Marriage age range - Opinion Please

[Littlebn20]

Good evening.

I am looking in to a Robert Weaver, born 1771 in Aldgate, Middlesex to William Weaver & Susannah Rand.

Of course this is a matter of opinion, but I had ruled him out as the Robert Weaver who is my ancestor got married in 1810 (albeit in the same area) and fathered a child (Henry) in 1826. I suppose if his wife (Susannah) was younger, it is possible but does 39 seem far too old to be married in those days? I can't find a previous marriage and my Robert is listed as a bachelor on the marriage record that I have seen. I have found a will from William Weaver, which I think says that Robert would receive an allowance until he married, but I can barely read it, so that could be incorrect.

Just interested in thoughts on this one really.

Thanks

[Ruskie]

My thoughts:

Though older than average, 39 would not be too old for a first marriage. I would not dismiss this purely due to his age. In order to determine if this is the correct Robert, is there any mention of abode or occupation on the marriage entry? Witnesses?

It might be worth persevering with the will in case more identifying names are mentioned.

[Littlebn20]

It is a real tricky one. No indication of occupation for my Robert until his kids get married much later, and he's basically a labourer/deceased on those.

Witnesses to the marriage are Rees Price and something Ames. I don't really have anything to go on as there seem to be records missing for the intervening period of time.

Appreciate your thoughts on it. Henry, who was 15 at the time of the 1841 census, was with a master and I can't find either Robert or Susannah on any census even so have always made the assumption that they were dead, or elsewhere. Nothing definitive either way.

[Jo6100]

Is the Henry born in 1826 the one baptised at St Dunstan and All Saints on 17th December? If so the parents seem to be Henry Robert and Sarah - rather than Susan as transcribed, so maybe a different couple.. Are there other children? - a first marriage at 39 might be unusual but a first child 16 years later more so.

Jo

[Littlebn20]

Thanks Jo6100. Yes, that's the one. Robert marries Susannah Cooper in 1810 in Spitalfields. They have Susan 1811, James, 1815, Sarah 1819 and then that big gap and Henry comes along in 1826 - Not sure if that is also quite unusual after having the others in quick succession? All marriage records for the kids give his name as Robert (rather than Henry Robert) so I have concluded over the years that this must be a transcription error on Henry's baptism record.

I do appear to have some DNA matches to descendants of Susan (1819) and Henry is my 3 x G Grandfather. Have been working on this for many many years and just re-visiting the 1771 Robert as I do every so often. Fresh eyes sometimes help to find angles that I haven't discovered

[Littlebn20]

I read it as Henry Robert and Susan 

[Jo6100]

I read it as Henry Robert and Susan 

I’ve looked again and you’re probably right!

[Littlebn20]

 

[shanreagh]

Robert marries Susannah Cooper in 1810 in Spitalfields. They have Susan 1811, James, 1815, Sarah 1819 and then that big gap and Henry comes along in 1826 - Not sure if that is also quite unusual after having the others in quick succession?


I don't class children born in 1811, 1815, 1819 as having them in 'quick succession'.  In some families there may have been children in those gaps. There may have been children who died.  The husband may have been travelling for work.  Also a gap of 7 years is not a big gap.  Again there may have been children who died or an older mother/father.