Older fathers- what's realistic?

[Idontpostmuch]

Hi, question for anyone, but perhaps more suited to medical specialists or genealogists. We know men produce sperm throughout their lives, but that their fertility declines as they age. So how realistic is it that a man, who marries at age 60, should beget 7 children in close succession, between the ages of 60 and 68. Said man was my 5th great grandfather - or was he? Perhaps my 5th great grandmother had other sources of impregnation.

That's the frustrating thing about genealogy: you have the facts but not the human beings...

It's unusual, but I wouldn't rule it out as being impossible - cf, Robert De Niro's baby at 79, and the fact that there are seven babies in close succession. What was the boy/girl split? If there'd been a requirement to produce an heir, you could imagine a discreet arrangement continuing until a boy was born, but then stopping. Seven does suggest some enthusiasm!

There are a couple of babies born to strikingly old parents in my tree, but it's clearly an unmarried teen's child being passed off as a 'last baby', and it's a one-off. Are these children coming up on the census as part of the family, or is a cross reference with birth records? If the latter, is it definitely the same Joe Smith, or might it be another local Joe Smith with similar names/dates, but 20 years younger?

Thanks for your input. Too early for census, my 4th g grandmother having been born 1766. Good idea to consider boy/girl split. First 2 were girls, then a boy, then 2 girls, the second of whom was my ancestor, then the last 2 were boys. Perhaps one boy wasn't enough and a spare was wanted, but doesn't explain the youngest son.

If you can gather all seven children together as definitely being born to the same husband and wife, in the same place (maybe with gravestones that link them as a big family? Or baptism records?) then it sounds like it could just be a late and happy marriage! Occupation can have an influence too; obvs if there was land/property involved there was need of an heir, but rural families also required lads for farm work.

The problem I've run into when I go back that far is that there were clearly two branches of the family in the same town, and they all used the same names for their offspring, including reusing names when a child died in infancy. So although there's baptism records with the father (sometimes also mother) recorded, it's nearly impossible to untangle which child was born to which set of Joe and Jane Smiths, or how many children each Joe and Jane Smith had - it's the most insanely frustrating logic puzzle.

I think they were all born to the same parents. Father was the Honourable William Hay of Lawfield, grandson of 1st Marquess of Tweeddale, and mother Elizabeth Sinclare, daughter of Sir Robert Sinclare, 5th Baronet of Stevenson. William had inherited Estate due to death of elder brother, so, yes, perhaps they wanted to make sure of an heir. Yet my puzzlement is that a man of his age managed to produce so many. I know males of that age often do manage to have a child but if fertility is low, 7 suggests a lot of lucky chances. Of course, I'm assuming their fertility wanes in the same way as women's, with fewer cycles producing viable eggs. Perhaps it's more of an on/off switch for men. Perhaps if they can have one they can have more.

Male fertility declines but female fertility ends altogether. If a couple has regular sex without contraception and the woman is fertile the fact that the man is older isn't going to be a big factor in number of conceptions.
Also back then it was much more common for women to die in childbirth and men would then remarry to give the existing children a mother, and would often remarry a much younger woman who would go on to produce her own children from the union.
Nothing that you've described sounds unlikely to me.

My 72yr ggg grandfather married a neighbouring 21yr because he felt sorry for her. He apparently had 3 further children….

Yes, female fertility stops with menopause, but conception gets ever less likely in the run-up to menopause. As it declines the chances of conception in any one cycle are low. Male fertility continues, but lower, and if it's hit or miss as it is in the last possible yrs for women, it would be very unlikely for a man of that age to have so many children. He might manage some, but not 7. That's what I'm puzzling over.

A friend of mine who worked in health policy and had studied health statistics told me that the general view was that it's impossible to do meaningful health analysis back generations through the male line because once you go back to great grandfathers, there is a one in four chance that for someone in the family tree does have the biological father they think they do. Adultery, family members adopting the children of unwed young mothers as their own (as PP said), etc. Not an answer to your question but might be relevant!

Does NOT have the father they think they have, I mean.

The advent of popular DNA testing can be a help in determining whether a family tree is what it purports to be.

One of my great grandfathers was born in 1829. My theory on his fecundity (over a dozen children born to a much younger wife after he turned 55) was that the underwear of those days was a heck of a lot looser than it is now.

Yes, I'd guessed that was what you meant. Thanks 😀

That's a point. Isn't male fertility supposed to have fallen? Or perhaps the lack of TV and other distractions left more time for sex.

I would think it's more unlikely that a woman of any age would have that many children so close together given breastfeeding suppresses ovulation and a more likely natural spacing would be 18+ months. Possible with twins and wet nurses I suppose.

Well, that's what we're told. Yet with DS1 I breastfed for 20 months, and nothing but breastmilk for the first 6 months, so fully breastfed. Despite this I had my first period just 6 weeks after the birth. The post birth bleeding had only just stopped, and I thought it was just the bleeding starting up again. It was only when I had another period 26 days later that I realised the previous bleeding had been a period. I had regular periods the whole time I breastfed. I asked my health visitor and she said it was fairly common and urged me to use contraception. With DS2 I breastfed for 22 months, again nothing but breastmilk for the first 6 months. This time my first period came 4 months after birth, and continued to come regularly the whole time I breastfed. There were no twins born to the ancestors I referred to.

Curious, how old was his wife when they married?

@Idontpostmuch Mine were more like 6-8+ months.

As there are lots of larger families in my extended tree I had a quick look to see if there were any with such a close age range. I think I have found one so it is possible although the shorter age gaps follow infant death and twins for DC6&7. Obviously more modern and dad much younger and not aristocratic. The example is GGGM's sister.
Dad (1845-1901) a 'merchant'
Mum (1843-1915) married 1868

• DS1 (1868–1936)
• DS2 (1869–1924) (about 15.5 month gap)
• DS3 (1871–1929) (18 m gap)
• DS4 (1873–1873) (27m gap) died at 1m old
• DS5 (1874–1946) (19m gap)
• DS6 (1876–1876) (19m gap) died at 4m old
• DD7 (1876–1878) (twin)
• DS 8 (1878–1952) (29m gap)
• DS 9 (1881–1881) (32m gap)
• DS10 (1883–1923) (27m gap)

The smallest age gap between two children I've noticed recently is just under 12 months but the first child died at under 2 months. In that family the 7th child arrived 9 years after the first and the 14th (and last) nearly 24 years later when the parents were around 44 (Mother) and 48 (Father). 7 children in less than 8 years would be possible but fairly unlikely. Most of the families I've seen with 7+ children took at least 10-11 years from 1st to 7th and with some infant mortality.
[Edited for clarity]
Have you looked on WikiTree? There are some Scottish William Hays and Elizabeth Sinclaires listed in that era but may be different ones.

You will never really know as it's so long ago.

@LikeABat Thanks. That's helpful.

Possible that a wet nurse was employed Well off women in the main didn’t breast feed their babies. Partly because it was known to suppress ovulation & as many babies as possible were needed to ensure they made it to adulthood.

@mdinbc She was 25 and he was 59. It was apparently a second marriage for him, but I only know that from people posting on roots.com, but I haven't verified the first marriage. Apparently there were 2 children from first marriage that he disinherited.