Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How old was "of full age"?

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

  • How old was "of full age"?

    In 1819, at the marriage of William Samain & Catherine Brown, William was a minor, but there was no mention of that against Catherine's name. In subsequent census data they appear to be the same age.
    I should be most grateful to learn if the distinction between one's being a minor and reaching one's majority has always been the same for men and women. I know girls could marry, with parental permission, at a younger age than boys, but did they reach their "full age" at the same age?
    With many thanks,
    Henry

  • #2
    Until the 60's a person could only marry without permission haveing attained age 21 - in England and Wales. In Scotland it was 16, hence a number of elopements to Gretna Green etc.

    'Of full age' means that the person has attained his/her magority (ie 21). However, it depemds what the person says. My gt grandfather claims to be 'of full age' but was only 19. On the census, they are shown as the same age but my great-grandmother was about 3 years older.

    This couple married in the next parish to keep their marriage secret, and they did so for a year!

    Anne

    Comment


    • #3
      There was one exception to this rule.

      A widow under the age of 21 did not need parental permission to remarry, but that is obviously quite a rare occurence.

      OC

      Comment


      • #4
        Grandfather was 18 when he married

        I've always found the marriage cert odd, because it says 'full age'

        His father + occupation is given although his father had died almost 2 years before and it does not say 'deceased'

        At the time of the marriage, grandfather was in the army, so presumably it would have been easy to check his details ....
        Did they not have to prove their age ?
        ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

        Comment


        • #5
          Rachel

          No, you didn't have to prove anything at all, so you could say what you liked and almost certainly get away with it.

          Of course, if the Vicar knew you and had baptised you as a baby, he might raise an eyebrow. However, the C of E reserved the right to over-ride non-permission, especially where the bride was pregnant.

          There's another point too. If you married in a Register Office, you had to get written permission, or at least a signature on a form, from your father. If he couldn't write he might just say "oh, tell 'em you're 21 lad" to save himself the bother!

          Lying about your age does not invalidate a marriage unless you are under the age of SEXUAL consent.

          OC

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
            Rachel

            especially where the bride was pregnant.
            OC
            :o How did you know ???? :D
            Grandmother was 4 years older and gave birth a few days later


            Thanks OC
            ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Henry View Post
              In 1819, at the marriage of William Samain & Catherine Brown, William was a minor, but there was no mention of that against Catherine's name. In subsequent census data they appear to be the same age.
              Henry, I should think it is quite likely that Catherine was older than William but knocked a few years off her age when census night came around.
              KiteRunner

              Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
              (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")

              Comment


              • #8
                Thank you all for your replies. I know about creative replying. My grandfather was 17 when he married "of full age". In my case above, the most likely contender for Catherine was actually a year younger than William viz 18 years old. I wondered if 18 counted as full age for a woman in 1819. But it would seem from what you are saying that 21 has always been full age in England for both men & women. Back to the Registers!!!
                Many thanks, Henry

                Comment


                • #9
                  I noticed Catherine's death reg showed her to be 67 in June Q 1866, for what that's worth (not a great deal!!)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I was at a conference last FRiday where we were invited to guess the age of some Victorian females from their photographs. They were in their teens, but looked over thirty. It has often been the case that women look (and behave!) more maturely than males of the same age. Perhaps that was the reason the question wasn't even asked?
                    Phoenix - with charred feathers
                    Researching Skillings from Norfolk, Sworn from Salisbury and Adams in Malborough, Devon.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Slaving over a hot stove, and other appropriate household duties, would cause women to look older.
                      Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Not to mention inadequate dental care, constant pregnancies etc.
                        ~ with love from Little Nell~
                        Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thank you for the continuing contributions. Perhaps if she looked older and the question was not asked, then the answer was not given: she may have been a minor, but nothing was said. (They didn't give a thought to their descendants' doing all this Family History did they!!!)
                          I will follow up the death record in 1866. That looks a very good lead and might well solve this minor conundrum.
                          Henry.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Seems their is confusion about the differences between English (& Welsh) law and Scottish law regarding marriages.

                            In England and Wales parental consent for the marriage of a minor was only required between the years of 1753 and 1823.

                            The difference between Scottish & English law was marriages could take place in Scotland without the calling of banns and until 1856 without residing in the parish for 21 days. This meant a couple could be married before those looking for them discovered where they had gone.
                            However just because Gretna and indeed other Scottish border villages became popular for runaway marriage don't forget that hundreds of runaway couples married in distant English towns and villages.
                            Cheers
                            Guy
                            Guy passed away October 2022

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              In England and Wales parental consent for the marriage of a minor was only required between the years of 1753 and 1823.
                              Erm......shouldn't that be....

                              the 1823 Act directed that such consent be obtained, but any marriage without consent was legal and neither void nor voidable.

                              (quoted from something you posted on a different website)

                              Presumably the happy couple needed to get through the marriage service without the vicar realising they were minor(s) - once they had done this the marriage was valid. Am I right in thinking the vicar could refuse to marry them if he realised in advance one or both were underage and he didn't have the consent of a parent? Otherwise minors wouldn't have bothered to lie about their age, surely?!

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Merry Monty Montgomery View Post
                                Erm......shouldn't that be....

                                the 1823 Act directed that such consent be obtained, but any marriage without consent was legal and neither void nor voidable.

                                (quoted from something you posted on a different website)

                                Presumably the happy couple needed to get through the marriage service without the vicar realising they were minor(s) - once they had done this the marriage was valid. Am I right in thinking the vicar could refuse to marry them if he realised in advance one or both were underage and he didn't have the consent of a parent? Otherwise minors wouldn't have bothered to lie about their age, surely?!
                                No the vicar couldn't refuse to marry them unless consent had been refused.
                                It was advisable that consent was obtained but there was no requirement to obtain consent.

                                A Practical Treatise of the Law relating to the Church and the Clergy by Henry William Cripps, M.A., Barrister at Law, pages 648 & 649 state-
                                Connected with this last disability of want of age, it was at one period the law of this country that all marriages celebrated by license, where either of the parties was under the age of twenty-one years (not being a widow or widower), without the consent of the father, or if he were not living, of the mother or guardians, should be absolutely void; such a provision, however, was found to be contrary to the principles of general policy, and has been repealed. Such a marriage, although without consent, is now valid, and the parties could not again contract.
                                Cheers
                                Guy
                                Guy passed away October 2022

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Guy

                                  So -
                                  1. A minor asks parent for consent to marry and it is given = marriage
                                  2. A minor asks parent for consent to marry and it is not given = marriage
                                  3. A minor asks parent for consent to marry, it is refused = no marriage.

                                  To me, it looks very much like 2 and 3 are the same thing, but with different results!

                                  I notice that you quote marriage BY LICENCE above - surely that is a special case, as the vast majority of marriages were by Banns. The whole purpose of Banns is to allow people to object to the forthcoming marriage and that would include the father of a minor.

                                  Also, as I said in a previous post, the Church did reserve the right to override non-parental permission, but that was in the days when the Established Church still felt it was above the civil law of the land.

                                  If you look at any modern-day Registration Office website, the rules for the marriage of a minor are clearly laid out - parental permission must be obtained, and I don't think that requirement has altered since the beginning of civil registration.

                                  I completely agree with you though, that if such a marriage is contracted without parental permission (because one of the parties lied, or whatever) it does not invalidate the marriage unless the minor was under the legal age for marriage.

                                  OC

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                                    Guy

                                    So -
                                    1. A minor asks parent for consent to marry and it is given = marriage
                                    2. A minor asks parent for consent to marry and it is not given = marriage
                                    3. A minor asks parent for consent to marry, it is refused = no marriage.

                                    To me, it looks very much like 2 and 3 are the same thing, but with different results!
                                    No the important point is the parent or guardian has to inform the vicar (or priest who performs the ceremony) that consent has been refused.
                                    Unless the vicar is aware that consent has been refused the marriage can go ahead.
                                    It is the knowledge of refusal that is important, not the consent.


                                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                                    I notice that you quote marriage BY LICENCE above - surely that is a special case, as the vast majority of marriages were by Banns. The whole purpose of Banns is to allow people to object to the forthcoming marriage and that would include the father of a minor.
                                    Yes because to write all the legal jargon for both marriages by banns and marriage by licence would take too long, so I simply added a short section of a number of Acts and legal opinion.
                                    See also-
                                    1753

                                    rcm1823

                                    alm1823


                                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                                    Also, as I said in a previous post, the Church did reserve the right to override non-parental permission, but that was in the days when the Established Church still felt it was above the civil law of the land.
                                    Yes and I did no touch on those issues where various legal appeals could be undertaken to allow a marriage where consent had been refused.
                                    See-
                                    alm1823

                                    In The Book of Church Law being an exposition of the Legal Rights and Duties of the Parocial Clergy and the Laity of the Church of England by the Rev. John Henry Blunt, D.D. * page 138-
                                    "The law formerly (as expressed by the 62nd canon) ran, that no minors could be married without the consent of their parents or guardians, expressed either by themselves, or by sufficient testimony ; but the statute just quoted declares, in effect, that this expressed consent is no longer necessary, and consequently its absence does not make the marriage of minors a punishable offence in the clergyman who marries them."

                                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                                    If you look at any modern-day Registration Office website, the rules for the marriage of a minor are clearly laid out - parental permission must be obtained, and I don't think that requirement has altered since the beginning of civil registration.
                                    Unfortunately such rules are "Office policy" to enable less work for the Registrars rather than being the law.
                                    They are in fact similar to the unlawful requirement to provide extra details when purchasing recent birth certificate online.

                                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                                    I completely agree with you though, that if such a marriage is contracted without parental permission (because one of the parties lied, or whatever) it does not invalidate the marriage unless the minor was under the legal age for marriage.
                                    OC
                                    However the parties may simply have omitted stating that the consent was refused, they did not have to mention whether consent was given or refused
                                    Cheers
                                    Guy

                                    * Revised by the Honble Sir Walter G. F. Phillimore, Bart., D.C.I. on of the judges of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice, sometime Chancellor of the Diocese of Lincoln and Official of the Archdeaconry of Colchester.
                                    And by G. Edwardes Jones, Barrister-at-Law, formerly Fello of Pembroke Coll. Cambridge.
                                    Guy passed away October 2022

                                    Comment

                                    Working...
                                    X