Married by banns in 1822 at age 16/17

[SmallTownGirl]

If the consent was presumed, then it would be taken as given, which would be entered as such in the register.

Stan

"which would be entered as such in the register"

Sorry to be such a pain, but, believe it or not, I'm still not quite getting this.   

In the case I'm referring to the register says ".... were married in this church by banns .... " and the printed words "with consent of " have been crossed through, as with all the other entries on this image of the register.  So, if the bride was only 16/17yo, should there have been mention of consent?

STG

[Guy Etchells]

If the consent was presumed, then it would be taken as given, which would be entered as such in the register.

Stan

"which would be entered as such in the register"

Sorry to be such a pain, but, believe it or not, I'm still not quite getting this.   

In the case I'm referring to the register says ".... were married in this church by banns .... " and the printed words "with consent of " have been crossed through, as with all the other entries on this image of the register.  So, if the bride was only 16/17yo, should there have been mention of consent?

STG

No there was no legal requirement to do so.
That simpley acted as a memory aid.
Cheers
Guy

[SmallTownGirl]

Got it!   

Finally. 

Thanks for your patience. 

STG