Marriage age in 17th century Scotland

[GR2]

One cousin of an ancestor, a farmer called James Imlay married three times. His last marriage, in 1841, was to a woman aged 23. He was 74. None of the marriages produced any children.

I have come across girls being married at 15, but men tend to be older and able to maintain a wife and family before marrying.

It is always important to be sure that you have the right person. There is the danger of looking for the birth/baptism of someone's wife and just assuming, because of the name and location, that you have the correct one and thinking it is fine because she is 12 and could marry then. It might be someone else.

Re Mary Queen of Scots. An uncle of mine, Robert Reid, was involved in arranging her marriage and was at the ceremony in Notre Dame.

[chinakay]

As GR2 mentioned, men had to be a little older before marrying. In the age before birth control, a baby could be expected very soon after marriage, and more babies would follow at one to two year intervals generally speaking. A man had to be able to support a large family right away. If he was an apprentice at some trade, he couldn't marry until he had finished the apprenticeship...that was the case in England at least and I assume the same for Scotland.

A woman had to have learned household management as well...she had to be able to cook, sew and care for children.

The people at the IGI have determined the average age for marriage was about (iirc) 24 for men and 21 for women. So although marriage was permitted at young ages, it wasn't practical. I think you might find that nobility "married" young but it was only betrothal, and although legally bound to her spouse a 12 year old bride was not expected to begin marital relations until much older. Stan Mapstone would be able to tell you more about this sort of thing.

Cheers,
China

[aelfric]

although marriage was permitted at young ages, it wasn't practical. I think you might find that nobility "married" young but it was only betrothal, and although legally bound to her spouse a 12 year old bride was not expected to begin marital relations until much older.

Margaret Beaufort was 13 when she gave birth to Henry Tudor, the future HenryVII.  However, the significant point for her, Mary Stuart and other members of the aristocracy is that they had access to nutirition roughly equivalent to modern standards.  For most girls puberty would be much nearer to 20 than to 12, so while the law might allow marriage biology would probably make it unlikely.

The above notwithstanding, my wife's gt-gt aunt was married at 14 in Glasgow in 1883 and the baby was born a week after her 15th birthday.  She gave her age as 17 but the family knew better.  The, possibly reluctant, husband was head of the school where she had been a pupil teacher and her uncle (the Provost) was on the school board.

[Tom Langley]

I did wonder if he may have been born a lot earlier than his baptism, but in those days people seemed to have their children baptised quite soon after birth, because of the high infant mortality at the time.
But i suppose this could still be a possibility?

[chinakay]

  The, possibly reluctant, husband was head of the school where she had been a pupil teacher and her uncle (the Provost) was on the school board.

Oops

[Munro84]

Hi all,

I have a possible lead that my 5th great-grandparents were James Mackay and Janet Sinclair who lived in and around Thurso, Caithness. It is looking like he was born in about 1754 according to army discharge records, but I think I have found her parish baptism record and it is dated 1743, making her 11 years older than him!

My second great-grandmother was two years older than her husband, but this one is stretching it a bit too far. I also had a 3rd great-grandad who it is confirmed was 19 years older than his wife, he being born in 1812 and she in 1831. However, it was normal in those days for the man to be a lot older than his wife, not the other way round.....

Is it even conceivable that a woman in those days would be 11 years older than her husband, with him being married to her at the minimum legal age of 14 ?

[Forfarian]

Related thread https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=809101.0

[Skoosh]

If there was a few bob involved or a wee bit of land, age was irrelevant! 

Skoosh.

[Munro84]

If there was a few bob involved or a wee bit of land, age was irrelevant! 

Skoosh.

Well, I think that both of them could well have been connected to the nobility in the area, in fact I am pretty certain with James Mackay. On the OPR for his eldest child in 1768 one of the witnesses was William Mackay of Kinloch who in turn was a great-grandson of Donald Mackay, 1st Lord Reay. However, it is recorded that William Mackay of Kinloch died without children and I agree with this, but I have confirmed that he was married and had a step-grandson named James Mackay who I think is the same man in question who was descended from a different branch of the Mackay chief's family, as per the Book of Mackay.

James Mackay and Janet Sinclair lived in the county of Caithness, and the Earl of Caithness was the chief of the Sincalir family. Furthermore the Earl of Caithness at the time who commanded a company in the 76th Foot had a Sergeant serving under him who was called James Mackay and I think possibly the same man.

Anyway, must not go on. The point is that if it was the man who was 11 years older than his wife then it would be easier to accept, but for the woman to be 11 years older than her husband does seem a bit odd.