General Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

You're never too old

Page 2 + 1 of 6

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

David

David Report 12 Sep 2019 17:12


Keep it in the family is a term springs to mind.

+++DetEcTive+++

+++DetEcTive+++ Report 12 Sep 2019 16:05

JoyLouise, the linked article said that the child was to be the woman's son & his (male) partner's. The partner's sister donated the egg while the son's contribution fertilized it. A lovely & loving way to combine their DNA.

Kense

Kense Report 12 Sep 2019 15:37

Thank you Joy, that sounds reasonable.

JoyLouise

JoyLouise Report 12 Sep 2019 15:33

Kense, without checking, I'd hazard a guess at no one after the age of mid-fifties.

I reckoned with the menopause sometimes being as late as mid-fifties and most women being thoroughly worn out well before that age in the nineteenth century they would struggle to carry a baby to full term.

My own inclination would be not beyond fifty because of those same circumstances.

I await correction. ;-) :-D

Kense

Kense Report 12 Sep 2019 11:38

I didn't say you shouldn't have an opinion Barbara. I just pointed out that this topic should be allowed on this site. It shouldn't be reported.

On my tree there are a couple of women who supposedly had babies when aged fifty or so. Does anyone know what would be the oldest a woman could have been, to have a baby in the nineteenth century?

JoyLouise

JoyLouise Report 12 Sep 2019 11:25

Det, the American woman carried the baby for her daughter who had no children, I believe. I admire her decision - selfless and loving.

The other case has made me realise that it was our generation who spawned the 'me generation'. :-(

+++DetEcTive+++

+++DetEcTive+++ Report 12 Sep 2019 11:13

There is no upper age for IVF treatment in Britain, although the NHS will generally only support treatment for women up to the age of 42. In Spain there is no maximum age limit but most clinics will treat women up to the age of 50.15 Oct 2017
https://www.thetimes.co.uk › article

That’s why many older British women go abroad for the procedure.

We can’t really compare the American woman with the Indian. The former was acting as a surrogate, with no intention of being a 24/7 carer, whereas as the latter was doing it for herself.

JoyLouise

JoyLouise Report 12 Sep 2019 11:11

Of course you're allowed an opinion, Barbra, as is everyone.

I don't know the royal family but I do think the Queen has set a good example of how a figurehead ought to behave. The others could do worse than follow her example.

As far as government is concerned, who is governing? A right shower, if you ask me.

My honest opinion on the old lady and the baby subject (if it is a true story) is that some folks are just plain barmy and I'd think the same wherever it happened. They have lost their noodles!

Barbra

Barbra Report 12 Sep 2019 11:02

Am I not allowed an opinion if you don't like Royal family up to you as for politics .I don't go there to much it's up to PM & Goverment to do there job if they ever resolve situation & the subject here is still awfull old lady having a baby .shouldn't have been allowed.would it have happened in this country ? PS this is general chat board .

JoyLouise

JoyLouise Report 12 Sep 2019 10:59

Agreed, Kense and La Gooner. :-D :-D

David, I think Sarah has earned the right to slumber peacefully - the sleep of the righteous ... and all that. Don't you?

LaGooner

LaGooner Report 12 Sep 2019 10:32

And it makes a change from political Clap Trap

Kense

Kense Report 12 Sep 2019 09:26

Why shouldn't it be on the boards? It is a more relevant topic for a genealogical site than Harry & Meghan.

Barbra

Barbra Report 11 Sep 2019 22:07

Why is this on the boards what life is that child going to have .unbelievable .!!

Bobtanian

Bobtanian Report 11 Sep 2019 22:01

Yes Dermot I remember OF the Dionne quins,

although very vaguely....think there was some kind of film made of the event....

David

David Report 11 Sep 2019 20:29


By the way, my only reason for mentioning Sarah and Abraham was was rheir

advanced age and the fact that Sarah was barren (OT)

No offence was intended by me to any one..

Caroline

Caroline Report 11 Sep 2019 19:02

Yes but they had no life at all taken away and used like circus animals.

Just seen OP and why that was reported is beyond any sane person reasoning.

Dermot

Dermot Report 11 Sep 2019 18:23

As an aside - does anyone remember the Dionne identical quintuplets (all girls) born in Canada, c.1934.

Nature itself throws up an occasional eye-opening event.

Island

Island Report 11 Sep 2019 15:32

Likewise Margaret - it's back again! GR glitch or a desperate member? :-S

supercrutch

supercrutch Report 11 Sep 2019 14:32

Bob's post with the story URL creeps me out TBH.

MargaretM

MargaretM Report 11 Sep 2019 14:25

You spoke too soon, Island, it's been RR'd again.