This is so true, my dear SIL was told by her mother she couldnt conceive when breastfeeding, and her second daughter was born on her first daughter's first birthday. I also know a pair of siblings only 8 months apart, because the second child was concieved about 6 weeks after the birth of the first one and was born early. I could tell more tales but they arent for this list. So alhtough medics tell women it is good to wait at least year before trying for another baby, many people have had another child within the year Liz >Hi Keith, > >I don't think you can have such a set time frame between the birth of one >child and the next. > >My older sister is thirteen months older than I am. > >My two youngest children have eleven months between them. I too believed >the old wives tales that if you were feeding a child, you wouldn't become >pregnant. Wrong....... > >Sometimes the hand of fate intervenes with us mere mortals:-)) > >Kind regards, >Yvonne > > >> >When researching large families in the mid to late 1500s where there is >good >information on baptism dates, you can get a succession of children with >notionally the same father which I, at least, have merely recorded without >really looking at the time difference between the given baptism dates. > >A fact that has escaped me until now is that there are real physical >constraints preventing births being too close to each other. > >We all know about the gestation period being about 266 days or 38 weeks or >about 9 months. I obviously thought there must be a period of time for the >mother to recover. But when I asked my wife about it, I was surprised to >learn (males just don't think about these things) that at least 6 months >was >required. Making enquiries on the Net I found that this is because whether >the mother breast feeds the baby or not, the very act of giving birth means >that there is a lactation period which acts as a contraceptive. For the >first 6 months it is 98% effective, after 6 months the risk of getting >pregnant gradually increases. > >This is important information for genealogists. Assuming that baptisms take >place a few days after births, it means that from the birth of one baby, >there is a lactation period of 6 months, conception, gestation of 9 months, >and baptism - i.e. at least 1 year 3 months > >I recorded these baptisms for one father: > >(Children baptised, time between this child's baptism and the next baptism >in years, months and days) >Between A and B, 2y 5m 0d >Between B and C, 3y 1m 23d >Between C and D, 2y 0m 19d >between D and E, 1y 4m 15d >Between E and F, 3y 3m 3d >Between F and G, 1y 2m 3d - query >Between G and H, 1y 10m 1d >Between H and I, 1y 3m 20d >Between I and J, 2y 1m 8d >Between J and K, 1y 7m 3d >Between K and L, 3y 0m 24d >Between L and M, 1y 2m 19d - query >M is the final baptism > >There was a burial of someone with the family surname just before the >baptism of B. Let's call him Z. Z may have died very young; there is no >baptism record for him. However using the criteria above: 6 months >lactation, 9 months gestation, 6 months lactation, 9 months gestation which >amounts to 2y 6m, there is insufficient time between A and B for Z to have >been born. Z therefore is probably an older member of the family or a child >in a different line. > >Moreover, looking at the data above, it is doubtful that both G and M had >the same father as the rest of the children. > >The question is have I made some false assumptions along the way, or have I >not taken other factors into account? >~~ >Keith Griffiths ><< > > > > > >==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >Going away for a while? >Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! >[email protected] >