Falsified age on marriage licence?

[MollyC]

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!

[Andrew Tarr]

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.

[GrahamSimons]

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

[coombs]

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.