Married with Parents' consent?

[mike175]

Did parents' consent always indicate the person being married was under 21, or could there be another reason for it?

I have the following entry from the Stifford, Essex parish register:

Robert Partridge of this Parish Batchelor and Mary Cox of this Parish Spinster were married in this Church by Banns with Consent of Parents this nineteenth Day of October in the Year One thousand eight hundred and fifteen

Robert's age was 46 on his Death Certificate 1 April 1840, but 49 on the Burial Certificate, making his d.o.b. either 1791 or 1794. If the latter he could have been just under 21 at his marriage.

Mary was certainly older than Robert according to all the records I have found.

Mike.

[dawnsh]

I've seen the comment in many parish register entries, some vicars seem to have been using the quote on a regular basis regardless of age or marital status.

I've also seen the quote 'with consent of friends'

[stanmapstone]

These are two entries from a Parish Register, one entry says "with consent of congregation" and the other "with consent of friends" there are a number of entries with the latter comment.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=546482.msg4002559#msg4002559

Stan

[mike175]

Interesting. I'd only come across it before where at least one participant was under 21, but it seems to be much less rigid, possibly dependant on individual vicars (as it was printed in the register, maybe some felt they had to use it whatever the circumstances?)

So not much use in helping determine age at marriage then . . . .

Thanks for the help

Mike.

[ThrelfallYorky]

I'd been puzzling how a male aged, (if I believe the person who states his birthdate,) was born in 1816, and his spouse, from later evidence b 1822,  could both be a "minor" when marrying in 1840.
Several trees I've been shown have recorded that, but as I think he may have been a different person with the same name, I puzzled ... still feel I'm probably right, and that his parents are not .... his parents.
I'd assumed it meant under 21, until more recently, and then under 18.

[louisa maud]

My Gt aunt married aged 14.5 years, no mention of consent but it was a register office marriage, even so I would have thought she needed consent, age shown 21, how did she get away with it, wasn't pregnant as far as records show , I believe she married to get away from a sad life, she was married for years and was very happy, 

Louisa Maud

[stanmapstone]

There was no requirement to prove anything, that is the reason for the marriage book in a Register Office, so that the details are available to the public so that any objections to the legality of the proposed marriage can be made. The system is 'informant' driven, that is the registrars accept what they are told. People could be, and were, very rarely, prosecuted for perjury if any of the details were willfully incorrect, but they would have to be found out. Today you have to provide proof of identity to get married in a Register Office.

Have look at my post http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=357337.msg2345735#msg2345735 which gives details about  Register Office marriage requirements.

Stan

[louisa maud]

Thanks Stan but I really don't know how she got away with stating she was 21 when she was only 14.5 years

LM

[JenB]

Thanks Stan but I really don't know how she got away with stating she was 21 when she was only 14.5 years

Times don't necessarily change - there are plenty of girls of 14½ around today who are able to make themselves look far older. Perhaps it wasn't so different then, either?