Bear with me for this bit of perfectly dull trivia (it will give you some insight as to how my mind functions at 5:00 a.m.):
If I look at the calender years of my children's births, they are: 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006 and this next baby will be 2009, God willing, because I have had a miscarriage in the past and take nothing for granted. Anyway, it looks pretty random, right?
If I look at the difference in ages, this is what we have: a two year gap, an 18-month gap, a 27-month gap, an 18-month gap, and the gap between Dominic and the next one will be 35 months. Again, pretty random.
Now, look at this; my age at the birth of each of my children: 35, 37, 39, 41, 43 and with this next one I will be 45. Isn't this fascinating? No? Okay, nevermind...
Interesting indeed!
ReplyDeleteI'll be praying for you and your little one.
Weird! Even more amazing that a pregnant woman can do those kinds of numbers-in her head-and remember them! I am impressed.
ReplyDeleteYes, but I am referring to all my kids as, "Hey, you!"
ReplyDeleteYes, it is fascinating.
ReplyDeleteParticularly for me from a selfish point of view. I just turned 41 and am due this month with a new baby. Does this mean I'll have another at 43? And another at 45?
Wouldn't that be lovely?
Praying for you and this new little one!
As long as it doesn't mean another for me at 47! I love my babies, but I've got to retire from baby-making at some point!
ReplyDeleteThe birth years of my youngest five match-up pretty closely with your five. I've got a 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2006. If it weren't for that slight deviation from the pattern I'd say it was a sign that there will be a new Shoe baby in 2009. But I guess that would be reading way too much into it, wouldn't it?! LOL!
ReplyDeleteI'm praying for you and your new wee one!
interesting! my younger sister and i are only 2 years apart as well:) mom was 36 when she had me, and 38 when she had my younger sister:)
ReplyDelete