Karenciavo Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 I was watching an A&E Biography on John and Abigail Adams and they insinuated premarital sex based on the fact that J&A were married on 10/25/64 and their daughter was born less than 9 months later. I have found the birth date to be 7/14/65, which is a little over 37 weeks from their marriage. The movie is discussing the passionate nature of the letters between the two and quotes John playfully scolding Abigail to control her appetites and passions. The movie then goes on to report, "Yet history suggests their passions won out. The couple married on October 25, 1764. Their first child was born fewer than 9 months later." I think it's a pretty irresponsible comment for A&E to make based on those dates. This kind of sensationalism really annoys me. :glare: Am I missing something? Aren't the traditional 40 weeks based on the date of a woman's last period and therefore isn't very possible that their first child was conceived soon after their marriage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathmom Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Well, my parents were married July 16, 1960. and my oldest sister was born 4/8/61. She was six weeks premature but weighed 5 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbeyej Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 You're right, Karen -- pregnancy is typically about 38 weeks from *conception* -- but we all know labor can easily vary 2-3 weeks in either direction from a due date. So a baby born looking full term at 35 weeks after marriage wouldn't *prove* that the couple hadn't waited... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhabelly Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Perhaps it wasn't so terribly important as long as they were promised to each other? They courted for at least two years. (It's hard to tell because he was not taken with her right away. They met in 1759.) Anyway, here's a quote from his diary during the courtship that is almost in code. (He didn't make any diary entries at all during 1764 because he was so preoccupied with her!) "Di was a constant feast. Tender, feeling, sensible, friendly. A friend. Not an imprudent, not an indelicate, not a disagreeable word of action. Prudent, soft, sensible, obliging, active." Hmmm. Sounds fun, whatever they were doing! I think it is really none of our business, but that's just my opinion. "Obliging", but "not an indelicate." Hmmmmm...... Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karenciavo Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share Posted December 1, 2008 It very well may be none of our business, I'm really not concerned so much about what they did or did not do before marriage; but I am annoyed by the assumptions made by A&E, they were not necessary or accurate. Perhaps it wasn't so terribly important as long as they were promised to each other? They courted for at least two years. (It's hard to tell because he was not taken with her right away. They met in 1759.) Anyway, here's a quote from his diary during the courtship that is almost in code. (He didn't make any diary entries at all during 1764 because he was so preoccupied with her!) "Di was a constant feast. Tender, feeling, sensible, friendly. A friend. Not an imprudent, not an indelicate, not a disagreeable word of action. Prudent, soft, sensible, obliging, active." Hmmm. Sounds fun, whatever they were doing! I think it is really none of our business, but that's just my opinion. "Obliging", but "not an indelicate." Hmmmmm...... Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbeyej Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 It very well may be none of our business, I'm really not concerned so much about what they did or did not do before marriage; but I am annoyed by the assumptions made by A&E, they were not necessary or accurate. Right, I understood what you were saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhabelly Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 I think I was too much swayed by the title of the original post. I thought somehow that you really wanted to figure out whether it was true or not! I understand now that you are saying that it is not a matter that should have been commented upon by A&E. Sorry 'bout that..... Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.