40 year old woman giving birth in the 1700s?

[Peter Spering]

Hello all, I've realized something that feels odd. I've gotten to the point where a woman on my tree (Mary Evans b. 1742/m. 1758) supposedly gave birth to a daughter (Anne Griffiths) in 1782, putting her at 40 y/o. Could this really be? I would have thought 40 would be too old to give birth in those days. 

Thanks in advance.

[Erato]

I don't think human physiology has changed since the 1700s.  It is possible now and it was possible then.

[Milliepede]

I don't see why not if she was a healthy woman but have no expertise in that area.

[Peter Spering]

I don't think human physiology has changed since the 1700s.  It is possible now and it was possible then.

Yeah but health and life expectancy has surely improved. I've seen women labelled as spinsters at 21 during those days.

[BumbleB]

All females are spinsters until they marry - at whatever age 

[Milliepede]

You can be a spinster at any age if you are unmarried.

[jaybelnz]

Probably more so then than now!  No movies, no TV, no computer so no FH research  No birth control as we know it!  I have several ancestors who were still giving birth well into their forties, some who started in their teens and had huge families! And as Erato says, the physiology hasn't changed!

Jeanne 😄

[BumbleB]

I've also got at least once ancestor giving birth around the age of 40.  One, born 1742, married at the age of 25, husband died in 1774, and she went on to have two more children, the last one in 1780.

[Erato]

The lady in my avatar is my ggg-grandmother.  She was born in 1789 in Maine and had twelve children, the last one born in 1834 when she was 45 years old.  All of them survived to adulthood.  She died in 1866.