour ago, singsingsing said:

Not to derail the discussion, but do we know who these people are?

Obviously there's Jeremiah (? I hope I have the right twin, haha), and Elijah, but I don't recognize the others. Of course people are always speculating about potential courtships (myself included, let's be real), but I'm wondering if they're from any of the families we follow here. 

Who is Elijah?  Is that one of the Bates boys?  

[singsingsing]

Just now, Cheetah said:

Who is Elijah?  Is that one of the Bates boys?  

He's one of those family friends who comes and stays with them for extended periods of time. He seems to be close to both the Duggars and the Bateses. I'm actually not sure how they know him - I'm assuming his family is involved in ATI/IBLP. 

[Carm_88]

Oh Pregnancy stats! I love them! Here's my big Catholic Family!

GM #1: 20 at birth of first child!

Fall 1945, Summer 1948, Summer 1950, Summer 1952,  Late Fall 1953, Miscarriage 1955, Fall 1956, Winter 1958, Winter 1960, Late Fall 1961, Fall 1963

20 at first birth and 38 at the time her last child was born.

GM #2: Just 19 at Birth of First Child

Spring 1948, Summer 1949, Summer 1950, Late Fall 1951, Late Fall 1954, Summer 1956, Winter 1958,  Fall 1959, Late Spring 1961, Summer 1962, Late Summer 1963, Late Fall 1965, Late Winter 1967, and finally Early Fall 1971.

19 at first birth and 42 at the time her last child was born.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 hours ago, singsingsing said:

I’m not accusing any of your great-great-aunts personally of having secret babies out of wedlock. I promise.

All of my ancestral great aunts going back through time are wildly offended.

How dare you not give them credit for all their out of wedlock babies! 

 

[JermajestyDuggar]

1 hour ago, HereticHick said:

What we need is a Duggar twin double wedding, and during the reception, a married Duggar will announce that...they are expecting twins.

Preferably JD since he’s a twin. But I know a higher chance of twinning is only passed down to daughters. 

[melon]

1 minute ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Preferably JD since he’s a twin. But I know higher chances of twinning is only passed down to daughters. 

Yes,my OB-Gyn told me that if I had a daughter,she may have twins,not me.

Both of Mr Melon's grandmothers had a set of twins.

[JermajestyDuggar]

Oh and Bobby Darin was raised by his grandmother believing she was his mother. His mother was an unmarried teen mom and he thought she was his sister until he was an adult. 

[HereticHick]

1 hour ago, singsingsing said:

He's one of those family friends who comes and stays with them for extended periods of time. He seems to be close to both the Duggars and the Bateses. I'm actually not sure how they know him - I'm assuming his family is involved in ATI/IBLP. 

Elijah Kaneshiro, right? https://www.instagram.com/hawaiiansurfingboy/ 

 

[JermajestyDuggar]

Those girls don’t look like Elijah’s sisters. I don’t recognize them. 

Also I would bet $1000 that the three on the left side are siblings. They all look alike. 

The strawberry blonde on the right is tagged as Nathaniel Hutson. Likely Sarah Hutson’s brother. They look alike too.

[TeaELSee]

1 hour ago, singsingsing said:

I don't know with scientific certainty that it's more likely. That would be very difficult, if not impossible, to actually assess (because how do you prove a 49-year-old woman 200 years ago actually gave birth to a baby rather than adopting? I

I’ve mentioned this before, my grandma had a baby when she was 50, (1960’s) it was of course unplanned, it had been 16 & 23 years since she had her other children with a total of 3 kids.  She kind of had 3 only children. My Aunt is more like a cousin since I am a few years older than her. I’m in my 50’s now and I can’t fathom how my grandparents handled that!

 She isn’t adopted, she is the spitting image of my Mom and Grandmother. It’s super rare, but I know firsthand that it does happen.

eta: I saw pictures of her pregnant! Lol

[Rachel333]

This made me go poke around in my own family tree. It is interesting to see how many women kept having babies steadily until their mid-40s.

I also found out where my surname comes from. We had always wondered, and thought it was probably just a patronymic. I noticed, though, that some of my ancestors inherited their mother's surname. It turns out that my ancestors were from a region where they often used the name of the farm they lived on as their surname rather than using patronymics, which can be confusing since that meant they might use a different surname if they moved. It also meant that if a man moved in with his wife he took her name. Anyway, I found a quote from the village records that mentioned two of my ancestors as living on a farm called [my surname] (albeit spelled slightly differently).

So nothing too exciting, but it solved a question my family had long wondered about. My dad was very interested to learn about it and was going to tell the rest of his family. And it was prompted by a thread drift here!

[justodd]

1 hour ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Oh and Bobby Darin was raised by his grandmother believing she was his mother. His mother was an unmarried teen mom and he thought she was his sister until he was an adult. 

I believe the same happened with Jack Nicholson. 

[Carm_88]

1 minute ago, justodd said:

I believe the same happened with Jack Nicholson. 

Yes, it did.

That happened a lot in my Dad's extended family. I'm still trying to figure out who was the mother of who and who was reared by their grandmother and grandfather.

[MoonFace]

20 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I can do a breakdown of a comparison of how many children were conceived in 20s/30s/40s and you’ll see a stark difference in the numbers. Fertility in your early forties is typically not like your fertility in your 20s and 30s. 

Had a neighbor who thought she was through menopause when she had her last kid at age 49.   She was not a happy preggo at all. 

[Screamapillar]

This discussion is making me so happy that I permanently closed down the baby factory after #2. No surprise menopause babies for me in 15 years, thank Rufus.