Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question re marriage ages

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question re marriage ages

    I have been tracing back and have found the marriage age has been getting lower and lower, in the 1200s as low as 8yr old,I understand there is always questions as to the dates not being right and so on, but was this acceptable to get married at this very young age in the days of yore, I have come accross a few of these early unions.?????

  • #2
    Some of those very early "marriages" were families cementing a link for financial and political reasons. The children were not expected to co-habit until they were older (I think anyway!)

    Anne

    Comment


    • #3
      The age of consent for heterosexual acts in England was set at 12 in 1275 during the reign of Edward I. It was lowered to 10 in the latter part of the 16th century.[30] The wording was along the lines of "It shall be deemed illegal to ravage a maiden who is not of age" - at the time "of age" being 12. Therefore, there was, and is, technically no age of consent for the male participant - unless the female participant is an adult in which case laws pertaining to sex with a minor and so on come into force

      Comment


      • #4
        I think that until very recently, women could not give consent to sexual intercourse. The act of marriage meant that intercourse was assumed. As many women were married off, quite legally by their fathers or other male protectors, consent didn't come into it.

        The law stated as you say, that it was a crime to ravage a female under the age of 12...but not over the age of 12! Rape was extremely difficult to prove, unless the female was very high born (and therefore a valuable asset to some MAN or other).

        Interesting that the Welsh always had a different law. Women could (and did) complain of rape and got about the same measure of justice as they do these days!

        Going back to marriage - these very young marriages were called imperfect marriages or betrothals and although they had legal standing, the couple were not expected to cohabit until they were of an age to produce children. It was, as usual, to do with property and money of course.

        OC

        Comment


        • #5
          The law stated as you say, that it was a crime to ravage a female under the age of 12...
          I think a typo has crept in here: it has always been a crime to ravage a female of any age but ravish may be different...

          Peter

          Comment


          • #6
            Peter

            I disagree. It has not always been against the law to ravage a female, or indeed to ravish a female!

            However, I agree that maybe a typo has crept in. Still, there was historically a big difference between the age of marriage and the age of sexual consent. They are still two different things even today.

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              OC,

              Before I take issue can we agree on the terminology? It is my understanding (and that of my dictionary) that "ravish" means "rape" whereas "ravage" means "lay waste, devastate". That is why I thought destroying a female was always a crime but I am open to correction.

              Peter

              Comment


              • #8
                Come on you two, Bear in mind this was probably written way back,how modern is your dictionary Peter ???

                Comment


                • #9
                  OC you have such a rose-tinted view of marriage, dear!
                  ~ with love from Little Nell~
                  Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    *Sniggers at Nell*

                    No, not really, just trying to emphasise that women were historically regarded as property, to be used and bartered with, and the marriage contract was proof of that.

                    The idea of marrying for love and choosing who you will marry is a very modern one. Someone or other said "God's only blessing on the poor is that they may marry for love", although even that wasn't certain - a poor man with a very pretty young daughter definitely had something worth selling and selling her into marriage was probably preferable to the alternative.

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      AFTERTHOUGHT - Somewhere I have a marriage contract between Holden and Shuttleworth, round about 1700. Pages and pages and pages of it, betrothing Mary Holden to Peter Shuttleworth and listing the various lands and property each is bringing to the marriage. The contract was drawn up when both were infants.

                      Unfortunately, Mary died just before the real wedding was to take place. If you have any doubts about how expendable women were, (and how expensive paper was!) then you will like to know that the scribe has gone through carefully crossing out Mary and substituting Ann, her younger sister, who married Peter instead. The contract was much too valuable for either side to pull out merely because one of the principals had died.

                      OC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I suspect that the debate between OC and Peter arose because OC omitted to mention explicitly, in her part of the discussion that it was not possible, legally (and by definition), for a man to rape his wife. Until quite recently, the concept of rape within marriage did not exist in law. (I'm open to correction on this, not being a lawyer, but I'm pretty confident.)

                        Christine
                        Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think you are right Christine. I was about to post that but wasn't quite sure.

                          Anne

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I suppose that what that says is not that it didn't happen, but that law could not "see" it, so, legally, there was no offence. Ethically, of course, it was a very different matter.

                            Christine
                            Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Christine,

                              My issue with OC was the very minor, and pedantic, point that she had used "ravage" when "ravish" was needed. I entirely agree that the law until relatively recently did not recognize rape (or ravishing) within marriage.

                              Peter

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I'm all for pedantry, Peter!

                                I tend to go in for it myself - UJ remarked only a week or so ago, that he hoped I'd paid up my subscription to the Pedants' Society! ... Have you? ;)

                                Christine
                                Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  My issue with OC was the very minor, and pedantic, point that she had used "ravage" when "ravish" was needed.

                                  If you take a good look you will find it was myself who used the word ravage,which was repeated by OC.:p:p

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    And I assumed (oh, fatal error!) that salty was quoting a source which used the word ravage!

                                    However, to go back to the original question - yes, marriage could be at any age from birth upwards until I think the 1600s, when the ages were fixed at 12 and 14.

                                    A female however, could not consent to either marriage or sexual intercourse (unless she was a widow) because she belonged to her father or other male protector, who consented on her behalf, by allowing her to marry.

                                    OC

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      The following may interest you OC


                                      Cheers
                                      Guy
                                      Guy passed away October 2022

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Yes, that is interesting, thankyou Guy - is there a date to the Act?

                                        I love the selfless concern for the welfare of all maidens...erm, all maidens with a hefty inheritance, that is! I bet no one bothered about Greasy Joan!

                                        OC

                                        OC

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X