|
|
Nathaniel Foster [16 November 2011]
I'm looking for a Mary Hopkins around Harwich, MA to marry Nathaniel Foster 1751 son of Isaac Foster 1718. Does anyone have a way to tell whether this is the one? Can we tell anything from the censuses?
--Pkeegstra 06:45, 16 November 2011 (EST)
- This is probably not the one, as a wife 6 years older than the husband would be somewhat unusual. Men could not own land until 21 which tended to make men marry about 25 after they had established their ability to support a family. Nathaniel would have been 24 in 1775, and marrying a woman who was already 30 also doesn't fit great with subsequently having 10 children. Women did not have such a need to be of legal age, which was 18 for women, really only needing parents permission to marry young, and all told, the lesser requirement for women probably meant an eligible maiden would be more likely to get scooped up by slightly older men, in the general case. Of course, people and love don't follow rules, but it was a strong enough tendency that good evidence would be needed to suggest such an exception. I would guess Nathaniel's wife was probably born before 1757 (to be 18 in 1775) but probably younger than her husband, so after 1751.
- There was no federal census until 1790, and even with the more full-featured censuses of 1850 and later, given the very common name of Mary Hopkins, it really could only rule out candidate Mary Hopkins, not identify one as correct. And it is not likely Nathaniel or his wife lived long enough to show up in 1850. The marriage record, assuming Pierce actually found one, probably only tells the wife's name (unless it labels her as widow Mary Hopkins, which would be unlikely given that it is Nathaniel's first marriage). If it was obvious who her parents were, Pierce probably would have identified them. To look for her, possible strategies might be to find a gravestone hoping it gives her age at death to narrow down the pool of candidates, to inspect wills of possible fathers with surname Hopkins, or to investigate Hopkins families containing children having some of the more unique children names on the assumption those children were named after Mary's parents or siblings (i.e., Thankful, Giles, Temperance, Solomon, Elisha). --Jrich 09:43, 16 November 2011 (EST)
- Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. I was specifically thinking of the census to rule out this particular combination. And I did notice that Nathaniel, even born in 1751, seems to be on the young side when he marries. If he were born in 1755, he would have barely been 20 yet.
--Pkeegstra 09:57, 16 November 2011 (EST)
- P.S. it is usually possible to track down most of the deeds of Nathaniel Foster using the various land records filmed by the Family History Library ([1]), and these may provide useful clues. Sometimes parents gave land to their children and such a deed of gift would identify Nathaniel as grantee and son-in-law and the grantor would be the father-in-law. Alternately, Nathaniel may sell land and identify it as land that he received from his honored father-in-law. Etc. --Jrich 10:22, 16 November 2011 (EST)
---
- Thanks! FWIW, according to CapeCodHistory.US, this particular Mary Hopkins (1745 Truro) marries Joseph Cahoon.--Pkeegstra 13:29, 16 November 2011 (EST)
|
|
