Very interesting. In my family we have a couple of ‘missed’ generations when the men in the family were older when they married. My great grandfather was 55 and his wife was 31, which was unusual in 1900.
Really interesting, thank you. I must take some time to look more closely at mine. I have instances in my maternal family where children are the same age as their uncles so generations have become blurred.
I just got a chance to sit down and read this - very good reasoning. I went through my all male (until me) line and got (quickly sketched out, so hopefully the math holds up to scrutiny):
-John Prater, 487 years, 16 generations (all males), *30.4* years average
-In contrast, the shorter (more recent) line that married that one had a shorter generational average: Elizabeth (Crager) England, 170 years, 7 generations (5 male, 2 female), *24.3* years average
-From my other side: Thomas Lincoln, 377 years, 12 generations (4 females, 8 males), *31.4* years average
I’ve been using the 25 year calculation and this makes a good case for 31. I have women who had children (who loved to adulthood) as old as 46 years old which astounded me. These were recorded by state or city birth certificates for mother and child so I take them as true dates
It is quite possible for women to have children in their 40s, but they have usually had children before then. We don’t often see it nowadays because women start birth control once they have had children. It seems to be much harder to have a first child in your 40s.
I feel vindicated. With a total of 52 males and 19 females, I would expect an average of about 33, and you got 32.17. Pretty close. Thanks for commenting and correcting! I would love for a math wizard to weigh in on this.
Very interesting. In my family we have a couple of ‘missed’ generations when the men in the family were older when they married. My great grandfather was 55 and his wife was 31, which was unusual in 1900.
Really interesting, thank you. I must take some time to look more closely at mine. I have instances in my maternal family where children are the same age as their uncles so generations have become blurred.
I just got a chance to sit down and read this - very good reasoning. I went through my all male (until me) line and got (quickly sketched out, so hopefully the math holds up to scrutiny):
-John Prater, 487 years, 16 generations (all males), *30.4* years average
-In contrast, the shorter (more recent) line that married that one had a shorter generational average: Elizabeth (Crager) England, 170 years, 7 generations (5 male, 2 female), *24.3* years average
-From my other side: Thomas Lincoln, 377 years, 12 generations (4 females, 8 males), *31.4* years average
I’ve been using the 25 year calculation and this makes a good case for 31. I have women who had children (who loved to adulthood) as old as 46 years old which astounded me. These were recorded by state or city birth certificates for mother and child so I take them as true dates
It is quite possible for women to have children in their 40s, but they have usually had children before then. We don’t often see it nowadays because women start birth control once they have had children. It seems to be much harder to have a first child in your 40s.
Jean Champion #414#11 38 #11 males 0 females
Richard Dana # 342 # 9 38 #8 males 1 female
Paul Cudmore # 345 # 11 31 #10 males 1 females
Randulfus Mainwaring # 929 # 27 34 #15 males 12 females
Jean Grant # 254 # 8 32 #4 males 4 females
Average across those 4 lines is 34.61
I realise I did my count wrong - results should be
Jean Champion #414#12 34.5 #12 males 0 females
Richard Dana # 342 # 10 34.2 #9 males 1 female
Paul Cudmore # 345 # 12 28.8 #11 males 1 females
Randulfus Mainwaring # 929 # 28 33.2 #16 males 12 females
Jean Grant # 254 # 9 32 #4 males 5 females
The average is 32.17
I feel vindicated. With a total of 52 males and 19 females, I would expect an average of about 33, and you got 32.17. Pretty close. Thanks for commenting and correcting! I would love for a math wizard to weigh in on this.
Anne, I'm surprised that there is more variation than I would have thought. I wonder if it is dependent on ethnic or cultural affiliation?