|
Post by BigLoveRocks! on Feb 17, 2010 23:43:43 GMT -5
Adalene being pregnant with JJ would be hilarious... It would also be hilarious though if she somehow had gotten knocked up by Roman before his death and was already a few months along when marrying JJ?
|
|
|
Post by sarahbear on Feb 18, 2010 15:19:39 GMT -5
Gotta luv the idea of JJ stuck with Roman's baby!
|
|
|
Post by rhinestone_cowgirl on Feb 18, 2010 17:15:52 GMT -5
Hi
I've been doing my family tree and done it for a few friends on ancestry.com, what was really shocking for me was that contrary to popular belief; at least here in the UK most people didn't generally marry when they were really young in the past, unless you're talking the 1600s or earlier. In fact they often married later than in the modern era. I read something that said in 1800 the median marriage age was 29 which is what it has been again here; but only since the late 1990s. I kept coming across women getting married when they were very late 20s; with some marrying for the first time in their mid 30s or even late 30s, and several women both my direct ancestors and those of my friends had kids when they were 50+ I think the oldest i have come across so far was about 56; and it was a 'surprise' baby much younger than her other kids. At first I thought it was one of her daughters having a child out of wedlock and her parents raising that child as her own; but looking into it it did appear it really was her and her husband's child. Considering how much shorter the overall life expectancy was in those days; it would be like someone naturally having a child at 70 now. And while you can't always tell from the records; it seemed the majority of these kids born to really old mothers did not have any disability; as they all went on to marry and have children (and they used to write on the census here if someone had a disability).
In modern times there was a woman who naturally conceived and had a baby in Jersey (the Island off France; not New Jersey) at 59 about 10 years ago now.
Sophie
|
|
|
Post by kambria on Feb 19, 2010 1:34:37 GMT -5
Hi I've been doing my family tree and done it for a few friends on ancestry.com, what was really shocking for me was that contrary to popular belief; at least here in the UK most people didn't generally marry when they were really young in the past, unless you're talking the 1600s or earlier. In fact they often married later than in the modern era. I read something that said in 1800 the median marriage age was 29 which is what it has been again here; but only since the late 1990s. I kept coming across women getting married when they were very late 20s; with some marrying for the first time in their mid 30s or even late 30s, and several women both my direct ancestors and those of my friends had kids when they were 50+ I think the oldest i have come across so far was about 56; and it was a 'surprise' baby much younger than her other kids. At first I thought it was one of her daughters having a child out of wedlock and her parents raising that child as her own; but looking into it it did appear it really was her and her husband's child. Considering how much shorter the overall life expectancy was in those days; it would be like someone naturally having a child at 70 now. And while you can't always tell from the records; it seemed the majority of these kids born to really old mothers did not have any disability; as they all went on to marry and have children (and they used to write on the census here if someone had a disability). In modern times there was a woman who naturally conceived and had a baby in Jersey (the Island off France; not New Jersey) at 59 about 10 years ago now. Sophie That is interesting. I wouldn't even want to imagine being pregnant at 59!! That is some surprise!!
|
|
|
Post by marionj2 on Feb 19, 2010 17:19:50 GMT -5
I would buy into this theory. Initally i thought , ok adaleens got something big up her sleeve... but I am begining to doubt that at this point. This owuld make more sense of it. I have hard time with adaleen... one the one hand she is so storng willed, intelligent and independant. On the other, she beleives in the principle and her devotion to roman was because she truly beleived he was the prophet. I just can't figure her out at this point... or rathe rher motivation, as her beleifs and her core seem at odds to me.
|
|
|
Post by JJ77 on Feb 19, 2010 22:25:57 GMT -5
^^^WTF? !? ^^^^
The above post was mine, not marionj2's ... did the board screw up or did i ? No idea how i would have done that?!? Marionj2 any ideas ? did you post here? maybe i clicked the wrong tab (modify instead of reply?) I have no idea... If so I'm SORRY! No idea how to bring back your original post though if that is what happened.... unless your post was whats now in a quote box? If so, I'll fix it. again, sorry
|
|