|
|
How do they know? [3 April 2014]
The source is proposing that a young man of 27, b. 1688, married about 1715 a widow of 38, b. 1677, 11 years older (man older than the woman was not common, by 11 years almost never happened), and implying that they had a child in 1725 when that woman was 47 going on 48?
There is no marriage record, either that I can find, or apparently the author, since the marriage date is estimated. Since it says "probably" the daughter of Samuel, I would guess there is no will or deed of the father naming the daughter. One source says Mary survived Stephen, and I see that she is indeed named in his will, but there is no death record in Methuen, so no age at death that might confirm this matching, nor have I been able to locate a gravestone. So basically all efforts to find some information about Stephen's wife that might identify her as the widow of Joshua Stevens yields nothing. Needless to say, this is not given in the Essex Antiquarian (Stephen m. Mary ---), the Frye Genealogy (Mary Frye m. Joseph Stevens, no other marriage indicated), nor the Barker Genealogy (Stephen m. Mary ---). [I only list the Frye Genealogy to show the effort made to verify the PDF: the Frye Genealogy itself is flawed and I would not rely on it: e.g., it assigns Mary a death date in 1779 when she would have been 102, even though the Andover death record in 1779 says the Mary Stevens that died on that date was only 81.]
If the abstract here represents the PDF fairly, then this marriage is supported by no evidence, merely the say-so of the author? Or does it provide some explanation of how the author decided this unlikely pairing was what actually happened? --Jrich 04:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- In 1729 the distribution of the estate of John Aslebee (the brother of Mary (Aslebe) Frye), included no children, only a widow, so legacies were left to nieces and nephews, including the children of his sister Mary, which includes Mary Stevens. In 1735, the will of John's widow Mary Aslebee, did the same, naming amoung many others, Mary Stevens (TAG, Vol. 40, p. 236-7). Thus the daughter of Samuel Frye, aka the widow of Joshua Stevens, was still not remarried on those dates, and so was not the person who married abt. 1715 Stephen Barker. (Additionally, though not helpful to this discussion, in 1747, Mary (Aslebe) Frye left a will, having lived to be about 90-something, but it only names her daughter as Mary, without giving any surname. Also, see TAG 41:78-79.) --Jrich 14:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Without changing my impression of things, I think I misinterpreted the conclusiveness of the evidence presented in the TAG article. So I can't say it isn't possible that Stephen Barker married Person:Mary Frye (24) but I think it is such an unusual event that it demands the evidence be presented. But without knowing what evidence there is for proposing such a marriage, it is hard to assess anything. On Joshua Steven's page, I cited an article in Essex Genealogist on the Stevens Family of Andover that happens to be by the same author (though prepared for publication by somebody else) and the same marriage is asserted there, again with absolutely no explanation, evidence, or justification.
- Regarding the TAG article: In looking at the Essex probate documents for the Aslebes on americanancestors.org, I now notice that it is the author saying that Mary Stevens received a share of John Aslebe's estate. The article states that the remainder was split between 24 cousins, but says there were not receipts for those distributions, and so there is no paper saying Mary Stevens. The name occurs in a list the author constructed of cousins known to be alive. So it was just the author's statement that her name was Mary Stevens, for what that's worth. The will of widow Mary Aslebe did name Mary Stevens, but in the margin it is noted she was one of the children of sister Mehitable Poor, so it was Mary (Poor) Stevens who had married 1721 Benjamin Stevens, i.e., a different person. This Mary Stevens was not involved in the estate of Mary Aslebe.
- I have thus found no document that actually gives Mary's name, either as Mary Stevens or Mary Barker. The probate of Joshua Stevens (which I tried to abstract in some detail) does show that Stephen Barker was the guardian for Joshua and Mary's son Samuel Stevens, but he was chosen by Samuel, a privilege Samuel got because he was over 14. Each son had a different guardian, not what one would expect if they all had the same step-father. Further, the one that was under 14, Joseph, had Joseph Parker. Usually if the mother had remarried, it would be the under 14 children that would be most likely to have their step-father as a guardian. That plus the fact that it isn't obvious if it is Stephen Barker Senior or Junior that is the guardian, suggests this doesn't mean anything useful, beyond the fact that it might have misled CHA into thinking Stephen married the widow. --Jrich 01:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Located the "proof": son Person:Joshua Stevens (6) will naming his mother as "Mary Barker". So as unlikely as this marriage seems, it is now documented why it is thought to be so on this page. It was eventually mentioned by CHA, in passing, in her paper on the Stevens family in the Essex Genealogist, Vol. 24, p. 44, in the entry for the son. Not to quibble, but I don't see the quoted phrase "now married to Stephen Barker" anywhere as claimed in the article. (It appears in the article, but is not present in the original paper, p. 8.) The will whose image is found on americanancestors.org only mentions the mother in the following passage: "I give unto my Honoured mother Mary Barker one Black Calamin[ce?] Gownd [sic] and one Black Quilted Coat out of the wearing Clothes of my beloved wife Martha Stevens Deceased." Since Stephen Barker died in 1750, and Joshua's wife in 1753, it is hard to imagine a situation where the will giving clothes of his dead wife to his mother would be expected to contain the phrase "now married to", rather something like "widow of"? --Jrich 16:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
|
|
