Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Register office weddings of minors in 19th century
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Rider9 | Report | 25 Mar 2004 11:27 |
|
Please does anyone know whether or not a woman under 21 in the mid 1800s would need someone to sign permission or anything, for her to get married? The person concerned was 17 when she married, and as I cannot find her mother and father's details I wondered if they might show up on some sort of register office 'permission' record... does anyone know? Thanks Tyne |
|||
|
Rider9 | Report | 25 Mar 2004 18:45 |
|
nudge |
|||
|
Montmorency | Report | 25 Mar 2004 21:09 |
|
For a marriage there's always a licence, unless it's at a C of E church after banns. Consents etc are dealt with before the licence is issued. But nobody ever mentions registrar's licences as a resource, so I assume they haven't been kept |
|||
|
Geoff | Report | 25 Mar 2004 21:15 |
|
I would have thought that after the 1837 introduction of registrations the Registrars entries would (by definition) automatically be in the BMD records. |
|||
|
Stan | Report | 26 Mar 2004 00:13 |
|
The name and occupation of the father should be on the marriage certificate. However the question of consent would only arise if one or both parties admitted to being under 21. Many did not, and the Registrar had no means of checking if he doubted their assertion of being 21. It is unlikely therefore that their records other than the marriage certificates would be any use to you, even if they existed. Stan |
|||
|
Rider9 | Report | 26 Mar 2004 09:01 |
|
Hi - thanks for all the replies. Yes, the bride did admit to being only 17 - that is why I wondered about any consent records being filed away somewhere. It was in 1872 that the marriage took place. May email the Durham Records office to ask them. Thanks again Tyne |
|||