Married at 17?

[dtcoulson]

Hi people,

Just wondering if I should be surprised or doubtful of a man marrying at the age of 17,
in Wolsingham 1816. That's pretty young by today's standards, but was it the case back then?

I am trying to establish an alternate history with an older man of the same name, but that requires a man dying 12 months before his son is *baptised. Again, I don't know how likely that is.

Can someone give me an insight into how big Wolsingham would have been (population-wise) in 1816? I am finding quite a few people of the same name living there at the same time, which hints that the population was quite large. Either that or the Collinsons of Wolsingham were very fond of the name William.

Cheers
David C

[Ruskie]

According to Genuki the population of Wolsingham in 1811 was 1983:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DUR/Wolsingham
It is not clear if that refers to Wolsingham town or Wolsingham parish (a bit more research might clarify).

All of the scenarios you outline relating to William Collinson are possible:
He could have married at 17 though it was more common for girls of that age to marry with the boy being older. Have you checked for any births which may explain a shotgun wedding? (Though it may not be the case).

It is possible for a child to be baptised when older ie he could have been baptised after his father's death. Have you checked the original parish register in case it mentions a birth date or an age as well as a date of baptism?

There may have been several William Collinsons making it difficult to distinguish between them.

It could be worth checking the original records if and where possible in case you find any additional snippets of information such as ages, or abodes or occupations. Collate all the information that you can about all the William Collinsons - if you put it all down on paper it may become clearer.

Durham is fairly well covered by online records.

[fiddlerslass]

Hi David,
 According to Pigot's 1834 Directory of Durham, the population of the parish of Wolsingham was 2,197 in the census of 1821 and 2,239 in 1831.

Regarding the marriage of possibly a17yr old male - does the parish record say anything about consent of parents? Was it by banns or licence?  If you only have the persons baptism date as a source for his age, remember that he could have been baptised as a child rather than as a baby, so may be slightly older than he would appear. Do you have him in the later censuses or a burial to see what age is given?

Again with the man dying 12 mths before the baptism - he could be the father if the child was not baptised straight away.

If the family was known to the vicar I would probably expect a note in the baptisms that the child may not have been the legitimate child of the deceased father, if that was the case. If they came from outside the parish, the vicar may not have known about the father having died 12 months before.

Have you checked for a will of the deceased man - may mention provision for future children?

Hope this helps.

[KGarrad]

The minimum age for marriage was 14 for men and 12 for women.

Set by Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753, and not increased to 16 until the Age of Marriage Act 1929.

[stanmapstone]

The minimum age for marriage was 14 for men and 12 for women.
Set by Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753, and not increased to 16 until the Age of Marriage Act 1929.

It was not set by Hardwicke's Act.
From time immemorial the age for matrimonial consent was fixed at 7 years, but puberty was accepted as the age for consummation of the marriage, which was 12 for girls and 14 for boys.
Canon 100 of 1603 forbade, but did not invalidate marriage of persons under 21, except with parental consent.
The legal age for marriage from 29 September 1653 was fixed at 16 for a man and 14 for a woman. In 1660 the pre-interregnum laws were reinstated and the ages of marriage reverted to 14 for the groom and 12 for the bride.


Stan

[dtcoulson]

You people have so much skill at this it takes my breath away.

Fiddlerslass, I have copy-pasted the text from FreeReg showing the marriage in question.
You will see the remark, as you predicted, "consent of parents".
Is that a clear signal that the marrying couple were young?
I also wanted to ask you what is the significance of 'by Banns' rather than 'by licence' ?

Thanks also to KGarrad for your information.
I see that someone else has contributed, though I haven't read that yet.
Thanks all.
DC



[copy text starts]
County   Durham
Place   Wolsingham
Church name   St Mary and St Stephen
Register type   Bishop's Transcripts
Register entry number   51
Marriage date   27 May 1816
Groom forename   William
Groom surname   COLLINSON
Bride forename   Mary
Bride surname   ATKINSON
Witness   Jno NICOLSON
Witness   Thomas JACKSON
Register note   Banns with consent of parents
[copy text ends]

[KGarrad]

Banns (Banns of Marriage) are public announcements, in the home parish of each party, of the declaration to marry.

The banns were read on 3 consecutive Sundays.
The purpose was to allow any objections (in terms of legal impediment) to the marriage to be made.

It was possible to circumvent the banns by paying for a Licence to marry.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license#England_.26_Wales


The Age of Consent was historically 21.
Those under 21 had to have the consent of their parents, or guardian.
(Nowadays it is 18)

[stanmapstone]

You can see Lord Hardwicke's Act at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1753.htm

Stan

[fiddlerslass]

Hi,
Just had a quick look at the BT's for Wolsingham  - all the marriages for that year say with consent of parents, so not much help - surely they were not all minors! But sometimes it can be a clue as to age.

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753

"The Act tightened the existing ecclesiastical rules regarding marriage, providing that for a marriage to be valid it had to be performed in a church and after the publication of banns[5] or the obtaining of a licence.[6] Those under the age of 21 had to have parental consent if they married by licence; marriages by banns, by contrast, were valid as long as the parent of the minor did not actually forbid the banns. "

The licence/marriage bond,  if  existant, would have given an age, for example 21 and upwards, or stated that parental consent was given if under 21.However I noticed a William Collinson was a witness to a couple of the marriages that year. Would he have to be a certain age to be a witness - I think now you have to be over 16 years of age but not sure about 1816 - however I expect they may have had to be over 21 back then?