RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: nudge67 on Saturday 26 December 09 03:10 GMT (UK)
-
I recently heard on the radio something about a study being done into socially acceptable age gaps between spouses in western culture. The researchers came up with this formula:
Halve the age of the eldest spouse, then add seven. The marriage is socially acceptable if the age of the younger spouse is equal to, or above, the resulting number.
Example: I married at 27. 27 divided by two is 13.5. Adding seven makes 20.5. My wife was 21 when we married, so it fits within the formula.
Are there any cradlesnatchers in your family tree?
-
I don't think people had the luxury of that formula in preceding generations. With so much death around (especially amongst women in childbirth), "marriages of convenience" were quite common. People often appeared to marry again with undue haste, but for men the priority was to find a mother for their children, so they could carry on the duties of bread-winner, and widowed women needed a home and a regular household income. This seems to be quite cold, but that's often the way it was.
However, you also come across some people who do not fit the above category. In my tree, my dad's Aunt Eliza married at the age of 38 to a man of 20. However, the poor woman was widowed within 4 years when her husband developed a TB infection.
-
My 2 x g grandad William was married to a woman called Martha who died, he was a farmer and on the 1851 census was a widower with farm servants living with him, however on the 1861 census he had a housekeeper Martha and her sister Ruth living with them and two very young children, one called William. William and Martha were having children together although unmarried ,the third child Herbert was my g grandfather. William eventually married Martha when she was pregnant with their 7th child. William was 34years older than Martha! William as well as owing land and farming was a constable of the parish. I have lots of information about William and Martha, and know that William was older than Marthas father. I suppose she married for security and he was probably very happy to have a young woman with whom he could have children.
Kind regards Susan
-
Oh yes :D
When Thomas Archbell married Catherine Croslan in 1767 he was a widower (actually twice) aged 60 and upwards, whilst Catherine was 25 and upwards, and a spinster. However, I believe he may have been older than 60 - the only baptism I can find for a Thomas Archbell is in 1699, and his burial in 1774 doesn't give any age at all to confirm or refute this theory. Catherine was baptised 1742, so her age is probably correct. It didn't stop them having a son, born 1769. :) Following Thomas's death Catherine went on to have two more children, and was excommunicated as a result in 1782 :o :o
BumbleB
-
I think I have just discovered in my tree a widow aged 53-54 marrying a man aged 27-28 in 1849. She had no children that she was still supporting. They are both being a bit elusive on censuses so hard to pin down to see if I am right. If I am right he appears to have left her and married a woman closer to his age. But whether he was a widow or not at marriage I'm yet to find out.
I have plenty of younger women marrying older men for practical reasons but I can't think to explain this one!
-
My grandparents were 68+ and 35 on his second and her first marriage in 1894. Fortunately for me.
-
While searching the 1911 Census for my husband's grandmother, I found her as an 18 year single domestic servant. She is living in the household of a Publican who is 61 years old & his newly married (under 1 year) wife who is 24 years old :D
Cathy
-
My ggg-grandfather Craddock married a third time in 1847. He was then aged 66 and his third wife was just 21 years of age! :o :o
They proceded to have three more children......he already had children by his two earlier wives.....and of course he passed away leaving her a young widow.
Dee :)
-
Hi all, My Father was 47 when he married my Mom-to-be who was age 20. ;) On the marriage license he listed his age as 35! Pat
-
i have one that was 65 when he married his second wife who was 25. they had 3 children, the last when he was 76 :o :o
-
The oldest groom I have was OHs 3xggrandfather aged 57 when he married, for the first time in 1778! His bride was 26. I have a copy the marriage settlement and her father insisted that his daughter was given and annual income from the estate in the event that her future husband died first! She lived till she was 92 ;D ;D ;D
It took them 9 years before they had an only child!
-
My twin sister has a younger fella, ;D ;D ;D ;D
Margaret
-
One of my grandfather's four brothers married for the first time at 60, when he died aged 67 his widow was pregnant with their fifth child.
-
Didn't waste any time did he :D
-
Pat, Well he would wouldn't he? My grandfather 68+ (see above) married my grandmother 35, on the certificate it says 55 and 35!
-
My gg gg g grandfather Richard Tranter was widowed in 1847 aged (about) 60. He then married the lodger Jane Bird - who was aged 25... in 1851, when he was 64.
Ok so within this theory his wife needed to be 39 to qualify... ahem... no.
Matt
-
The oldest groom I have was OHs 3xggrandfather aged 57 when he married, for the first time in 1778! His bride was 26. I have a copy the marriage settlement and her father insisted that his daughter was given and annual income from the estate in the event that her future husband died first! She lived till she was 92 ;D ;D ;D
It took them 9 years before they had an only child!
Maybe she kept saying no.
marcie
-
My grandfather and his brother produced 7 children between them after that age, and it was the brother's first marriage. All the children were born after their fathers were 65, the oldest my father when my grandfather was 71.
-
My grandfather and his brother produced 7 children between them after that age, and it was the brother's first marriage. All the children were born after their fathers were 65, the oldest my father when my grandfather was 71.
See that is the only area where you can beat us hands down, I mean you can carry on producing even when we stop. Men do not understand the menopause and arguments ensue, which i think is the greatest period in someones life when divorce is more common. Men forget what it is like to have children running around your feet, and draining your pocket. They then look to getting a younger womans attention without considering that her hormones are racing, whilst yours are settling and she will want her own family and there we start again. A new family.
marjorie ;D ;)
-
Only partially applies Marcie, in my grandfather's case he had no previous children, in his brother's he was previously unmarried. No second families here, good thing for me though!Now have a grand daughter "running around our feet" and pleased to have her too!
-
It always seems to be the men who are with younger wives. I have a ggg uncle Henry who married a woman called Abigail Evilina Cooper,( it seems they both worked at the local stately home) aged 39 when he was only 20 years old, she died 6 years later aged 45 years. He then - married a widow called Mary Ann Fox who had children from her previous marriage, they had son together called William Henry, she died a few years later - he then married a woman of a similar age to himself called Emily Farnsworth and they had 3 children together.
Kind regards Susan
-
It always seems to be the men who are with younger wives.
It has always been more socially acceptable, even now! Older men with much younger wives/partners are considered rakish and somehow special. Women with much younger partners are seen as rather sad cradlesnatchers.
Fortunately there are some exceptions. I have friends who are 64 (her) and 44 (him) who have been together for over 20 years and are devoted to each other. And the delectable Michael Ball seems to favour older women :)
Linda
-
And the delectable Michael Ball seems to favour older women :)
I wouldn't get your hopes up there ;)
-
OK - I know he's spoken for :'(
-
(http://bestsmileys.com/mouthzippedshut/3.gif)
-
The biggest difference I have in my tree is my gg grandfathers second marriage, his wife was 23 years younger
On my partners tree her ggg grandfather was 16 years older than his wife (which was his second marriage after his first wife died)
-
"Toyboys" seem like the poor, to have always been with us!
-
my great aunt has been married 3 times (in fact both my great aunts have) i recently found out her husband is not yet 56 and she is 70, this came as a surprise to me as i thought he was around the same age maybe 2-4 years younger but not that much, however i shouldnt really be surprised as my Grandad was 12 years older than my Nan and my father 12 years older than my mother
maybe though it wouldnt be acceptable nowdays that ages when they first 'got together'
also my great grandad was 17 years older than my great gran.
-
My g.grandparents don't appear to have married, but must have been together from 1883, my gran being born in April 1884 8)
If they had married in 1883, my g.gran would have been 40 and my g.grandfather about 25. That is outside toni's formula, to fit the formula he should have been at least 27. Mind you according to the 1891 census, g.gran was only 42 ageing only 2 years in 8!! (I have her birth certificate to prove that wrong).
Lizzie
-
its Nudges formula not mine but my great grandparents were also outside the formula with him being born in 1850 and her in 1867 and they marrying in 1892 she should have been at least 28 she was 25
-
its Nudges formula not mine
Apologies to you and Nudge.
Lizzie
-
In my tree, age disparities seem to be the norm rather than the exception.
-
Well, not my formula either, but that of the researchers. It was based on extensive surveys in several western countries on the question of acceptable age difference. Remarkably, there was little national or regional variation, the formula held true averywhere.
-
On a slightly different though related tack concerning the Northern Ireland first minister whose wife also an MP aged 60 has had an affair with a 20 year old toy boy. If they married what would the ratio be?