RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Snow1600 on Thursday 27 November 25 09:12 GMT (UK)
-
Hello,
Just curious for thoughts on whether ancestors would lie about their age on a marriage licence? I know there were many occasions when they lied about how old there were in BMDs and censuses, etc, but just wondered specifically about marriage licences? Would it be a risky thing to do, would there have been checks, or would it have been just as easy as lying on any other document?
I’m curious because I ordered a copy of my great(x4) grandparents' marriage licence from 1802. It states both parties were over the age of 21, but after further researching my great(x4) grandfather, I have reason to believe that he was younger, more like 18. Meaning there was an almost 8 year age gap between himself and the bride (who was 25 and must have been pregnant at the time, as their first child was born 7 months after the marriage).
(Both families were non-conformists from Wiltshire, but for some reason they travelled to London and married at St George, Bloomsbury, before returning to Wiltshire).
I’ve ordered several marriage licences over the years, most have the standard wording “over the age of 21 years” and I’ve had only one for a bride that was underage. I’m aware marriage licences were used for various reasons, including if one or both parties were underage, but this licence doesn’t state that he’s under 21. I wonder whether he or other relations didn't want to disclose the age gap or is that unlikely?
Thank you in advance
-
Ages on these marriage licences may have been incorrect due to social pressure, the need for parental consent for those under 21, and a lack of precise birth records. People may have lied about their age to avoid social disapproval to get around parental refusal for a license, or to hide large age gaps between the couple. In many cases, individuals simply did not know their exact age and had to guess.
-
Yes people could, and did, lie about their age on marriage.
There were no actual checks on the accuracy of any information
My husband's Grandmother said she was 18 when she was, in fact, only 16.
Her Father was one of the witnesses so he must have colluded in the misinformation
-
One simple example. On my wife's tree there is a man of about 30 who married a woman in her 40s. Presumably because of embarrassment he made himself some years older while she did the opposite. Not many years later she died and he remarried (into my wife's tree). This time he gave his true age, but he was younger than he had been the first time ???
Probably at marrying age most people knew how old they were, but as time moved on many lost track. They remembered their birthday but forgot which year it had been in.
-
As a registrar I did a wedding where the bride & groom had told his family that the bride was 10 years younger than she actually was ( 55 instead of 65 - both bride and groom were second marriages).
She was so worried about them finding out she panicked and wanted to cancel the ceremony - but it did go ahead. I had to casually hold a piece of blotting paper over the age column on the register whilst the witnesses ( the groom's adult children) signed ....
-
Thanks for your replies and confirmation marriage licences weren't immune from fibs about age.
I was certain I had the correct baptism for the man, along with a few other records that support it, but it making him so much younger was causing me to have doubts. The bride's father and aunt signed as witnesses on the marriage register, so the bride's family must have been involved at least.
As an aside, I wonder was getting married in London a fashionable thing to do, or any other reasons why couples might do this? I have several marriages in my tree, where the couples lived in an entirely different county (Wilts, Northants, etc) but married in London, before returning to said county...
Thank you
-
Several thoughts here!
No register of births, so the only documentary evidence would be baptism, and that would have to be sent for from the relevant clergyman. And of course baptism wasn't always soon after birth. And the registers weren't always well kept (indeed I'm struggling with our own church burial register with incomplete records from the 20th century!).
Marrying away from home would circumvent questions about age; it might also be that the couple had moved to London (for example) for work but still described themselves as coming from a countryside parish.
Many people didn't know their own age or date of birth.
There was no incentive for the clerks involved to investigate - I imagine they were paid for each licence and they'd therefore be incentivised to process any and every application.
So I'd treat any age on a marriage licence with rather more than a pinch of salt - more likely a catering pack of salt!
-
Yes.
I have examples into the early to mid 1900’s. Making themselves older and younger. I have come to the conclusion that my ancestors had elastic ages. Proof of age was not required as it is now.
-
I highly doubt they had to show proof of baptism when they married back then. Some ages were falsified, and other times it was people just guessing their ages as they were not 100% sure how old they were.
Many marriage licenses just say "21 and over" which means they could have been any age between 21 and 101.
-
As a variation on "21 and over", in 1835 I have a couple aged 46 and 43, first marriage for both, but the licence gives 24 and 21. So 22 years deducted from each!
-
I highly doubt they had to show proof of baptism when they married back then. Some ages were falsified, and other times it was people just guessing their ages as they were not 100% sure how old they were.
Many marriage licenses just say "21 and over" which means they could have been any age between 21 and 101.
Seeing exact ages on a marriage certificate is actually rather unusual. Some registers merely give 'minor' or 'of full age' as that was the only factor requiring consent of a parent or guardian. Even then errors occurred - I took a long time pinning down my Irish gt-grandmother's birth because she was shown as a minor in 1870. Her baptism was finally identified in 1845 when she was 10 weeks old. Must have been an unthinking clerical error - I can't see any reason why she might have claimed that.
-
From our church register in 1665....
What Time brings forth ther’s none that can pressage
John Todhunter, of Eighty Yeares of Age, Wed to Anne Strickatt, who’s supposd to be A Virgin and her Age is Sixtye Three. Both of this parrish, wch causes Admiration. The like hath scarce been knowne wthin this station
-
I highly doubt they had to show proof of baptism when they married back then. Some ages were falsified, and other times it was people just guessing their ages as they were not 100% sure how old they were.
Many marriage licenses just say "21 and over" which means they could have been any age between 21 and 101.
Seeing exact ages on a marriage certificate is actually rather unusual. Some registers merely give 'minor' or 'of full age' as that was the only factor requiring consent of a parent or guardian. Even then errors occurred - I took a long time pinning down my Irish gt-grandmother's birth because she was shown as a minor in 1870. Her baptism was finally identified in 1845 when she was 10 weeks old. Must have been an unthinking clerical error - I can't see any reason why she might have claimed that.
Oh yes, particularly in the early decades of civil reg, just full or minor, and also whether father was deceased or not was rarely stated in the early years, hence why a cousin assumed an ancestor was still alive in 1845 when his eldest son married again. I found the father had died in 1831 and the cousin was told of this. Still the fathers name and occupation was one of the most useful aspects of marriage certs once they came about in 1837.