Marriages in late 1700s

[BevMatth]

Hi all

I'm after a bit of general advice of the average age of marriage in the late 1700s. I have an ancestor (well my husbands actually) Thomas Kennett who was born/baptised in 1798 in Wickhambreux, Kent. His parents are Thomas Kennett and Mary. I found them on the census records, living in Monkton, with years of birth 1776, there is a baptism in Wickambreux to support this, for Thomas and 1781 in Monkton for Mary.

The reason I ask about ages of marriages is that I have found a marriage on FS for 1789 of Thomas Kennett and Mary Brett in Wickambreux which would put Thomas at 13 and Mary at 8! I had discounted this but I am finding baptisms for Thomas Kennett (jnr) siblings in Wickhambreux from 1790 and then later in Monkton.

The only baptism on FS that is in the right sort of area for a Mary Brett (if this is the correct Mary) is in Adisham in 1778 which would put her at 11 in 1789.

Is this likely? Did people get married this young? I've read all sorts of conflicting articles on the internet and am as confused as ever! Anyone else got young marriages in their tree? Should I completely discount it?

Thank you

Bev

[Waitabit]

Bev, this came from one of the threads on this forum I'm sure:


[From 29 September 1653, the legal age for marriage was fixed at 16 for a man and 14 for a woman but the law was changed in 1660 and the ages of marriage reverted to 14 for the groom and 12 for the bride.
The Marriage Act of 1753, made it illegal for those in England under the age of 21 to get married without the consent of their parents or guardians. However, the consent requirement was repealed and replaced in July 1822, therefore, from 1823 the age at which a couple could undergo a valid marriage, without parental consent, reverted to 14 for boys and 12 for girls.
When the 1929 Age of Marriage Act was passed, all marriages were made void from 10 May 1929, if either partner was under the age of 16.]

[Sandra Parker]

Do you have a date of actual birth?

Christenings/Baptisms could, and did, occur at any age, for a number of reasons. Sometimes the children of a family were 'done as a job lot' when a vicar was available, sometimes it was when the person or their family moved to a new area, sometimes because a new, and enthusiatic vicar in the district, made his presence felt, sometimes it was necessary as the person had 'missed out' and wanted to marry and there are undoubtedly lots more.

It doesn't necessarily follow that a baptism was conducted when the child was young, as is usual in the present day. So your lad could have been of marriageable age and was just baptised when he was older.

Sandra

[BevMatth]

Thanks for that.

My understanding of that is that during the period 1753 to 1823 is was still likely the marriage age was 14 for groom and 12 for the bride (possibly less) but they had to have parental consent to do so? Goodness that is young isn't it! So it could be possible that this marriage is correct? Does that also mean that marriages that I see that say "full" under age between 1823 and 1929 could be as young as 14 and 12?

Thanks very much for your help.

Bev

[BevMatth]

Hi Sandra

On the census records his approx date of birth is 1776 which is the date of the baptism. His wife Mary has her approx date of birth as 1781. I know people could be very 'forgetful' about there age which is why I always check baptism for a couple of years either side of the date on the census and how I came up with the baptism in Adisham. The trouble being that there is no always a lot of information on church records back then

[Colin Rowledge]

.

It doesn't necessarily follow that a baptism was conducted when the child was young, as is usual in the present day. So your lad could have been of marriageable age and was just baptised when he was older.

Sandra

I can - I think - support Sandra's comments. In my own case I have a 2X Great Grandfather who was illegitimate.

He was baptised 4 February 1821. 2 years later he was apprenticed to a farmer until age 21 - this was granted 4 March 1823. When he was 21 he re-baptised hinself as an adult - this was 7 November 1830.
He married 16 July 1842 - marriage certificate states his age as "of full age'
Census records from 1841 are not reliable as he was living in close proimity to a girl he later married who was several years younger than he and in 1851 I had a birth year of 1812.
He died as a widower in the Union Workhouse.His death certificate - 20 August 1869 - gives his age as 60 and the informant was the superindentant of the workhouse.

So I gve deduced that when he baptised himself - 7 November 1830 - this was close to his 21st birthday.

Colin

[Heather]

Just thought I would add a personal note. My parents never had any of us baptised as babies here in Canada. I decided to join the Anglican Church (C of E) and got myself baptised at the age of 19 and confirmed 3 weeks later. Anyone looking at those records would assume I was a child. Didn't get my daughter baptised until she was 18 mos old for the reason that I wanted her Jamaican grandparents to be present at something, so had her baptised when they came for a holiday.

IOW, there are lots of reasons for a late baptism. Don't assume everyone is a newborn.

[BevMatth]

Thanks everyone

They both seem pretty consistent on census records 1841, 1851 and 1861 about there ages so don't think they could be more than a couple of years out. If I go by the possibility they could have been a few months old at baptism then Thomas would be 13 nearly 14 and Mary 11 nearly 12 which with parental consent would make it possible! I hate the thought of an 11 yr old getting married though!

I don't discount any possibilities when it comes to family history. I've come across too many weird and odd things during looking at mine and my husbands family trees especially ages at baptism and complete lack of baptism. Especially when you don't have census records etc to back it up. I couldn't find baptism records for my great uncle although this brothers and sisters had been but eventually found it many years after his birth as he had done it himself. Why his parents hadn't done it I don't know but just shows there is not always consistency in these things and I'm sure they did it just to confuse us family historians!

Bev

[pwholt]

The comments so far deal with the legalities of the age at marriage but not the practicalities. Were they able to support themselves and a family if they married young? Was there family wealth, so they could be supported by their parents? Working people tended not to marry as young 200 years ago as they do today; they needed to have somewhere to live. Often a marriage will follow a death of a parent, partly because there was now somewhere for the new couple to live.
"Full age" should mean over 21, unless they fibbed. pwholt

[Guy Etchells]

What must also be remembered is that the ages given were the ages of consent to marry not the age of consent to sexual intercourse.

Under ecclesiastical law which still held great sway the age of consent to marry was the age the person could understand the implications of marriage there was actually no lower limit though in practice this tended to be held at 7 years old.

However under civil law there could be no consent to sexual intercourse until the age of 16 this often meant after the marriage the young couple went back to their parents home until they came of age.
There were of course other scenarios.
Cheers
Guy