Genealogy Chat

You're welcome :-)
x x


I would still say, in my opinion, it was not unusual in the mid 1600's.

Kath's answered the legal bit. I disagree with the previous posts - I would say it was unusual.

Fourth annual report of the registrar-general Page 3 & 8
http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/Browse?path=Browse/Registrar%20General%20%28by%20date%29&active=yes&titlepos=130

Ages were generally not noted before 1837, except sometimes you can tell theywere a minor by the presence of a parental permission noted.
Ages in years started to be recorded in 1837, but initially not that often.
For the y/e 30/6/1940, only 8.5% of marrs noted ages of both bride & groom.
Of these, in 12.4% of cases, the bride was under 16.
The fraction under 15 must have been much lower.

Thank you - I appreciate your time. I was concerned about some information I was given as I thought the brides involved seemed too young. The person who gave me the info. is very reliable but I was still doubtful.

Thanks Joy for website:-))

Sue xx

Not at all unusual. Girls could marry at 12 and boys at 14 with parental consent right up until 1926 (although it didn't happen very often I'm sure).

Kath. x

Not unusual, Sue. Even Samuel Pepys married a 14-year-old :-)
http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/british_isles/england/northern/AD1500-1750/Marriageinthe17thcentury

x x

Not unusual to marry at that age

Can someone tell him if there was a legal marrying age in the mid 1600's? Would it be unusual to have a girl marry at the age of 14 or 15 y.o.

Sue x