Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Research Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 27-01-10, 10:13
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit View Post
So if someone married in 1813 they would have been born in 1792 or before?
That's right as long as they were not lying about their ages!

Obviously full age can mean anything over 21 - my g-grandfather was 57 when he married for the first time and his cert says full age.
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 27-01-10, 11:29
Olde Crone Olde Crone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,823
Default

Um, just to muddy the water a bit, I have seen marriages which do not state "of full age" and where (I know) the couples are minors, but there is no mention of permission having been gained, so it wouldn't be safe to assume an age from the lack of one on a marriage register!

OC
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 27-01-10, 12:49
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,649
Default

What we have no means of knowing is whether the church is crammed to bursting with bride's mother, groom's granny and every other gossip in the village. In those circumstances, the vicar might not bother to indicate that the bride was 15, with the entire church nodding approval.

If a shifty couple slid into the back pew for the banns, he might well be concerned to be sure it was with parental consent, in case he got into trouble.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 27-01-10, 13:05
Olde Crone Olde Crone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,823
Default

Phoenix

I entirely agree with that - in the case I mention, in the mid 1700s, the bride is 13, the groom is a few days either side of 15.

Banns were called, I have those, but no mention of permission being asked or granted. However, the father of the groom was church warden and local worthy and signed the marriage register as witness, so I am sure that permission was gained "on the nod" if not on paper!

(The happy couple produced the first of 15 children within 4 months of the marriage. The marriage lasted almost 60 years.)

OC
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 27-01-10, 17:29
maggie_4_7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What I meant to say was 'off full age' would mean over 21 unless of course they lied which people did all the time.

There you go 1st Jan 1970 for lowering the coming of age to 18.

Of course I was only 14 then so couldn't vote until I was 18 which was 1974
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 28-01-10, 01:51
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,716
Default

OC you could be right and she lied about her age, I suspect she did on the census. If I have the right bride she was from the parish church and I couldn't find a baptism around the year her census ages suggest, which is why I was checking if the age was 21 or lower to be of full age, as I need to check earlier.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 28-01-10, 10:39
JBee JBee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 1,850
Default

I'd be wary of believing any age given as they didn't have birth certificates and were often unsure of their age.

I missed out on my Coming of Age - as I was slap bang in the middle - they reduced it to 18 shortly before I got to 21. boohoo
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:13.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.