Friday, July 21, 2006

World records for number of children

I wondered what the world record was for the number of children born to one mother or to one father. I found an answer at http://www.uvm.edu/~biology/Classes/271/Sexual_selection.pdf, but don't know if it is correct. The money slide:


Most children born to a woman

The most prolific mother in history was a Russian peasant who had 69 children in the 18th century, 67 of which survived infancy. Between 1725 and 1765, she endured 27 multiple births, which included 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets, and four sets of quadruplets.

The modern world record for giving birth is held by Leontina Albina from San Antonio, Chile. Now in her mid-sixties, she claims to be the mother of 64 children. Of these, 55 are documented, birth certificates apparently being something of a less-than-serious concern in Chile.

Most children fathered.

The most prolific father of all time is believed to be the last Sharifian Emperor of Morocco, Mulai Ismail (1646-1727). In 1703 he had at least 342 daughters and 525 sons and by 1721 he was reputed to have 700 male descendents.


I am speechless...how did they ever remember all of their names? Can you imagine housing, feeding, clothing and taking care of more than 10 children at one time? The two women must have had 20 to 30 kids always in the house - old dad probably was out working hard. Old Mulia Ismail must have been really tired out by 1721. He probably had a problem remembering the names of his consorts, but he probably didn't care much.

Are all of these in the Rootsweb WorldConnect database, or on the LDS FamilySearch databases? Nope - I checked and didn't see them under the names Mulia Ismail or Leontina Albina.

I guess the next question is "who had the most spouses?"

14 comments:

Hydrocodone said...

SZJu1U The best blog you have!

Anonymous said...

I'm just surprised it wasn't a black guy.

logan said...

69 children is alot i bet you are tierd and stessed about.good carrige. Who is your youngest of all your children?you probley have alot of grandchildren!!!!

Anonymous said...

I WONDER HOW BG THE QUEUE WAS FOR THE BATHROOM?!!!

Craig said...

These people were utterly irresponsible; not only toward their planet, their species and their nation, but toward their children. I'm certain these kids had to endure abusive needless poverty and didn't get proper educations.

Nuttygirl said...

Oh come on. That last comment about being irresponsible is ridiculous. The first woman was a peasant living in a time and place where birth control was not available. She was probably uneducated as was her husband and didn't know any way to avoid getting pregnant besides abstaining from intercourse. I don't think that is something you suggest to your husband very often if you want to stay his only consort.
The second woman also came from an area where birth control was probably not readily available or accepted so putting blame on these people in the way that you would to someone living in the U.S. that has this many kids is not very responsible yourself.

sn said...

wait...16x2 + 7x3 + 4x4 = 69; and 16 + 7 + 4 = 27, that is totally right. but she didn't give a single birth even once at all??????????????????????

Carl Skalitzky said...

Rule number one: without children, we do not exist. If a male celebrity had intercourse with a different woman everyday for about thirty years, the count would be over 10,000. The next link would be statistics of pregnancy due to rape. An emperor could easily number in the 800 count. Yet, how many men did he kill. How many women did his male servants / soldiers have intercourse with?
The children of a peasant woman could likely be riding or handling horses by age eight. Kids that can walk can tend to a garden.
(My name is Carl Skalitzky(I typed all this without logging in), and I have two boys born by C-section.)

Karl Pilkington said...

Rule number one: without children, we do not exist. If a male celebrity had intercourse with a different woman everyday for about thirty years, the count would be over 10,000. The next link would be statistics of pregnancy due to rape. An emperor could easily number in the 800 count. Yet, how many men did he kill. How many women did his male servants / soldiers have intercourse with?
The children of a peasant woman could likely be riding or handling horses by age eight. Kids that can walk can tend to a garden.
(My name is Carl Skalitzky(I typed all this without logging in), and I have two boys born by C-section.)

Anonymous said...

I also take issue with the "irresponsible" comment. A First World family of four probably has a larger "carbon footprint" in one year than all 64 of those children accumulated in their combined lifetimes. It's not about stunting our species' population growth, which drives innovation and progress, but about finding more responsible and efficient ways to use resources. Get off you high horse.

Anonymous said...

I agree, To blame irresponsibilty as if these people were living in the present day is very short sided. Education was not the main goal, nor was the judgement of man or woman related to the size of their lot. Simply the more work force within the family. The more output which equals more food. Imagine living a day where every bite of food as well as no concern about tomorrows breakfast at all. Back then simple represents a BMW in the driveway and a prestigious country club membership

deepak said...

how she do i can't believe it.

Anonymous said...

Why it got to be a black guy

Anonymous said...

I'll no longer joke about my 4x great-grandparents who had 18 children and hold the record in our family.