I am not sure any proof could have been required I have an English marriage certificate which gives both parties as full age but they were 16 and 18 going by there birth certificates and age at death The dates were consistent for everything else so you suspect they gave their ages wrong to get married. They immediately left England for New Zealand so I suppose nobody questioned it Patricia New Zealand -----Original Message----- From: nir-down-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:nir-down-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Claire McConville Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:15 PM To: nir-down@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [NIR-DOWN] James CROSKERY and Margaret SLOAN I'm just wondering how tight controls were as to producing proof of age etc. back in the 1860s. Perhaps some said they were older or maybe the interpretation of 'full age' was changed at some point. Claire www.claires-rosleaancestry.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: nir-down-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:nir-down-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of DLCulhane@cs.com Sent: 15 January 2008 00:59 To: nir-down@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [NIR-DOWN] James CROSKERY and Margaret SLOAN I had an ancestor who was listed as full age but was only 17, so I think the term was sometimes interpreted loosely. Diane ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NIR-DOWN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

No subterfuge required: marriage at 16 was, and is, legal in England with parental consent. In all the English census returns, the marital status is left blank unless the individual is 16 or over, after which it is completed; the assumption being that anyone under 16 is automatically single but after that you need to specify. I have a feeling the parish priest would usually need no proof of age - he would already know! Peter Patricia Moosman wrote: > I am not sure any proof could have been required > I have an English marriage certificate which gives both parties as full age > but they were 16 and 18 going by there birth certificates and age at death > The dates were consistent for everything else so you suspect they gave their > ages wrong to get married. They immediately left England for New Zealand so > I suppose nobody questioned it > > Patricia > New Zealand > > -----Original Message----- > From: nir-down-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:nir-down-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Claire McConville > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:15 PM > To: nir-down@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [NIR-DOWN] James CROSKERY and Margaret SLOAN > > I'm just wondering how tight controls were as to producing proof of age etc. > back in the 1860s. Perhaps some said they were older or maybe the > interpretation of 'full age' was changed at some point. > > Claire > > www.claires-rosleaancestry.co.uk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: nir-down-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:nir-down-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of DLCulhane@cs.com > Sent: 15 January 2008 00:59 > To: nir-down@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [NIR-DOWN] James CROSKERY and Margaret SLOAN > > I had an ancestor who was listed as full age but was only 17, so I think the > > term was sometimes interpreted loosely. > > Diane > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NIR-DOWN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NIR-DOWN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Peter McGuinness wrote: > No subterfuge required: marriage at 16 was, and is, legal in England > with parental consent. In all the English census returns, the marital > status is left blank unless the individual is 16 or over, after which it > is completed; the assumption being that anyone under 16 is automatically > single but after that you need to specify. > I have a feeling the parish priest would usually need no proof of age - > he would already know! > But you have missed the point. "Of full age" meant parental permission was NOT required. The fact that Patricia's marriage cert says that, yet they weren't over 21 would be prima facie evidence that they DIDN'T have parental permission. It certainly happened. I have several cases in my parish record transcriptions where the same situation applied. And then there was Gretna Green... -- ==== Michael Lightfoot Canberra, Australia OPC Merther & St Clements, Cornwall see http://www.cornwall-opc.org michael.lightfoot@canb.auug.org.au ====