Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Parents consent?

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

  • Parents consent?

    Can I please ask you knowledgable people about parents consent?

    Would it necessarily mean that one of the people getting married was underage?

    I have two people I think are 24 and 23 years of age, married with parents consent. Have I got the ages wrong?

    Thanks

    Jean
    Jean....the mist is starting to clear

  • #2
    You shouldn't have needed parental consent unless you were under 21.

    I can't think of any obvious circumstances when that rule wouldn't apply.

    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


    • #3
      Jean

      In a word - yes!

      Parental consent to a marriage was not required once you reached your 21st birthday.

      OC

      Comment


      • #4
        Some vicars clearly couldn't be bothered with all the paperwork. If the printed register said "married with consent of parents" they would let the sentence stand, even if the couple were of mature years.
        Phoenix - with charred feathers
        Researching Skillings from Norfolk, Sworn from Salisbury and Adams in Malborough, Devon.

        Comment


        • #5
          Phoenix

          And the reverse is true, too. I have a copy of a marriage in 1760 something. The groom is barely 14 and the bride 13 yet not a mention of parental consent.

          The groom's father was the patron of the living of the parish and I assume that consent was granted informally, or not at all, the Vicar being too scared of his benefactor to get him to sign a bit of paper.

          (Or was the Vicar being defiant? The bride gave birth only a few weeks later)

          OC

          Comment


          • #6
            I've seen loads of marriages where the wording is "with the consent of those whose consent is required"

            this is always handwritten, not printed, and I know many (if not most) are over 21.

            Just a case of the Vicar being cautious?
            Vicky

            Comment


            • #7
              Thankyou All ...... I don't know what to say !!!

              I'm not really any wiser. 'With the Consent of ' ..is printed, then 'parents' is written in.

              It was 1821, they could both sign their signature, he was baptised 1797, she was baptised 1798.

              Oh dear, maybe as you say.... the vicar just liked to cover himself ... or maybe they just looked very young.

              I'm just looking at the 1841 and 1851 census............ahhhhh she is born 1801 now......that would account for it.....she would be only 20.......

              Thankyou all very much ...... not a common name.....but there must be another baptism somewhere for her.

              Back to the drawing board.
              Jean
              Jean....the mist is starting to clear

              Comment


              • #8
                I wouldn't rely on this "with consent of parents" to mean they were DEFINITELY under 21. If everything else fits with the baptism you've found, I wouldn't be so ready to discard it on the basis of a 2 yr discrepancy in age given on a census. Is the groom's age consistent?
                [there is always the possibility you have the right parents but that child died in infancy & they gave the next the same name; have you looked for a death?]

                I have a marriage cert from 1878 where groom gives his age as 20.

                I also have his birth cert (and I'm 200% certain its the right chap) He's definitely 21.
                Its a month off his 22nd birthday, so he's had 11 months to get used to the idea.
                Vicky

                Comment


                • #9
                  just a thought, have you seen the ACTUAL parish register with the baptism, or are you looking at a transcript or IGI entry?

                  Wasn't in the diocese of Durham by any chance?
                  Vicky

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I was relying on the transcript on IGI Vicky ....... as it was the only one in the Parish ... I jumped at it.......seemed perfect.

                    I have the marriage... of course...silly me.

                    her death in 1852 gives her age as 51...... so that fits with the 1841 and 1851 census.

                    BUT ........ if she was using that age ...... it would say that, wouldn't it?

                    The only thing that niggled me about this baptism......was the 'with parents consent'

                    The Bishops' Transcripts are down at the moment.....until 12 tonight...... they are loading new collections ......... wonder what they are!

                    I'll have a look on them again tomorrow and see if I can come up with something.

                    I wont settle with the birth I have .... until I get myself up to Durham Record Office.

                    Thanks for replying Vicky

                    Jean

                    Sorry .. didn't see your last bit.....it was St Helens Auckland, durham
                    Last edited by Jean and Tonic; 28-02-08, 17:38.
                    Jean....the mist is starting to clear

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jean and Tonic View Post

                      The Bishops' Transcripts are down at the moment.....until 12 tonight...... they are loading new collections ......... wonder what they are!
                      LOL I'm having to find other things to do as well

                      keep your fingers crossed the vicar was being a good chap & recorded the grandparents names too!
                      Vicky

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I was watching re-runs of Upstair Downstairs (lol) and the Marquis of Stockbridge who was about 30, couldn't get his parents consent to marry a commoner.....they sent him away to Europe for a year, to get over it.....but he didn't and eventually his parents gave in and the marriae went ahead.

                        Now, maybe titled folk were expected to follow certain conventions, but what about ordinary people where perhaps there was some advantage (social or financial or both) for one party in marrying the other? Maybe the vicar thought it best to confirm from the families that they were happy about the marriage to save any later misunderstandings?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Merry

                          I was going to say that many women of whatever age, "needed" the approval of their fathers and/or brothers to marry. However, the LAW does not require this permission, so I think the Vicar was either being thick or over officious if he stated that parental permission was granted.

                          My lovely old auntie Em was housekeeper for her brother in law for many years. When she was in her late 40s, the coal man came a-courting but my great grandfather sent him packing.

                          Auntie Em accepted this. This was in the 1920s and there was nothing at all stopping her from marrying the coalman if she wanted - but great grandad, who was ONLY her brother in law, said no and that was the end of it.

                          Of course, if you were rich and titled, you needed your father's permission otherwise he could cut you off without a penny and this might have been a bit of an inconvenience if you were a drone.

                          OC

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I don't about mine being rich ........ more likely to be frightened of their father ....

                            Well I've been hunting ......
                            Parents married Aug 1797 ..... found birth for first daughter Oct 1798 ..... second daughter 1802 ........ no children or deaths in between.

                            so I think they maybe thought she was too young to marry without their say so ....... maybe she was a bit naive.

                            She lived and died with that three years knocked off her age...... but the birth and baptism seem OK ...... maybe I'll never know.

                            Thanks anyway ...... I've learnt a lot from you all.

                            jean

                            Come to think of it ........I asked my dad ..... and I was 22 ....lol
                            Jean....the mist is starting to clear

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X