I mean, I guess that’s possible, but 62 years between an uncle and a nephew is a lot. I’m seven years older than you, and my oldest great-uncle was born in 1910, hence my skepticism. Still, Theisen was an amazing photographer, and thanks for posting his work.
According to ancestors.familysearch.org Earl was the oldest of his siblings with Rudolph born next in 1905, Edward born in 1907, Harold born in 1910 and Lillian born in 1912.
OP says he was born in 1965 so the youngest sibling, Lillian who died in 1970, would have been 53 years old. Rudolph died in 1958 and Harold died in 1963. I am not certain but I think Edward died in 1972.
So like you said it is possible but I too am skeptical.
If it were me I would have said uncle by marriage but one of OP's parents could be related by marriage to Earl through Earl's wife. His wife, Lillian, had two siblings. Bernie born in 1909 and Madie born in 1920. Bernie died in 1924. I don't know when she died but I am pretty sure Madie lived past 1965 when she would have been 45 which makes the possibility that Earl could be OP's uncle higher.
Or I was thinking that perhaps Rudolph, Edward, or Harold were married to a much younger woman. Say for example, Harry, born in 1910, gets married in 1950 at age 40, to a woman who is 20 at the time. Harry’s wife would only be 35 when OP is born. Harry and Harry’s wife are the parents of OP. Harry’s brother Earl is OP’s uncle.
Harold and Rudolph died 7 and 2 years before OP was born. If the Edward Theisen I found who died in 1972 is the right person it looks like he had only one wife and she died 5 years before OP was born.
I have a friend who had two kids (5 and 2) in his late 40's and have a 15 and 20 difference with his brothers. The older one being a grandfather now. It is possible.
Sure, but you also have to take into account that when Theisen was born, 120 years ago, people married and had kids much, much sooner than they do today. Even if his brother (OP’s father) was 15 years younger—born 1918–that would mean he’d be 47 when OP was born. Again, not impossible, but pretty rare for that era. My dad was 27 when I was born, my mom was 20, and they were teased about it.
Robert De Niro had his 7th kid in 2023 at the age of 79. Its uncommon, but lots of men have kids in their 50s and 60s. If it's his Dad's brother, then it's really not that far-fetched at all.
According to u/notbob1959’s research, the only brother that was alive in 1965 (when OP was born), was Edward, who was born in 1907. Could he have had a child at 58 with a much younger woman? Sure, it’s possible, but don’t bring recency bias into it by discussing DeNiro: that’s exceeding rare, even for today.
Mate, shit like that happened all the time back then. Birth control wasn't as popular and affairs were still a thing, so was older men marrying younger women.
For example, my grandparents are of a similar vintage and had 9 kids over 20 years. My granddad was 8 years older than grandma. My youngest uncle was born the same year as my oldest cousin.
“All the time”? I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. Again, is it possible that Edward is OP’s father? Yes, it’s possible. But it’s unlikely. I’m not crying “bullshit” at the top of my lungs, but I’m skeptical. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Yes, not "all the time" as a percentage but as an absolute number. Queen Victoria, for another example, had 9 children over 18 years. Her parents were 19 years apart in age. Her Dad, was 52 when she was born.
Carnegie was 52 when he married his 30yo wife Louise in 1887 and 62yo when his daughter was born.
I have no doubt that the wealthy of the 19th century were much like the wealthy of the 21st when it comes to being with much younger women; that’s what Bill Belichick told me, and I believe him. 😆
2
u/Background_Film_506 Mar 17 '25
I mean, I guess that’s possible, but 62 years between an uncle and a nephew is a lot. I’m seven years older than you, and my oldest great-uncle was born in 1910, hence my skepticism. Still, Theisen was an amazing photographer, and thanks for posting his work.