First girl in family after 101 years!!

[foxymrsg]

Baby Poppy breaks family's 101-year run of baby boys - ITV News

[Kittybear]

I read this in the Mail yesterday. Very nice for them esp. As she was their 3rd child and the dad says that his wife desperately wanted a girl. I wonder if they swayed; I wonder if she is on here?!? x

[foxymrsg]

I wondered exactly the same! Yes I was delighted for her getting a girl after 2 boys! The story has made me look at ancestory.co.uk though as I'm now interested to see how far back the line of boys goes on DH's side...x

[foxymrsg]

Oh my maybe I shouldn't have done that! Last girl born on DH's side was in 1853!!! Lol! She went on to have 8 children 4 boys and 4 girls! But obviously she married and so they had her married name and she herself was one of 4 children, the only girl. Of her 3 brothers only one went on to have children...2 boys and so the 2 boys has continued right the way down to now! Lol! Well except my DH has 3 boys as has his ds1 from his previous marriage! Mmmm best get back on that diet the boy trend has to stop somewhere right!?! Lol
Makes me wonder if the past generations had had a third child though if they'd have maybe had a girl? Who knows! Interesting to see hubby's past though!

[The Anchor]

Love this! Can you imagine?!?

[atomic sagebrush]

PLEASE PLEASE do not go on Ancestry.com to see how many boys in your husband's family tree. GENDER RATIO IS NOT GENETIC. I know it is hard to believe when you read something like this but 101 years is the blink of an eye to our genomes. Humans and our ancestors have been around for 10's if not 100's of millions of years - 101 years means NOTHING.

If gender ratio were linked to genes, and you were a "boy producer", the first time a war or similar came along that wiped out the majority of the males (which has happened countless times over history) boom that's it, the end of your gene pool. Genes are "smart" and they don't do things that can lead to their inevitable extinction. Makes much more sense from a gene's perspective to conceive girls when they have a better shot of handing down genes, and boys when they have a better chance of handing down genes. Sometimes in some families, it just makes sense to have more B than G for a couple generations - but that doesn't mean it is a permanent state of affairs.

[foxymrsg]

PLEASE PLEASE do not go on Ancestry.com to see how many boys in your husband's family tree. GENDER RATIO IS NOT GENETIC. I know it is hard to believe when you read something like this but 101 years is the blink of an eye to our genomes. Humans and our ancestors have been around for 10's if not 100's of millions of years - 101 years means NOTHING.

If gender ratio were linked to genes, and you were a "boy producer", the first time a war or similar came along that wiped out the majority of the males (which has happened countless times over history) boom that's it, the end of your gene pool. Genes are "smart" and they don't do things that can lead to their inevitable extinction. Makes much more sense from a gene's perspective to conceive girls when they have a better shot of handing down genes, and boys when they have a better chance of handing down genes. Sometimes in some families, it just makes sense to have more B than G for a couple generations - but that doesn't mean it is a permanent state of affairs.

Oh no honestly I have taken it all with a pinch of salt! It was just very interesting to trace hubby's side as it's something he's never thought to do where as I know mine as my mum has traced! We actually just had a good laugh at how long a line of boys it was a just thought it's funny how that's has worked out so far but we don't use it as a decider for our future

I have read almost all of your essays (typical obsessive boy mum here! lol) but I know that it's the woman's environment that decides the gender not hubby's long line of boys. I just need a good kick up the butt to get back on the diet! Lol!

[atomic sagebrush]

I really need an essay on this topic specifically because it's among the most interesting bits to me!

I didn't mean you necessarily Foxy - I was thinking of the 17 people who read that and were like, "oh what a great idea, I'm totally doing that!" But I suspect that any family you can prob. find a run of lots of boys or lots of girls for a couple generations. and 101 years sounds like a long time but really it's only 2-3 generations.

[foxymrsg]

I really need an essay on this topic specifically because it's among the most interesting bits to me!

I didn't mean you necessarily Foxy - I was thinking of the 17 people who read that and were like, "oh what a great idea, I'm totally doing that!" But I suspect that any family you can prob. find a run of lots of boys or lots of girls for a couple generations. and 101 years sounds like a long time but really it's only 2-3 generations.

I thought that after I posted last comment I thought god I find it interesting but others may get a bit more obsessed! Eek I hope not though!

Yes you're right 101 years isn't that much really when you think that some people are not having children till their 20's 30's 40's that's not a true reflection on how long it's been really. Totally get what you mean!

As you say with every family having a run in my mums side there was a long run of just girls for a couple of generations but like DH's side they only had 2 children each! That's not a true showing of a long line of girls or boys. If they'd had more children each there could well have been boys/girls born evening out the numbers! Hope that makes sense I'm not good a writing down the thoughts spinning through my mind! Lol!

[queen-of-harts]

That's also not a huge amount of boys over 100 years either.At my rate I would have had 16 boys in 32 years