Is this even physiologically possible?

Question

My 8th great grandparents were [[Darden-133|Jacob Darden]] and [[Hill-12907|Ann Bennett Hill]]. Ann was born c.1655. Her husband Jacob died bet. 14 Apr 1717 and 22 Jun 1719, when Ann was bet. 62 to 64 years of age. In his will, Jacob named all eight of his children - 7 sons and 1 daughter.

Now for the head-scratcher... According to Southside Virginia Families, Vol. 2, by John Bennett Boddie, after Jacob died Ann moved from Virginia to North Carolina and married a Mr. Leigh. Her will, dated 09 Aug 1732, names an additional 2 daughters not named in Jacob's will, thereby suggesting that they were born of her marriage to Mr. Leigh, and each of these 2 daughters are married and have children which are also named in the will of Ann Leigh.

By my calculations, if the 2 daughters were by Ann's supposed second marriage then (1) Ann would have given birth twice after the age of 62 or 64 years of age, (2) the two daughters would have been no older than 15 years of age when Ann wrote her will, and (3) they would have already been married and bearing children before reaching 15 years of age.

While the will of Ann Leigh, dated 09 Aug 1732 in Bertie, NC, does name sons Joseph and Samuel Darden (Jacob had sons by those names, as well), it completely dismisses the other 5 sons and 1 daughter that Ann had with Jacob - and yes, most were still alive when Ann Leigh wrote her will. Personally, I believe that Mr. Boddie saw the names of the two Darden sons, and that their mother was named Ann, and immediately assumed that Ann was the widow of Jacob Darden.

Comments

As to the possibility of Ann giving birth twice after the age of 62-64, while nothing is impossible I'd give this, on a biological probability scale of 0 to 10, about a 0.0001.

Very late pregnancies in ancestry research are always a red flag for me; I think it calls a lot of published genealogies into question.

A woman's optimal reproductive years--purely from the aspect of likelihood of successful pregnancy--are from the late teens to the mid- to late-20s. The chances of getting pregnant, called the fecundity rate, is variable on an individual level throughout life, but on average, for any given month, it's about 25% between ages 20 to 30.

At or around age 35 that rate dips to about 10%; but in today's environment--medically and nutritionally--1 in 5 women will still have their first child after age 35. By age 40 the fecundity rate continues to decline, and the risks of genetic anomalies increase...not from the germline DNA--all of a woman's eggs, as oocytes, are generated at the same time, while she herself is still a fetus--but from possible, physical chromosomal damage during the final phases of meiosis and early mitosis (the oocyte is held in the metaphase stage of meiosis II until after ovulation and fertilization).

By age 45, natural pregnancy, meaning without fertility drugs or other intervention (not available until after circa WWII), is unlikely. Menopause can occur as early as 42 and as late as 56 or 57, but the average age is around 51.

Any pre-1950 natural childbirth after age 55 is highly questionable as a genealogical fact. Any birth at age 60 or later is almost certainly inaccurate.

---

That's pretty much what I was thinking. And I'm also thinking that the chances of two daughters both under the age of 15 being married and having children are, well... pretty close to nil.

---

Actually, early onset menopause can occur any time, but more often in the mid to late 30s, to early 40s.

---

Yep, Melanie. There can be a lot of variance in the earliest reasonable dates to consider as the later ages at which it's reasonable to expect a woman had surviving children. And while I have no data in front of me, I would expect those ages to be more likely on the younger side 200 years ago and longer than they are now. We simply didn't have the nutritional, medical, and wellness care we've had in more recent decades.

And you're right: when I see late-life maternity, I tend to look at it on a sliding scale. A woman has a child at age 50 in 1990? Sure; it happens. I think there were several hundreds of U.S. births in the late '90s to women 50 or older. But I have no idea how many of those involved fertility drugs or donor eggs and in vitro fertilization.

It would be interesting if there were a reliable reference to documented births in the 19th century and earlier to women 50 or older. I'll bet we could count the total in fewer than dozens. And while there may have been a couple of them pre-20th century, I think age 55 is a realistically conservative place to put a marker and say, "Nope; most likely didn't happen. Claims otherwise need serious corroboration."

(And I need to apologize to Roy. I don't know a thing about the genealogy and paper-trail side of his scenario, which is why I spouted a long comment rather than an answer. I only know a little bit about the biology.)

---

It's very likely that the two additional daughters married before their father died and were given their portion of his estate when they married.  That was very common.  I would look for deeds naming their husbands.

---

i agree with Kathie.  That is the most likely scenario biologically.

Socially, there is always the possibility that these were somewhat adopted daughters, biological grandchildren of Ann or of either of her husbands (i.e. from a child of her second husband and his first wife).

---

Yeah, the odds of conceiving and giving birth in her 60s are EXTREMELY low.

---

Edison... No apology is necessary. I actually enjoyed the lengthy and detailed response that you provided so much that I made a copy of it to add to my records as supporting opinion (with credits, of course) towards why I am not buying into Mr. Boddie's published theory.

Kathie... If a child has been given his or her share before the writing of the will, that is normally mentioned in the will. There is a reason for doing so--it prevents children from making claims against the estate of the testator after decease. That's why, also, it is common to see wills in which legatees are bequeathed miniscule inheritances such as "1 shilling". Such petty bequethal protect the testator's legatees from claims against their shares of the estate.

Answer 1

This answer is no better than the comments, but I'll add it as an answer to keep it separate.

Physiologically possible, I'd say no. Not knowing about the research and the quality of the sources, my first inclination is to say maybe there was a daughter of the same name, and this caused confusion at some point in time, or some other error in data or research.

Another thought, could they be Leigh's kids before he married (her step-kids), or grandchildren she adopted because of a death of a child.

Finally, I suspect that in some cases, a mother will claim she's the mother when really she's covering for an unwed teen daughter. (Easier to do when pregnancies were generally not announced, and people gave birth at home). But I don't think anybody would believe that for somebody in their 60's in the 1700's.

Side note, there was a woman, I think in Italy maybe 5 years ago, that gave birth in her 60's, due to the help of fertility treatments. There was a big discussion at the time of the ethics of having children at that age.

Comments

I considered the possibility of the two children being Mr. Leigh's from a previous marriage. However, the will of Ann Leigh completely omits even the mention of six of Ann's children. If Ann Leigh and Ann (Hill) Darden were the same person, by omitting the other children from her will completely she left her named legatees open to potential claims against their shares of Ann's estate. That is why wills are often seen where legatees receive "1 shilling", or where the testator expressly states "if they try to make a claim against my estate, give them each a dollar".

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that Ann would carry those other six children in her womb for 9 months each (54 months total), go through the birthing pains with each of them, raise them to adulthood, then completely abandon them in her will so that the children of another woman can have her estate.

---

i agree with you that it is safer legally if all potential beneficiaries are named, even if only to give them a shilling, or, as i've also seen, to mention that they've already received something substantial, such as a farm. And it is certainly much better for us, trying to sort it out at a distance of a century or two! I've also seen wills where they didn't mention the adult children who were already well established.  So i would suggest that this is another case where absence of proof is not the same thing as proof of absence.  If anything, it could indicate that the testator was peaceful in his/her conviction that the descendants would not fight over the will. (hope it turned out that way!  If not, there might be court records that would be useful to a family historian....)