No, though in theory could be prosecuted for perjury for making a false declaration.
I actually have seen an instance of that, in relation to someone lying about their occupation on a marriage certificate, they were forced to sign a Police Court declaration as to the fact they lied which was attached to the original parish register. I assume that was done on the instigation of the wife or her relatives reporting him - he abandoned the marriage soon after. It would seem less likely anyone would be bothered about someone saying they were of age when they were a minor, unless the person's parents reported them to the courts themselves.
If married by banns, the couple was required to announce or publish their intention to marry for three consecutive Sundays. If no one objected to the intended marriage, then the couple was allowed to marry.
If either of the couple were under the age of 21 years and previously unmarried, then a parent or guardian of the underage party could forbid the banns. However, if they failed to object at the time the banns were read, they could not later object to the marriage.
I assume with register office marriages, that no banns are called and it is similar to an old marriage license marriage, where you could marry immediately after its issue?
While the parent of a minor could forbid the banns and so prevent a marriage from going ahead, a marriage by banns that took place without active parental dissent was valid. This gave rise to the practice whereby underage couples would resort to a parish where they were not resident to have the banns called without their parents' knowledge. Since the Act specifically prohibited the courts from inquiring into the parties' place of residence after the marriage had been celebrated, such evasive marriages were still valid. The only way in which an aggrieved parent could challenge such a marriage was if there had been a mistake amounting to fraud in the calling of the banns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_Marriages_Act_1753
Yes I have found plenty of these cases where people go some way away from their home parish, often to London, to get married, but in those cases I think more often licenses were involved rather than banns. I assume that was more expense, but easier to get it done more quickly than wait the three weeks and associated costs of staying in the capital.
Where the marriage of an infant, not being a widower or widow, is intended to be solemnized after the publication of banns of matrimony then, if any person whose consent to the marriage would have been required under this section in the case of a marriage intended to be solemnized otherwise than after the publication of the banns, openly and publicly declares or causes to be declared, in the church or chapel in which the banns are published, at the time of the publication, his dissent from the intended marriage, the publication of banns shall be void.
A clergyman shall not be liable to ecclesiastical censure for solemnizing the marriage of an infant after the publication of banns without the consent of the parents or guardians of the infant unless he had notice of the dissent of any person who is entitled to give notice of dissent under the last foregoing subsection.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/76/enacted
original pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1949/76/pdfs/ukpga_19490076_en.pdf
You are unfortunately asking casual questions about a complicated subject which is likely why Antony suggested the book on marriage law.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ovFg_xZLy8oC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thanks jon and Anthony I do appreciate your help and will look into these sources as you suggest
.