Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Wooster182 t1_jb4z80q wrote

She was two years older than Ogden. Sounds like an exceptional woman.

10

Carioca1970 t1_jb50vem wrote

Well I'm basing on the article and not actual information I have on them otherwise. So if the article is inaccurate then so am I.

3

Wooster182 t1_jb50zd4 wrote

6

Carioca1970 t1_jb51be7 wrote

No, it's good. I reread the article and realized my mistake. It says she had been a widower since the age of 19 and I glossed over that detail and computed he married her as a 19 year old widower in 1819. So in fact she was actually 2 years older than he was and died at the age of 98 after such an amazing life. Just incredible. Thanks for the link by the way.

7

Wooster182 t1_jb56tip wrote

The article was a bit confusing! In her article, it said she was widowed at 19, moved back home and then married him when she was 31 and he was 29.

2

Carioca1970 t1_jb58k80 wrote

It makes the whole story even more interesting because as a 31-year-old childless spinster in the early 1800s it's hard to conceive how she could have been such a difficult catch so to speak. Regardless of her looks. As a woman she would have had no real status and she didn't come with a list of businesses that she was running for example. There's no denying her extraordinary curriculum after they got married but she didn't have that when he pursued her. Their exchanges when they first met had to be off the charts and my, would I have loved to be a fly on the wall there

3