RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: SmallTownGirl on Saturday 09 December 17 18:37 GMT (UK)
-
Hi peeps
Would there necessarily be any note on the marriage record that it was with the consent of a parent or guardian?
The marriage record just says "... spinster of this parish .."
If not on the marriage record, would it have been noted in the Banns Book, perhaps? (marriage record image on Ancestry, banns book not :( )
Thanks
STG
-
After Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753. Under Hardwicke's Marriage Act the information recorded in the register is the Parish, County, and year. the names of the bride and groom, the parishes they were from, the name of the Church, whether the marriage was by banns or licence, the consent of the parents if either of the couple were under the age of 21, the date of the marriage, the signature of the minister, the signatures of the couple and the signatures of the witnesses. Parents and Occupations are not shown.
Stan
-
So if it doesn't say words to the effect that she married with the consent of a parent or guardian then
a) the register is incomplete, or
b) she lied about her age, or
c) she was 21 or older?
Right?
STG
-
Marriages of minors, i.e. under 21, without consent after banns were valid, unless the banns had been forbidden by parents or guardians openly and publicly in church at the time of publication.
It was not necessary to give a formal and written consent to a marriage. In the case of marriage after banns, consent was always presumed in the absence of any notice or expression of dissent by the person or persons, required to give consent.
Stan
-
deleted
-
Stan
I'm a bit confused! :-[
I appreciate that written consent wasn't necessary and have seen banns books where the cleric has noted that the process didn't continue because a parent/guardian objected.
However, in your first reply you said that, in the event that one of the marriage partners was a minor, the cleric was required include that consent of a parent/guardian had been given. But, in your second reply you say that if the parent/guardian hadn't objected to the banns, then consent was presumed.
Or am I reading it incorrectly?
I have an ancestor who married (in England) in 1822 and died in 1832, age 26 (according to the burial register) - have a thread about her on RC, so won't repeat the details here. So, at the time of the wedding she would have been 16/17 and I was thinking there might have been some mention of parent/guardian consent somewhere.
STG
-
Stan
I'm a bit confused! :-[
I appreciate that written consent wasn't necessary and have seen banns books where the cleric has noted that the process didn't continue because a parent/guardian objected.
However, in your first reply you said that, in the event that one of the marriage partners was a minor, the cleric was required include that consent of a parent/guardian had been given. But, in your second reply you say that if the parent/guardian hadn't objected to the banns, then consent was presumed.
Or am I reading it incorrectly?
I have an ancestor who married (in England) in 1822 and died in 1832, age 26 (according to the burial register) - have a thread about her on RC, so won't repeat the details here. So, at the time of the wedding she would have been 16/17 and I was thinking there might have been some mention of parent/guardian consent somewhere.
STG
I deleted my reply as I thought Stan had made it clear.
There was a restriction on marriages of minors (people under the age of 21) by licence between 1774 and 1823 as a result of Hardwick's Marriage Act 1773 but that was repealed in 1823.
The above restriction did not however affect any marriage by banns where it was advisory to obtain parental permission but it was not required for a legal marriage to take place.
Hardwick's Marriage Act 1773 puts it this way-
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l5p/
III. Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That no Parson, Minister, Vicar or Curate solemnizing Marriages after the twenty-fifth Day of March one thousand seven hundred and fifty-four, between Persons, both or one of whom shall be under the Age of twenty-one Years, after Banns published, shall be punishable by Ecclesiastical Censures for solemnizing such Marriages without Consent of Parents or Guardians, whose Consent is required by Law, unless such Parson, Minister, Vicar or Curate shall have Notice of the Dissent of such Parents or Guardians; and in case such Parents or Guardians, or one of them, shall openly and publickly declare, or cause to be declared in the Church or Chapel where the Banns shall be so published, at the Time of such Publication, his, her or their Dissent to such Marriages such Publication of Banns shall be absolutely void.
Cheers
Guy
-
However, in your first reply you said that, in the event that one of the marriage partners was a minor, the cleric was required include that consent of a parent/guardian had been given. But, in your second reply you say that if the parent/guardian hadn't objected to the banns, then consent was presumed.
Or am I reading it incorrectly?
STG
If the consent was presumed, then it would be taken as given, which would be entered as such in the register.
Stan
-
However, in your first reply you said that, in the event that one of the marriage partners was a minor, the cleric was required include that consent of a parent/guardian had been given. But, in your second reply you say that if the parent/guardian hadn't objected to the banns, then consent was presumed.
Or am I reading it incorrectly?
STG
If the consent was presumed, then it would be taken as given, which would be entered as such in the register.
Stan
The 1773 Act actually goes further than that.
The 1773 Act required the person making the objection to appear in church and voice the objection, a written notice of an objection between 1773 and 1823 was not good enough.
Cheers
Guy
PS Any written notice could of course require or ask the vicar etc. to read it out in church thereby satisfying the 1773 Act.
-
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
-
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
-
Got it! ;D
Finally. :-[
Thanks for your patience.
STG