child marriage

[kylejustin]

i suppose it's known and expected the upper classes sometimes married as children, and i know the legal age was like 12 wasn't it? how often is there evidence of child marriages among poorer classes? and are they usually both children?

looking through the somerset marriage bonds and allegations on ancestry for my ancestor's, and came across a license for john periam in 1783. he was "21 years and upwards". the bride is mary shiklong of butleigh. "a spinster of the age of 10 years or thereabouts, but under the age of 21 years".

mary's father is dead and her mother consented to this "marriage". what a horrid thought, even the use of the word "spinster". makes you wonder of the circumstances? but can't really see any kind of circumstance where this a favourable outcome for the child? surely she could have been adopted or something if the family needed money?

[brentor boy]

Probably entirely coincidental, but Free Reg has the marriage of John Periam and Anne Stickling at Butleigh on 8 November 1783.

[cbcarolyn]

That is so sad to hear, poor girl, have you traced them through their lives?

[Gardengirl]

How clear was the handwriting? Could there be a mistake?

[Anne in Carlisle]

I wonder about the wording '10 years or thereabouts but under 21'. It seems quite an odd definition and like GG I wonder if it is an error somewhere. If it had said (for example) '19 years or thereabouts but under 21' it would make more sense.

Do you have any further evidence that she was actually only 10?

In my researching I must say it is vanishingly rare to find marriages between 'ordinary' folk under the age of 16. I have some aged 17 and quite a few of 18 but I have always been surprised that most are in their early 20s before their first marriage.

Anne

[ozgirl]

I found the entry on Ancestry, and I note that the mother states that Mary is pregnant by John, which is why she is giving her consent, but I think she is actually 18, with a badly written 8. It looks more like the way they write the number 8 on the continent, starting with the bottom and curving the top over. It could possibly be a 6, but I think, given that she is already pregnant, unlikely to be 10.

Actually if you look at the number 8 in 1783, it is done the same way as in Mary's age

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/60858/images/ENGLB030D_D-D-CM-1783A_M_00037?treeid=&personid=&hintid=&queryId=276329a75c964e13701f655dd57e1609&usePUB=true&_phsrc=nkB216&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&pId=5102699

[Anne in Carlisle]

Yes, I agree that is an old way of writing an 8 (very annoying way!)
Anne

[kylejustin]

That's much better! Was absolutely horrified.

I didn't find the license i needed, so annoyed by that. Scanned about 500 pages for 1783 and not there. Might have to look in 1782, as marriage was 5 jan 1783.

[ozgirl]

Yes, I agree that is an old way of writing an 8 (very annoying way!)
Anne

My Father, who was Dutch, used to write his 8s that way, so I am used to them!