Confirmation please

[ozgirl]

I have been told that on early (pre 1837) marriage certificates, the ages were gnerally only mentioned if the bride or groom were under age. Am I right in thinking that the age of majority then was 21, and therefore if the age of the groom was not mentioned in 1817, he would have been born in 1796 or earlier.

If so this might help me to sort out one of my Browns:smilee:

Linda

[Jessbowbag]

I didn't think there was such a thing as a pre 1837 marriage cert.

[ozgirl]

Well it's a copy of the parish record actually, with their marks and all!

Linda

[Uncle John]

"Full age" means 21, if they were telling the truth.

[Gwyn in Kent]

I am looking at a printout of a Church of England marriage 1815.
The pre printed format has a space after the couple's names where the words, ... 'with consent of----------------- is printed.
If the couple were truthful about their age, if they were minors, there should be some indication of who consented to the marriage.

[ozgirl]

Thanks for that - I know the bride was 22, and at first I thought the groom was about 18, but as there was no entry in the consent box, and one of the witnesses was the grooms brother, it seems to point to someone who was born in 1791 and therefore of full age - he even has a brother who matches!

Linda

[Darksecretz]

Civil registration began in the 3rd quarter of 1837, before this there would have been entries in the marriage register but no formal certificate.

I work on the principle of 21, so unless an age is stated thats the date I work from, (but of course allowing a year either way) and look for likely baptisms around the 'base' date.

does that help at all?

:smilee:

[ozgirl]

Yes thanks Julie - I really wanted to make sure that it was 21 being full age and not 18. I have a copy of the entry in the marriage register, so I needed to change the date I was thinking of for possible baptisms.

Linda

[Darksecretz]

well hopefully now it might help you track whoever it is down :smilee: