Is it possible to have a baby at 51?

[benny1982]

Hi

My great great great grandmother was born on 24 December 1835, baptised on 24th April 1836 in Shoreditch, London, the last child of John & Elizabeth Auber nee Helsdon. The penultimate child John George Auber was born in June 1827.

Elizabeth Auber nee Helsdon was born in July 1784 in Bethnal Greem daur of Dennis & Susan Helsdon. She wed John Auber in October 1806. The dates of births of the children are as follows:-

1 December 1806
9 November 1808
9 November 1810
3 May 1813
29 December 1815
3 January 1818
11 July 1820
22 February 1822
8 September 1824
May or June 1827 (as the last one was bap in June but no dob listed)
24 December 1835.

There is an 8 year gap between the penultimate and final child. Elizabeth would have been 51.

Emma Auber, born 3 May 1813 had 4 illegitimate children in Sep 1840, May 1843, Aug 1850 and March 1855. She lied on all their birth registrations. The first two she says the father is Joseph Auber, a carpenter, and her maiden name is Obey in 1840 and Auber formerly Auber in 1843. The 1850 and 1855 births say father is Henry Auber, carpenter, mother Emma Auber formely Helsdon, and the 1855 birth says John Auber carpenter, and Emma Auber formely Helsdon.

I am still awaiting an 1846 birth cert of another possible child Emily Amelia Auber.

Emma says she is a widow in 1851 and 1861 census yet this is untrue. When Elizabeth Auber, Johns wife died in 1858, Emma registered the death and her 1858 address ties in with her 1861 census address of Europia Place, St Lukes.

Clara was given Emma as a middle name on her baptism in 1836. Obviously after Emma born in 1813, her older sister.

Any ideas please?

Ben

 

[jon attwood]

I can't say for sure (actually no one can, these things generally werent recorded), but perhaps some of those children were actually grandchildren?
it wasn't uncommon for a child born out of wedlock to be raised by its grandparents, sometimes the birth would be registered to them as well.
perhaps the Emma you mentioned had a child or two out of wedlock and had them brought up by and registered to her parents, you don't say when Elizabeth died, was it before the first child registered with Emma as the mother?, if so it could be that she had given previous children to her mother but now had no choice but to register them as her own?
this is all guesswork of course, just suggesting an idea. no idea how to follow it up and find the facts though

jon

 

[duckweed]

I had a friend who had a baby at that age to her and her husbands great shock. So it is possible if rare.

 

[benny1982]

Hi

Elizabeth Auber died in 1858 aged 73 when Emma was 44 and Clara was 22.

After Clara was born in 1835 Emma had a son born in 1840, 1843 possibly 1846, 1850 and 1855. She then acknowledged them as her own but lied on their birth certs.

The gap between the 1827 penultimate child and the 1835 clast hild is a bit weird.

By 1840, Elizabeth would have been 56 and when Edwin was born in 1840, Emma had left the family home and was at a seperate address to her parents John & Elizabeth. Could that be why she didnt get anyone to cover up, because she was at a seperate address? Both Clara and Emma are missing from the 1841 census.

The 1855 child was given his uncle Johns name as father. It was actually a John George Auber who registered the birth, and Emma brother was John George Auber. So she got a relative to cover up then.

Any further ideas?

Ben