Longest timespan of parent and child?

[Davedrave]

I should think that we are all pretty used by now to hearing the phrase "we are all living longer now" and I'm sure that as a general rule it is true enough. But it did set me to idly wondering what was the longest timespan Rootschat users had found in their family history, covering the period from the birth of a parent to the death of whichever child surived the longest. Clearly this depends upon both the age at which the parent's child was born and the lifespan of the child.

I have one case where the father was baptised in 1697 (allowing for double dating in the record) and the daughter died in 1835, which makes about 138 years give or take a few months.


AMENDED

Sorry, I did mean to say "...and whose child died before the end of the C19th".

[groom]

I've got almost 137 and still going!

My aunt's father was born on 3rd July 1879 and his daughter (my aunt) will be 100 in August.

[rosie99]

153 years and onwards ...

My grandfather was born 17 February 1863, one of his children age 90 is still living.

[ScouseBoy]

Much of this depends on the age at which parents have children.  100 years ago families  tended to have five or more children, spread over perhaps 16 or twenty years.

When those children had children 70 years ago,  the tendency at that stage was to have one child only.  That is what happened in my families, anyway.

[Davedrave]

That's great! So the 90 year old must have been born when her father was around 63, whilst the 100 year old was born to a younger father and is it probably unlikely that their combined figure will reach 153.
One of my ancestors had his first child at age 58 and five more until he was nearly 70, but none were especially long lived.

Sorry, I've realised that there is something I missed out though:

I mean't to put "child who died before the end of the C19th", so that we can somewhat discount the effects of modern medicine.

(I've now amended the post)

[LizzieL]

We should be looking at longest timespan of father and child separately from mother and child. A man could father children into his seventies, perhaps even eighties, whereas a woman is unlikely to bear a child after 50

[Davedrave]

We should be looking at longest timespan of father and child separately from mother and child. A man could father children into his seventies, perhaps even eighties, whereas a woman is unlikely to bear a child after 50

I agree from a technical point of view. What really interests me about this topic is the thought that theoretically memories of an event could be passed on across a very long timespan via just one intermediary.

[Davedrave]

Much of this depends on the age at which parents have children.  100 years ago families  tended to have five or more children, spread over perhaps 16 or twenty years.

When those children had children 70 years ago,  the tendency at that stage was to have one child only.  That is what happened in my families, anyway.

It certainly depends on age of parent. One of my ancestors had his first child aged 58. His eldest son fathered his first child at 22, young by the standards of this family (in the C18th) and possibly a reaction to having had such an elderly father, who died not long after his last child was born (worn out! ).

[ScouseBoy]

As mentioned in another thread, some people suspect that sometimes  when a young girl or woman had an illegitimate child, then the girls own parents would take on the baby  as their own.     One never knows.