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

"Maggie Richie" <[email protected]> wrote: >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! Maggie The marriage of a 14 year-old would be an extremely rare event - and I find it almost impossible to believe that a 19th century (I'm assuming from the terminology that we are talking about the 19th century) 14 year-old could have passed herself off as 21+. Some modern 14 year-olds could possibly get away with such a deception, but I've never seen a picture of a pre-WW1 14 year old looking like anything other than a child. I would suggest that the earlier marriage was of a different, older female of the same name, and the supposed second marriage was in fact the lady in question's first - as she claimed. Brian -- Brian Pears (Joint List Admin - NORTHUMBRIA Mailing List)

Absolutely true I have a marriage certificate where the bride's information has been copied from her baptismal certificate - it's RC - and the only correct information on it is her name and age The rest is what her mother told the priest who baptised her and not a word of it is true -----Original Message----- From: Maggie Richie Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NMB] 1859 marriaged cert - What is full age? Also inquestaccess query 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!

"Margaret Garthwaite" <[email protected]> wrote: >Absolutely true > >I have a marriage certificate where the bride's information has been >copied from her baptismal certificate - it's RC - and the only correct >information on it is her name and age > >The rest is what her mother told the priest who baptised her and not a >word of it is true But what on earth has this to do with the post you are agreeing with? Yes, we know that people lied when giving information to Registrars or clergymen, and these lies can and do appear on certificates. This is not in doubt. What I do challenge is the specific claim in Maggie's post. It simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Let's look at it closely. Maggie wrote "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!" If the father was a witness, he obviously consented to the marriage, so the girl would have had no need to lie about being 14 if that was in fact the case. Why would she have risked the serious charge of perjury when she gained nothing. If this was in fact a 14 year-old marrying with her father present, then the marriage would have been quite legal without any need to lie. The conclusion - this girl is not the person Maggie thinks she is. Brian -- Brian Pears (Joint List Admin - NORTHUMBRIA Mailing List)

Sorry Just intended as a comment on the dangers of relying unquestioningly on the information even in official documents -----Original Message----- From: Brian Pears Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 11:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NMB] 1859 marriaged cert - What is full age? Also inquestaccess query > >I have a marriage certificate where the bride's information has been >copied from her baptismal certificate - it's RC - and the only correct >information on it is her name and age > >The rest is what her mother told the priest who baptised her and not a >word of it is true But what on earth has this to do with the post you are agreeing with?

Brian Surely the legality of an "under-age" marriage does not depend on parental consent but on the minimum legal age to marry. That will depend on the date that the marriage took place. I am aware of a marriage in the 1930s where the bride was only 15 but her father was a witness. This is still an unlawful marriage. Ruth > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Pears > Sent: 18 April 2013 11:31 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NMB] 1859 marriaged cert - What is full age? > Also inquestaccess query Maggie wrote > > "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!" > > If the father was a witness, he obviously consented to the > marriage, so the girl would have had no need to lie about > being 14 if that was in fact the case. Why would she have > risked the serious charge of perjury when she gained nothing. > If this was in fact a 14 year-old marrying with her father > present, then the marriage would have been quite legal > without any need to lie.