Genealogy Chat

I have similar thing to david in my family but both my ancestor lied. He was 56yrs old (he claimed he was 58) when he married my 17yr old gg grandmother (she claimed she was 19). They had 6 children together, the last one born in 1888 when he was 67. He died in 1897 and his wife remarried in 1900 to a man 19yrs old than her. George

David That's fantastic - it restore's my faith in human nature to see a potentially ill fated partnership (I bet it was really frowned on) turn out so beautifully. Regards Maxine

My gt gt gt Grandfather knocked 10 years off for his second marriage. Said he was 56 not 66, his new wife was 17. they had 5 kids in the next 10 years, the last born 7 months after he died.

You mean I could have knocked 10 years off and just claimed to be tired - and got away with it - now you tell me!!!

Even nowadays the registrars don't confirm/check the details you give them, they just take you at your word.

Many thanks to everyone for tips - you would have thought even back then they would have picked up something a bit "dodgy" was going on when it was stated of full age. At least with this couple, although married in 1859, they were still together in 1901 with children and grandchildren! Best wishes Helen

Hi I also have one in 1844 stating "of full age" who was in fact only 16, her fathers name was blank even though I know that he was alive and re-married. Jane

Caution though! Of full age on marriage cetificate meant that the parties declared they were over 21, but no one seemed to check. I have a similar certificate where the parties to the mariage were in fact aged only 18. Since one was orphaned at the time it may have been to get around any possible need for parental consent. The important point though is that birth certificates or other checking points dont seem to have been needed so if birth dates dont tie in dont be too surprised. Pam

You have got me thinking here. A lot of my marriages have of full age and i have always taken it to mean 21 or over. Unfortunately when searching for their births with a five year search some have not been found. Could this be because if they got married at 12 or 14 the five year search would miss them. More definate info needed i think. George

Maxine, thanks you saved me the trouble, and I don't mind at all Ann Glos

Hi Helen I copied this from a previous posting "Added by Ann Knight on 09/07/2003 14:42:40 Hi Until 1929 boys were allowed to marry with parental consent at the age of 14 and girls with consent at the age of 12. In 1929 the minimum age for boys and girls became 16. In Scotland the consent of parents for a minor was not required leading to marriages legally taking place there and the minors then returning home. I hope this helps you Ann Glos " I hope Ann doesn't mind me reposting it on her behalf. Regards Maxine

my great grandparents marriage says that i think it means that they are over whatever the legal age was for marrying at that time (doesnt help when you're trying to work out when they were born!!) hevi

On a marriage certificate for above year, the couple are described as being both of full age. Does anyone know what this was and why did they not just put their ages down?!! Kind regards Helen, Berkshire