Genealogy Chat

hi all
thank you to everyone who has kindly shared their thoughts on this matter i have a lot to sieve through
my gut feeling is that my ancestors were both lying about their ages seems i have many young men in my tree who prefered the older woman but were ashamed to say!
thanks again
elaine

Reaffirming Janet's point abt rarity of very young spouses, in 1873 there were 205615 marrs in ENG/WAL, and of these 150131 gave a numerical age for both spouses (73%). Of these 300262 spouses, just 24 (all 15 y.o. females) were under 16.

(For Hawkwind) Of 18784 widowers remarrying, 11 were under 21, and for the 14161 widows, 38 were under 21.

Source: Thirty-sixth annual report of the registrar-general Page 26
from: http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/Browse?path=Browse/Registrar%20General%20%28by%20date%29&active=yes&titlepos=130

http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/marriages.htm

Age at the Date of Marriage
The next column shows the age at the date of marriage. There are all sorts of problems here. First of all the information is only as accurate as the bride or groom cared to make it - remember that unless the bride or groom appeared to be under the age of consent they were not asked for proof of their age or identity.

There are many instances when the age was "massaged" to make it a little more palatable! Brides who were older than their grooms often "lost" a few years or grooms who were younger "acquired" a few. Some people genuinely wouldn't know precisely how old they were.

Unfortunately some marriage registers simply state "of full age" which tells you nothing except that the bride and/or groom were aged 21 or over and could have been anything from 21 to 80+ - not terribly helpful. It was always possible for a bride under 21 to add a few years if she thought she could get away with it so that she did not require the consent of her family.

In the past, at the age of 21 a man or a woman was considered old enough to give their own consent to their own marriage. Under that age, the consent of the parent(s) or the legal gaurdians or the court was required. Parents of people under the age of consent were notified separately that a notice of marriage of their child had been taken - giving them time to object to the marriage if they should wish. If one or both parents objected and stated so (no reasons need be given) then the marriage cannot take place until the bride or groom reaches the age of their own consent. Technically, a marriage of a couple who should have had consent of parents and have married without it is not legal.

The age at which a person could marry and at which they would require consent has changed since 1837. Then marriage could be at 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy, but consent of parent(s) was required for both up to the age of 21. In 1926 the age of marriage for both parties was raised to 16 but consent for both was still required until 21. Now, the age at which people can marry is still 16 but the age for consent has been lowered to 18.

The only exception to the requirement for consent was for a second marriage before the age of 21 ie if a bride/groom had married once with consent of parents and had been widowed they could marry the second time without consent of parents. I thought that the logic of that was - if they had tried it once and still wanted to do it again....! but in fact it stems round the fact that once a woman has married, her father no longer has legal status with regard to consent, and so she can give her own consent to her own marriage.

Marriage before the legal age is invalid.

A person who marries for the second time but is still under the age of majority does not need parental approval again.

Anyone ever come across an example?

Elaine - have you looked for the couple in 1881? This should give you an idea of their ages. Sorry if you've already thought of this!

I have a minor disagreement with ArcticBlonde's post. I don't think employment status was any part of a legal requirement. Icidentally, parental consent was not required for widow(er)s of any age. The age when parental consent is required has now been lowered to 18 in ENG/WAL. As you are no doubt aware, marriage laws differ throughout the British Isles. In particular, there is not now, and never has been, any requirement for parental consent in Scotland.

The ages of 12 and 14 are correct but the wrong way round I think.

In reality all the certificate reveals is that the female was 21 or over and the male was under 21.

Marriages between very young minors are incredibly rare and usually reserved for the likes of the aristocracy who would arrange marriages for their offspring.

hi glitter baby,

o m goodness so young thats scary the couple in question had a child not long ater they married.then went on to have a further 3 children all about a year apart!
thanks i will look at the site mentioned
elaine

I think it was 12 for the male and 14 for the female.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753

Not sure if this site helps or not




Certain that a member will correct me if I am wrong

good morning all can someone please tell me what age a male could marry in 1873 i have a cert which states he was a junior and his new bride was of full age.
it must of been legal i just wondered what the age would of been
thanks
elaine