RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Somerset => Topic started by: Canadian Goose on Sunday 09 August 20 22:27 BST (UK)
-
Hi,
Have a marriage entry from 1767. Not sure of the bride's birth date, estimated at 1750. Groom was born in 1703. The entry shows married by license with consent of parents. Understand the full age for marriage was 12 or 14? If that were true she shouldn't have needed consent, or was much younger than 17 and the presumed birth date is wrong. This brings me to my next question, why would a young girl of approximately 17 years marry a man of 64? He died 43 days after the marriage. Trying to get some perspective on this union.
Thank you.
Judy
-
Although marriage was legal at 12 for girls you still needed parental consent under 21 years of age after the 1753 marriage act; No marriage of a person under the age of 21 was valid without the consent of parents or guardians. Clergymen who disobeyed the law were liable for 14 years transportation.
-
young tug, thank you. I didn't realize that consent was needed under 21. Have a number of entries where they only state full age or with consent of parents.
-
Consent was needed if you were 21 until about 1970 when the age was lowered to 18.
My husband and I both had to have parental consent in 1961.
-
young tug, thank you. I didn't realize that consent was needed under 21. Have a number of entries where they only state full age or with consent of parents.
Consent was needed if you were 21 until about 1970 when the age was lowered to 18.
My husband and I both had to have parental consent in 1961.
:) Consent is needed, no matter what the age of either the bride or groom.
:) So where they are old enough to give their own consent to marrying, they show their consent by signing or otherwise making their mark.
:) So they need to be of full age, I.e. no longer of a minor age, to be old enough to give their own consent to marrying, BUT if not yet of full age, ie not yet having reached majority, then IF marrying, they need a responsible person to provide that consent to marry, on their behalf.
So if under age, they sign etc, and the officiating minister or civil official ought to also record the consenting detail.
JM
-
Re 1767 and the age discrepancy between bride (a minor,) and groom, at age 64 (an elderly person in that era) ... he died 43 days after marriage.
May I suggest you seek out how his deceased estate was distributed, as that may give you the explanation.Hi,
Have a marriage entry from 1767. Not sure of the bride's birth date, estimated at 1750. Groom was born in 1703. The entry shows married by license with consent of parents. Understand the full age for marriage was 12 or 14? If that were true she shouldn't have needed consent, or was much younger than 17 and the presumed birth date is wrong.
This brings me to my next question, why would a young girl of approximately 17 years marry a man of 64? He died 43 days after the marriage. Trying to get some perspective on this union.
Thank you.
Judy
-
Jebber, thank you, very similar rules to Canada.
-
Thank you majm. The entry only says married by license with parents consent. The bride and groom both signed and I believe the bride’s father was a witness. Assume that met any legal requirements. The bride remarried in 1772 with no mention of consent so I will assume her estimated birthdate is close.
I do have the first husband’s will. It is 9 pages of extremely cramped writing and illegible in spots. Will have to tackle it in hopes of some insight.
Thank you again.
Judy
-
Thank you majm. The entry only says married by license with parents consent. The bride and groom both signed and I believe the bride’s father was a witness. Assume that met any legal requirements. The bride remarried in 1772 with no mention of consent so I will assume her estimated birthdate is close.
I do have the first husband’s will. It is 9 pages of extremely cramped writing and illegible in spots. Will have to tackle it in hopes of some insight.
Thank you again.
Judy
She may have reached 21 years of age by the time she next married, HOWEVER, because she was a widow, she was entitled to give her own consent because of her status as a widow.
JM
-
I do have the first husband’s will. It is 9 pages of extremely cramped writing and illegible in spots. Will have to tackle it in hopes of some insight.
Judy
If you need help, there's a specific board here on Rootschat for such assistance if you've not seen it:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/handwriting-deciphering-recognition/
It's been pretty quiet on there recently, so there would be lots of people only too happy to try and help you out! :)
-
Although marriage was legal at 12 for girls you still needed parental consent under 21 years of age after the 1753 marriage act; No marriage of a person under the age of 21 was valid without the consent of parents or guardians. Clergymen who disobeyed the law were liable for 14 years transportation.
There seems to be some confusion about getting married without consent, possibly caused by the different rules between marriages after banns and marriages by licence.
First it is and always has been perfectly legal to marry after banns without parent's or guardian's consent “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.” (An Act for the better preventing of clandestine Marriages. [1753.] Section III).
Alternatively All Marriages by Licence require the consent of the Father or if he be dead the guardian or if there is no guardian the mother of the minor, unless the minor is a widow or widower. (Above Act section XI).
The above law requiring consent by licence lasted for about 70 years but I do not have the precise details to hand at present, but I think it was repealed in 1823.
Cheers
Guy
-
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.
http://statutes.org.uk/site/the-statutes/eighteenth-century/1753-26-geo-2-c-33-prevention-of-clandestine-marriages/
-
How was/is 'CONSENT' recorded or evidenced please?
-
From the opening post we were informed that it was a marriage by licence with consent of the parents in 1767, so not by banns, but by licence.
Thus, as one of the party to the proposed marriage was not yet of full age, she was not yet old enough to put her signature to that 'contract' without a responsible person to consent on her behalf.
Under 21 years of age in 1767 .... not yet of full age, so not yet old enough to enter into a contract. If Banns had been called, she would not have needed parental consent.
Her husband died 43 days after marriage.
A likely reason for the licence could be that it was already known that he was ill, so a hasty marriage was arranged as part of a succession plan which should lead to checking out the Will....
JM
-
My grandmother was born 13 Aug 1884, and married in Jun 1900 a man born in 1838, so she was 15 and he was 62.
It would appear that he decided to marry her to avoid being locked up for a very long time for what would seem to be rape!
-
Thank you all for your responses, I have learned a great deal.
Putting together all my notes may have given me an answer. The groom’s mother had given land earlier for the building of a non conformist chapel. The bride’s father was the assistant Rev in that chapel some years later. From an article by Stephen Tuck, the bride’s father was “remarkable for eccentricity” and led a secession from this chapel. Thinking this may have been the connection. Will definitely need to transcribe the will.
What a web this turned out to be when looking for a birthdate.
Thank you all again for your help.
Judy