Thank you everybody for your replies. All of my later ancestors have been Ag Labs, so I don't believe they were self-supporting. However, I hadn't thought about the baptism taking place later than the birth, so this may well be what happened. I believe it is the right Daniell, Elizabeth, as there appears to be only the one Daniell family in the village at that time. Thanks again. Meg > From: megrose61 <megrose61@googlemail.com> > Date: 7 September 2011 09:07:20 GMT+01:00 > To: NORFOLK@rootsweb.com > Subject: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > Reply-To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > > > On trawling through the Matlaske Parish Registers on Family Search, I have come across the birth of a person I believe is an ancestor, John Daniell, born 1666. In 1682, John Daniell and his wife, Aliz, had their first son, Jonathan, baptised. This would only make John Daniell 16 years old. Do you think there is some error in the register, or has anybody come across very early marriages before? > > From: "David Booty" <davidbooty@btinternet.com> > Date: 7 September 2011 09:39:07 GMT+01:00 > To: <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > Reply-To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > > > Rare, but not abnormal is the answer, I think. Most people married in their > early or mid twenties, and anyone under 21 was classed as a "minor" > requiring the consent of their parents, but teenage marriages did happen, > either because of there being a child on the way or perhaps if the groom was > fortunate enough to be self-supporting at that age (most people would not > be). > > David > > From: Mike Fry <fredbonzo@iafrica.com> > Date: 7 September 2011 12:25:15 GMT+01:00 > To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > Reply-To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > > Don't make the common mistake of assuming that the date of baptism is close to the date of birth. Baptism could have been several years after birth. > > -- Regards, > Mike Fry > Johannesburg > > From: Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> > Date: 7 September 2011 13:34:45 GMT+01:00 > To: Norfolk ML <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > Reply-To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 09:07:20 +0100 > megrose61 <megrose61@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Hello megrose61, > >> John Daniell 16 years old. Do you think there is some error in the >> register, or has anybody come across very early marriages before? > > Remember that, at the time, girls cold marry at 12, and boys at 14. It > wasn't all that common, and usually occurred as a result of some > dealings between the two families involved. Therefore, less common > amongst the proletariat than the gentry. > > Also, as pointed out by Mike, there are no guarantees that baptism was > close to birth. > > -- > Regards _ > / ) "The blindingly obvious is > / _)rad never immediately apparent" > People stare like they've seen a ghost > Titanic (My Over) Reaction - 999 > > From: "elizabeth howard" <elizgh@btinternet.com> > Date: 7 September 2011 16:49:22 GMT+01:00 > To: <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > Subject: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > Reply-To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > > > It could also be an entirely different John Daniell . > >> >> -------------------------------