We should all be much more careful in our assumptions and glib generalities having to do with "legal" ages here and there across the centuries. At one time or another, in one or more colonies/states or in still others, the ages of 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 21 have been determined to be variously necessary for marriages, appearances in court, preferences as to guardians and next friends, criminal charges, voting, jury service, ownership of land, and - as we all know - such modern matters as drivers' permits, intoxicating liquor, tobacco and dancing. AND, equally important, courts have ALWAYS had the discretion, power and authority to make exceptions to virtually every one of those age requirements. So, in all matters of "legal age" or "majority" good researchers should consider the date, the place, the law of THAT day, and whether or not some court may have granted an exception in that instance. Let's all quit advising newcomers that some general rule describes the law in all cases; it simply ain't so. Paul