Young groom, older bride

[hallmark]

Not an age gap as big as 41 years but in 1811, my 48 year old widowed ancestor Sarah Hurrell married a 17 year old minor called Lewis James in Canewdon, Essex. So 31 years. Still an enormous age gap. Seems there was a liking for toyboys.

Was??   

[Mike in Cumbria]

I know a "couple" with a similar age gap at the moment. Not quite so big but nearly. The marriage is one of convenience - he farms the smallholding that she lives on and this was a way of ensuring that he could keep the tenancy when she dies. They don't live together as man and wife.
It's possible that your couple were in a similar position. Either that or they just really loved each other.

[coombs]

Not an age gap as big as 41 years but in 1811, my 48 year old widowed ancestor Sarah Hurrell married a 17 year old minor called Lewis James in Canewdon, Essex. So 31 years. Still an enormous age gap. Seems there was a liking for toyboys.

Was??   

True, still is today.

[Mart 'n' Al]

My great grandmother, Jane Adamson, aged 29, married Henry Thompson aged 71 on 13th March 1889. 41 years different again.  Nine months later, 17 December 1889, she gave birth to his child, Henry Jr., before Henry Sr. died, probably with a smile on his face, in 1891.

Jane went on to have six more children with her 'next man', including my grandfather in 1900.

I can find no reason for it not being a marriage of love, but I welcome any suggestions or interpretation, not worrying about political correctness or my feelings. Was he caught having his evil way with her, then forced to marry her, or was it love?

Martin

[Viktoria]

There is an instance in my extended family ,about 1910.
Young woman early twenties married a man in late fifties.
It was extremely happy ,she loved her engagement ring but only wore it “ for best” ,so he bought her another for every day wear.
Her’s  was the funeral I watched in the tiny hamlet where I was  evacuated.
She was carried by her brothers and other chaps for about a mile up a steep very rugged path to a little Baptist Chapel ,where my  G. Grandparents  were also buried.
Mourners walked behind,it was something I always  remember.
She had secretly loved the man she married from being a teenager,he was a widower and had no idea of her feelings for him.
  Not sure who chased who ,but it was known as a very happy marriage.
Viktoria.

[cuffie81]

I can't beat 41 years but I can match it, although in this case the chap is the older of the two.

Marriage
married: 07 Nov 1891; St Johns, Bush End, Essex; banns
groom: William Gunn (x); 76; wid; labourer; Bushend
bride: Harriet Harrington; 35; wid; Bushend
grooms father: William Gunn; labourer
brides father: James Morton; labourer

The marriage (William's third) didn't last long as William died a few years later and Harriet settled down with someone else (her sister's widower) but didn't marry again.


Out of curiosity I thought I'd have a search through newspapers to see what large age gaps I could find. There were quite a few of 50 years but the largest age gap I found was 58, although in this case it seems to be a case of a Marquis wishing to father an heir.

Derby Daily Telegraph
10 Oct 1903
A Romance Of The Peerage
Heir Born To The Marquis of Donegall At Eighty
The "Daily Mail" says:- In an unpretentious house in an aristocratic square off Brompton-road an event occurred on Wednesday which may be said to put a period to one of the most remarkable romances of the British Peerage. The event in question was the birth of a son and heir to the Marquis of Donegall, who is in his eight-second year.

At the beginning of the present year the many friends of the marquis were surprised at the announcement that his lordship was betrothed to Miss Twining, daughter of the late Mr Henry St George Twining, a native of Halifax Nova Scotia.

Miss Twining was a charming girlish-looking bride - tall and slender, with a perfectly oval face and luxurious mass of fair hair. She was only 22 years of age, or close upon 60 years younger than the bridegroom. But the privileged few who attended the ceremony and the subsequent rejoicings commented upon his lordship's sprightly air and erect bearing. It was generally agreed that a bridegroom with half a century to his advantage could not have created a better impression.

George Chichester, 5th Marquess of Donegall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Chichester,_5th_Marquess_of_Donegall


I also found this item suggesting ageing ladies could benefit their appearance by marrying a younger man.

Ayr Advertiser, or, West Country Journal
14 Jul 1881
Here is a hint for elderly ladies who wish to grow young again. The Baroness Burdett-Coutts, it is declared, looks at least ten years younger than she did before her marriage. So a lady who could marry a husband, say 70 years younger than herself, might knock 15 years off her life, and so in an increased ratio. But there is the other side of the question - how much older does he look?

Apparently the Baroness was 38 years older than her husband.

Angela Burdett-Coutts, 1st Baroness Burdett-Coutts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Burdett-Coutts,_1st_Baroness_Burdett-Coutts

[IgorStrav]

My great grandmother, Jane Adamson, aged 29, married Henry Thompson aged 71 on 13th March 1889. 41 years different again.  Nine months later, 17 December 1889, she gave birth to his child, Henry Jr., before Henry Sr. died, probably with a smile on his face, in 1891.

Jane went on to have six more children with her 'next man', including my grandfather in 1900.

I can find no reason for it not being a marriage of love, but I welcome any suggestions or interpretation, not worrying about political correctness or my feelings. Was he caught having his evil way with her, then forced to marry her, or was it love?

Martin

One of the things you'll never know, Martin.

But taking the birth dates of the child, and assuming the standard 9 months of gestation, conception was scarcely before the marriage, was it?  So not a shotgun wedding 

I suppose were it my ancestress, I would be looking at the relative affluence of the two parties ahead of the marriage. 

Was the groom a family friend (is he in the census, living close by to the bride's parents, a similar occupation etc?)
Had the bride been married (or had children) before?  Had he?  Had she perhaps cared for his children growing up?
In 1889 she was surely considered quite 'old' at 29 to be married for the first time 

Did the marriage provide her with some status, so that she was more 'marriageable' after her husband's death?

Nosey - me?

[Mike in Cumbria]

She was only 22 years of age, or close upon 60 years younger than the bridegroom. But the privileged few who attended the ceremony and the subsequent rejoicings commented upon his lordship's sprightly air and erect bearing.

I bet they did.

[River Tyne Lass]

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=794673.msg6528212#msg6528212

Although, I might be completely wrong Martin, I tend to doubt that your 29 year old ancestor Jane would have married 71 year old Henry for love.  I think it would more likely to have been for a level security.  I think at this time in history it might have been seen to be commendable to try to make a 'good' marriage.  Looking back to an earlier thread of yours (when I found the grave number of Henry's grave for you at Preston Cemetery) I see he was an agent. Okay, not a millionaire but perhaps comfortable - and perhaps when Jane was presented with the opportunity to have a comfortable existence she took it.  If this is what happened, I think we cannot judge these days.  Back then I think  marriage choice could have a severe impact on someone's standard of life.  Marrying someone who was not doing well might result in outcomes such as going hungry, toil and drudgery, resorting to crime and ending up in the workhouse, etc.. 
Having said that, I am sure many did marry for love and gave little consideration to the possible consequences.