Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
You know, I have been looking these posts over and I have to add a few thoughts. Per Frederic's post previous, "The only way it could work for John POTTINGER having married Elizabeth MAGRUDER was if she was a first marriage, and prior to when John and Mary's first child was born in 1688."
I agree.
Also, from this post, "Samuel MAGRUDER called John POTTINGER his brother when his will was written in 1710, so such a marriage of John POTTINGER to Elizabeth MAGRUDER would had to have occurred before 1710"
I also agree.
However, I disagree that it isn't possible or likely. For one thing, per Alexander's will and codicil, Elizabeth could take possession of her land, Craighnaigh, at any time after 14 if she was married and certainly by 18. Given the dates reasonable for Elizabeth's birth, per these and other posts, she could very well have been 14 by 1684 and married, thus gaining her property. Also, she would have been 18 by 1688. Both of these facts would allow for her marriage, albeit very young, to John Pottinger (Pottenger).
Also, throw in the fact that in the same will that Samuel Magruder calls John Pottenger his "brother," written in 1710, Elizabeth's brother Samuel wills the land called Magruder's Delight to his son Samuel, which somehow later ends up in his brother, Alexander's hands. Now, in two different references, I have seen this land referred to as "Magruder's Delight, formerly Craighnaigh" (or similar). If this is true, it could very well be that Elizabeth died before Samuel, thus he had her land by 1710 or at least part of it.
Given those facts, an early marriage of Elizabeth to John Pottenger sometime between 14 and 16, thus gaining her land, and then dying young (sickness, childbirth, etc.) could reasonably have John Pottenger married again and Elizabeth's land in her brother, Samuel's, hands; all within the dates specified.
(Of course, divorce is another option but it is much less likely. I think that if Elizabeth got married at 14 just to get her land, and then divorced John Pottenger early, say by 18 when she was old enough to own it outright; she would still have to be dead by 1710 when Samuel wrote his will. I can't imagine if this second option was the case, she would have parted with it any other way.)
It's just speculation at this point but it does show how it could have been possible, if not even probable. I have not found any will information for Elizabeth or a reliable death date to show another explanation other than an early death to explain how Samuel got ahold of her land; and similar situations occurred with both of Samuel's brothers, James and John, and their lands ending up in Samuel's hands. So, there is likewise a pattern of precedence here to support the conjecture.
Thoughts?
JD
Notify Administrator about this message?
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/magruder/messages/1166.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|