"Of Age"

[Carrie Meerten]

Does anyone know what the legal age was to get married in 1867. One of mine has the female age as 'minor'

[Procat]

Hi Carrie,

From the "Justice of the Peace and Parish Office", 1869 edition from Archive CD Books:

"Marriage

Sect 8. No parson, minister, vicar, or curate solemnizing marriages after the first day of November next, (this was after November 1823 - my addition) 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 parenjts or guardians, unless such parson, minister, vicar, or curate, shall have notice of the dissent of such parents or guardians; and in any case such parents or guardians, or one of them, shall openly and publicly 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 marriage, such publication of banns shall be absolutely void."

"Sect 14. ....... and, where either of the parties, not being a widower or widow, shall be under the age of twenty-one years, that the consent of the person or persons whose consent to such marriage is required, under the provisions of this Act, has been obtained thereto....."

In short, 21 years of age unless the person had been previously married.

[Carrie Meerten]

thankyou for that.

Do you know what the word 'Banns' means?

[ChristineR]

Banns is the public announcement of impending marriage between a couple. Usually announced in the local church for three consecutive Sundays prior to the marriage taking place - to give time for objections to be lodged. If one party came from another Parish then the banns would also likely to be read there as well. Which is why some Parish registers show Banns being read, but no marriage appears in their registers, it happened elsewhere, or not all all.

A marriage could only be performed quicker by obtaining a licence.

Christine

[Procat]

From Wikpedia:

The banns of marriage or, simply "the banns", (from an Old English word meaning "to summon") are the public announcement from the pulpit that a marriage is going to take place in that church between two specified persons at a specified time.

Their purpose is to allow anyone to come to the wedding to raise any legal impediment to it—such an impediment might be a prior marriage (or pre-contract or betrothal, those being legally the same as a marriage), or a vow of celibacy, or the couple's being related within the prohibited degree of kinship, or lack of consent—to prevent marriages that are legally invalid, either under canon law or under civil law.

In England, under the provisions of Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, the reading of the banns became necessary for the validity of a marriage. By this 1753 statute, 26 Geo. II, c. xxxviij, the banns had to be read aloud in church over a period of three Sundays prior to the actual wedding ceremony. Omission of this formality rendered the marriage void. Prior to this law, it was possible for eloping couples to marry clandestinely in various places—finding an imprisoned clergyman in the Fleet Prison was one well known way (a "Fleet Marriage"), at least for couples near London. After the law, elopers had to leave England, usually for Scotland, and proverbially, to the village of Gretna Green, in order to contract a marriage while avoiding these formalities. These details often figure in melodramatic literature set in the period.

[Guy Etchells]

Unfortunatley that section of the 1823 Act that Procat quoted from "Justice of the Peace and Parish Office" was repealed and replaced.
The repealing Act was named "An Act to amend certain Provisions of the Twenty sixth of George the Second, for the better preventing of Clandestine Marriages" dated 26 March 1823.

It stated in section II.
"II. And Whereas it may happen that, after the passing of this Act, Marriages may be solemnized according to the Provisions of the said recited Act of His present Majesty:’ Be it therefore enacted, That all Marriages which have been or message=Unfortunatley that section of the 1823 Act that Procat quoted from "Justice of the Peace and Parish Office" was repealed and replaced.
The repealing Act was named "An Act to amend certain Provisions of the Twenty sixth of George the Second, for the better preventing of Clandestine Marriages" dated 26 March 1823.

It stated in section II.
"II. And Whereas it may happen that, after the passing of this Act, Marriages may be solemnized according to the Provisions of the said recited Act of His present Majesty:’ Be it therefore enacted, That all Marriages which have been or shall be solemnized under Licences granted or Banns published conformably to the Provisions of the said recited Act of His present Majesty, shall be good and valid : Provided always, that no Marriage solemnized under any Licence granted in the Form and Manner prescribed by either of the said recited Acts, shall be deemed invalid on account of Want of Consent of any Parent or Guardian."

This had the effect of removing the requirement of parent consent for minors.
Under Ecclesiastical law a child could marry from an age he/she could make a rational decision (normally considered around 7 years old but could be younger). But because they could not produce offspring until puberty such a marriage was considered "imperfect" until the couple reached puberty (about 12 for girls and 14 for boys).
Civil law set the age of consent at 16 which meant until the change of law in 1929 (England & Wales) there was a difference between ecclesiastical law and civil law.

It should however be said that very few marriages of children under 16 took place.
For various Acts see my website at-
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Eframland/acts/actind.htm
Cheers
Guy

[Carrie Meerten]

"An Act to amend certain Provisions of the Twenty sixth of George the Second, for the better preventing of Clandestine Marriages" dated 26 March 1823. This had the effect of removing the requirement of parent consent for minors.Just so that I understand it correctly, from 26 March 1823 'minors' did not need parental consent?

My girl was abt 16 when she married a 23 yr old. The father was a witness, I assumed that because she was a minor that was his 'approval' for the marriage to go ahead.

[Procat]

Hi Guy,

I must admit to being a tad confused here.

"Provided always, that no Marriage solemnized under any Licence granted in the Form and Manner prescribed by either of the said recited Acts, shall be deemed invalid on account of Want of Consent of any Parent or Guardian."

Wouldn't that mean that if either party was not of full age consent had to be given by a parent or guardian?


Unfortunatley that section of the 1823 Act that Procat quoted from "Justice of the Peace and Parish Office" was repealed and replaced.
The repealing Act was named "An Act to amend certain Provisions of the Twenty sixth of George the Second, for the better preventing of Clandestine Marriages" dated 26 March 1823.

It stated in section II.
"II. And Whereas it may happen that, after the passing of this Act, Marriages may be solemnized according to the Provisions of the said recited Act of His present Majesty:’ Be it therefore enacted, That all Marriages which have been or shall be solemnized under Licences granted or Banns published conformably to the Provisions of the said recited Act of His present Majesty, shall be good and valid : Provided always, that no Marriage solemnized under any Licence granted in the Form and Manner prescribed by either of the said recited Acts, shall be deemed invalid on account of Want of Consent of any Parent or Guardian."

Cheers
Guy

Yours in confusion,

[Carrie Meerten]

I must admit to being a tad confused here.You think your confused !! :confused: I don't understand a word of all that legal jargon !!

[Guy Etchells]

That is correct from 26 March 1823 minors (in England & Wales) did not need consent from their parents or guardian to marry.

This is not the same as a parent opposing a marriage.

I should perhaps mention that if a parent opposed a marriage and actually refused consent the marriage was void. This is why some couples marry away from their home parish so that their parents do not know of their intention to marry and therefore do not refuse consent.
Cheers
Guy

[Procat]

That is correct from 26 March 1823 minors (in England & Wales) did not need consent from their parents or guardian to marry.

This is not the same as a parent opposing a marriage.

I should perhaps mention that if a parent opposed a marriage and actually refused consent the marriage was void. This is why some couples marry away from their home parish so that their parents do not know of their intention to marry and therefore do not refuse consent.
Cheers
Guy

Thanks Guy,

Now I understand.

[Carrie Meerten]

This is why some couples marry away from their home parish so that their parents do not know of their intention to marry and therefore do not refuse consent.

If one party came from another Parish then the banns would also likely to be read there as well.
If the above is correct, then wouldn't it be likely that the parents would find out? The banns would have to be read at their local church as well wouldn't they ???
|cheers|

[Mythology]

Likely, yes - certain, definitely not, so worth a try to dodge them.

The idea that our ancestors were all good little boys and girls who went to church regularly is a myth - church attendance was generally pretty poor.

That is why, although the records are still there and we can go and look them up today, the government did not release the results of the 1851 ecclesiastical census - the low attendance figures revealed by this were considered by them to be too shocking for the public!

[Mythology]

Afterthought ...

And of course, you didn't have to have lived in the parish for very long to qualify as being local, thus eliminating the other parish from the equation.

And they often lied anyway - if they *said* they both lived there, the chances of somebody coming along and saying "hang on, this isn't right - that fellow only turned up here yesterday" were probably pretty remote.

[Mythology]

Further afterthought ...

And, of course, there were people like the Vicar of Whitechapel who obviously wasn't bothered about what the laws said anyway.
Not a pair of youngsters, but see the thread relating to my couple who married there in 1839:
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9012
especially Rod and Ken's comments on the outcome.

OK, the Doddinghurst banns book hasn't survived, so I don't know for certain that the banns were not read there, but as the marriage should not haven taken place in Whitechapel anyway, and they, plus others where neither party lived in the parish and didn't even pretend to, are in the Whitechapel banns book just as if they were locals, what do you reckon the chances are that the Vicar wrote to these other parishes to have the banns published there?

If "Less than zero" was not a mathematically impossible percentage, I'd stick a fiver on it. ;)

[Guy Etchells]

If the above is correct, then wouldn't it be likely that the parents would find out? The banns would have to be read at their local church as well wouldn't they ???
|cheers|

Which is why the wise couple would elope to a town or city where the vicar did not know all his parishioners as a country vicar would.
Cheers
Guy