Has anybody had a couple marry 48 years after the birth of the first child, followed by at least 4 other children? [closed]

Question

I have Martha Powney eventually marry the father of her children in 1887, 48 years after the birth of their first. [[Powney-45|Martha Moseley]]

Comments

Don’t think this is biologically possible.  Even if she was 12 when she had her first child (unlikely) she would not still be having children after the age of sixty.  Multiple women and/or different generations are involved here.  They could all be children of the same man by multiple wives.

---

Hi Kathryn,

Martha was born in 1816 and had Elon her first, at least I think he is the first, in 1839... I do realize that she may not have had 23 children,,,I have simply placed all the related gro births in an easily accessed list while I research the other names. The children that I know are hers by the census are in the list Martha's children.

Answer 1

Yes, usually in situations where one of them was waiting for a previous spouse to die. Divorce was out of reach for many folks and they although they moved on to other partners they did not want to commit bigamy by marrying before they were free to do so.

Comments

In general, yes, this happened. But having four more children after this late marriage sounds suspicious.

---

I read that as having 5 children in total, not that 4 came after the late marriage, but I did not read the profile. I took one look at the flowers and gave up.

---

Ah, you may be right.

I obviously read it the other way ;-)

I was too lazy this time to look at the actual profile, which I usually do.

---

I usually look a the profile too Eva, but I couldn't focus on that one. I struggle to read profiles with borders 

---

Hi Lynda,

Sorry about the flowers, That's how I mark my maternal line. I'm not sure how you mark your ancestor lines, but that's what I chose. Please don't look at my paternal line then, it has tartan borders...

---

Hi Eva,

Neither party had a previous marriage, as they were both at home with family in 1841, then living together in 1851 as Head and housekeeper with three surviving children. Living apart in 1861, and then together for the next two census collections.

Answer 2

David, According to the profile there were 6 children involved and at least 3 of them were born well before the marriage and some of the others born during the times they were apart. I did not do a through investigation into the sources but I think some of your confusion is that you have several "Possible Children" listed but did not place that in a research notes section and with the distracting border the profile is very hard to read.

Yes the profile needs a lot of work to sort out the facts from the fiction but I do not believe the actual profiles is at odds to the laws of biology. In fact there is only one actual child attached to the profile meaning the others have not been proven as yet.

More careful research needs to be done because there may be more than one person living in the same area with the same name as happens in very many cases.

Comments

Hi Dale,

Yes, there appears to be only six children born before the couple were living apart for the 1861 census, but back together for the next two census.

I am still new here and learning the best way to go as to setting out the profile. Loving the process. Have only worked with Ancestry and My Heritage before this and a computer database.

FYI, we won't even go into how much of a disaster Ancestry and My Heritage were. So, yes, I've researched my whole tree three times.

I suspect that there were a couple more children, but I am unsure about them. I have listed Martha's definite children on her profile under Martha's children, but have only added my ancestor to her at this point.

The other speculative children listed under her are for my benefit at this point in time.

I am interested in any pointers and suggestions as to the best way to set out my profiles as I am still a little unsure how to work them. At present, I have concentrated on having my sources and information ready.

Answer 3

I expect that advancing age may have prompted a realisation of mortality and concern for inheritance thereby prompting the late marriage. It seems clear that Martha Sr had 5 children and one can only assume John was the father. I wonder about the existence of the granddaughter, Martha J. Was she Susan's daughter and who was the father? You have some interesting work ahead of you.

BTW - the border is fine and not the least bit distracting.

Comments

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the comment.

Martha Jane Powney was the daughter of [[Powney-44|Elon]], my ancestor, and father of [[Powney-43|Elon]], my gr. grandfather. She lists him as her father on source 17..her marriage.

When, I eventually get all the profiles sorted it will become clearer.

---

I probably should have said..source 17 on [[Powney-44| Elon]]

Answer 4

Let do the math. Let say she was married at age. 13:  and some girls were married at that age. Arkansas was the last state allowed it.  However some marriage,s  were done by a local pastor not certified by the state, or a person who had the blessings of the people. I came from the old cotton fields back in the 40s and had  relatives in the hill country. Talking about the early years . 1700 up to early 1900s.  So let’s say. John. Married. Mary.  She is. 13,  has a child at 14.  Plus six more down the line.  In 48 years she is 62.  Husband is 75.  Veteran of war 1812. And Veteran of Civil was.  He has a pension. But law said have a wife.  Must get married to have legal wife to claim pension.He dies at 76.. looking at my own tree. It is know that civil war vets married as the age of 93  to a 12 years old girl. Operating in reverse but kids beyond 50 fo women is slowed down,   P. S. Girls have given birth at 14. Even 13.  Dale Evens. ( movie star) was married right after her 14 birthday.