Hello all, In Northumbria and elsewhere I have seen marriage records recording the younger age as "full age" when they were in fact 13, 14 or 15 yrs. old.  Perhaps in the 16th and 17th century parents made arrangements for their children to marry at that age because of war, disease, to keep the family name or it was because there was no one else to leave (in a will) an estate to keep in the family.  In some cases the groom or bride died very young, before they had the chance to have children.  Would love more info on this subject, Susan  ________________________________ From: Maggie Richie <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [NMB] 1859 marriaged cert - What is full age? Also inquest access query Hi Yvonne Don't believe everything on the marriage with regard to 'full age'.  I have one in my family where it says 'full age' when the bride was 14years old and her father and brother were the witnesses! When she remarries she states the correct age but she is a spinster when in fact she is a widow with a young son! Marion -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yvonne Sent: 17 April 2013 13:37 To: [email protected] Subject: [NMB] 1859 marriaged cert - What is full age? Also inquest access query Hello I hope someone can shed a bit of light on my queries. I have just received a copy of a marriage certificate of my gggrandparents. I was hoping it would have given their ages but it only states that they were "of full age".  What age did they have to be for a marriage to take place in 1859 Newcastle? Also, on another certificate it states that an inquest had been held on 20th August 1880 in Newcastle after the person drowned in the Tyne.  Is there anyway to gain access to Coroner's reports from that time? Any information would be gratefully received. Thank you in advance. Yvonne .. Please remember to snip most of the earlier message before you post any reply...... Thank you! The NORTHUMBRIA FAQ page is located at <http://www.bpears.org.uk/NorthumbriaFAQ/> http://www.bpears.org.uk/NorthumbriaFAQ/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message .. Please remember to snip most of the earlier message before you post any reply...... Thank you! The NORTHUMBRIA FAQ page is located at http://www.bpears.org.uk/NorthumbriaFAQ/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Susan C <[email protected]> wrote: >In Northumbria and elsewhere I have seen marriage records recording >the younger age as "full age" when they were in fact 13, 14 or 15 yrs. >old.  Perhaps in the 16th and 17th century parents made arrangements >for their children to marry at that age because of war, disease, to >keep the family name or it was because there was no one else to leave >(in a will) an estate to keep in the family.  In some cases the groom >or bride died very young, before they had the chance to have >children.  Susan This is simply not true. Yes, there were the occasional 20, 19 or 18 year-olds passing themselves off as 21+ by declaring themselves "of full age", but definitely not kids of 15 or under.If you think you have an example of a 13 year old claiming to be "of full age", it is certain to be a misidentification. Indeed if you think you have any example outside the aristocracy of a 13 year-old marrying in this country, it will almost certainly be a misidentification. There are very few, comfirmed examples of such marriages. In fact marriages of under 16s, though legal until 1929 in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, have always been very rare. If anyone thinks they have one in their tree, I would advise them to be very cautious over the identification of that child. Chances are it will be an older person of the same name who married. You are also confusing the issue by talking about the 16th and 17th centuries in relation to the phrase "Of full age". I don't think this phrase was used prior to 1837 because ages were not recorded in marriage registers until then so there would be no point. Yes, some people were said to be "minors" on pre-1837 marriage records, or the phrase "with the consent of parents" would be there - and the absence of these would imply that the parties were 21 or over, but, as far as I'm aware, this wasn't implicitly stated. Brian -- Brian Pears (Joint List Admin - NORTHUMBRIA Mailing List)