Just to add to what Merry said, I have just over 8000 people in my tree and the youngest marriage I have found is for a girl who was 16.
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Married at 12?
Collapse
X
-
I AM glad I looked at this thread. It prompted me to call up the "age at marriage" query on my Family Historian, where i doscovered two chaps had married at -85 and -78respectively! On closer inspection I had entered both their dates of birth in the 1800s instead of 1700s. Oh heck, this info must have been on several trees that I've shared over the years. Hope the recipients aren't still searching for them in the wrong century.Judith passed away in October 2018
Comment
-
Originally posted by JudithM View PostI AM glad I looked at this thread. It prompted me to call up the "age at marriage" query on my Family Historian, where i doscovered two chaps had married at -85 and -78respectively! On closer inspection I had entered both their dates of birth in the 1800s instead of 1700s. Oh heck, this info must have been on several trees that I've shared over the years. Hope the recipients aren't still searching for them in the wrong century.
Comment
-
I have found one female who may have married at the tender age of 15, though of course I am assuming she was baptised as a baby. If she'd been baptised at the age of 2 she would have been 17.
In general, my lot tended to marry in their mid to late 20s to early 30s though I do have a man marrying for the first time at 69 [he was going blind and needed looking after] and several women who married older but richer men when they were in their late 40s and clearly on the shelf.~ with love from Little Nell~Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy
Comment
-
sorry to throw a spanner in works, but was her birth listed on census correctly? this could make the difference about when she married and if she is 1 of the 2 you have found.
have you found her birth?
another thought i had is have you tried searching for wilcock, incase it was written down wrongly?**no point asking the living for help as the dead are more helpful!!!**
https://purplerosefamilytree.blogspot.com/
Comment
-
ok, as said was just a thought that came to me whilst reading through the thread.**no point asking the living for help as the dead are more helpful!!!**
https://purplerosefamilytree.blogspot.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by JudithM View PostI AM glad I looked at this thread. It prompted me to call up the "age at marriage" query on my Family Historian, where i doscovered two chaps had married at -85 and -78respectively! On closer inspection I had entered both their dates of birth in the 1800s instead of 1700s. Oh heck, this info must have been on several trees that I've shared over the years. Hope the recipients aren't still searching for them in the wrong century.Caroline
Caroline's Family History Pages
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joan of Archives View PostWhilst browsing through newspapers for KiwiChris I found a birth announcement for a 14 year old girl, it mentioned her marriage the previous year at age 13
That was in the early 1800's though.
.
Comment
-
Although possible, the marriage at 12 would have been very unusual and I think it's worth considering other possibilities:
I've found that ages in censuses can be very unreliable - up to three years either way is not uncommon, particularly in families with several children. You can imagine the mum giving the information to the enumerator one year and then perhaps the vaguer father doing it in the next census.
Inference from baptism date: this can also be misleading. As someone noted earlier, a reasonable percentage of children were not baptised in the year of their birth. Again, I've got one family where all the kids, ranging in age from 0-8, were bapised at the same time after moving to a new parish - obviously a more persuasive vicar!
Incompleteness of BMDs: FreeBMD is not 100% complete, and neither is the searchable version on Ancestry that used FreeBMD as it's base. Just because you haven't found the most plausible birth record, doesn't mean it isn't out there (though they think up to 5% of births at some points weren't registered. It's probably worth trawling through the full indexes for +/- five years just to rule out another more plausible birth.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LondonLass View PostAlthough possible, the marriage at 12 would have been very unusual and I think it's worth considering other possibilities:
I've found that ages in censuses can be very unreliable - up to three years either way is not uncommon, particularly in families with several children. You can imagine the mum giving the information to the enumerator one year and then perhaps the vaguer father doing it in the next census.
Inference from baptism date: this can also be misleading. As someone noted earlier, a reasonable percentage of children were not baptised in the year of their birth. Again, I've got one family where all the kids, ranging in age from 0-8, were bapised at the same time after moving to a new parish - obviously a more persuasive vicar!
Incompleteness of BMDs: FreeBMD is not 100% complete, and neither is the searchable version on Ancestry that used FreeBMD as it's base. Just because you haven't found the most plausible birth record, doesn't mean it isn't out there (though they think up to 5% of births at some points weren't registered. It's probably worth trawling through the full indexes for +/- five years just to rule out another more plausible birth.
thanks for the imput LL.
EDI.X.
Comment
-
I'm told by a professional researcher that the one place where girls regularly married very young was India - where white females would clearly have been at a premium - and you didn't remain a widow very long either. I dare say that that would have been the case in various colonial situations.
Amy, I haven't used PAF for a long time, but some where there used to be a "potential problems" report which would pick out people baptised after they died, married as children etc.Phoenix - with charred feathers
Researching Skillings from Norfolk, Sworn from Salisbury and Adams in Malborough, Devon.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Phoenix View PostI'm told by a professional researcher that the one place where girls regularly married very young was India - where white females would clearly have been at a premium - and you didn't remain a widow very long either. I dare say that that would have been the case in various colonial situations.
Amy, I haven't used PAF for a long time, but some where there used to be a "potential problems" report which would pick out people baptised after they died, married as children etc.
EDI.x.
Comment
-
Edi I have the attention span of a flea, and meant to answer Kit the Kat (not Amy, Yummy Mummy) earlier on this thread.
PAF is Personal Ancestral File - some free family history software that you can download. All of us use different sorts of software and there was very recently a thread about what software we used.Phoenix - with charred feathers
Researching Skillings from Norfolk, Sworn from Salisbury and Adams in Malborough, Devon.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LondonLass View PostInference from baptism date: this can also be misleading. As someone noted earlier, a reasonable percentage of children were not baptised in the year of their birth. Again, I've got one family where all the kids, ranging in age from 0-8, were bapised at the same time after moving to a new parish
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pipemma View PostI have someone in what I think is part of my tree (waiting for a cert to confirm the generational connection) who was baptised 3 months after his second youngest of 8 or 9 children, at the age of 40/41
It's amazing finding all these snippets out though.
I've only recently discovered 1 of Gt G'dads brothers only got wed to his lifelong partner not long before he died ,
wonder if it was so she could claim all his worldly goods.
EDI.x..
Comment
Comment