Robin wrote:
It's two photos. I am scanning all the old family photos and there
is a photo of my nephew (aged 5) and a photo of his great great
Grandad (aged 5) and it looks like the same person.


Subject to my faults in my rapidly deteriorating mental arithmentic
that means the *average* age of the parent when each generation was
born was 21. They didn't hang about in your family.

That is 5 years longer than the Barnsley average:-)

It was quite common in those day AFAIK. There was not the availablity to the
pill until my Mums generation (and then you could only get it if you were
married).

But I suspect your mental arithmetic is wrong and you have added a
generation in your calculation:-)

Jim 5 was in 1905.
William was born in 1919, Jim aged 19 when Robert was born.
Robert was born in 1944, William aged 25 when Robert was born.
Daniel was born in 1972, Robert aged 27 when Daniel was born
Thomas was born in 2006, Daniel aged 35 when Thomas was born

At a rough guess with the dates of their bithdays. But I am knackered so I
could be wrong!

William and Thomas are first borns (info that makes a difference as to the
the age of the parent)

--
Adam