Genealogy Chat

Thanks Kate and Mick - think you have made mesee things a bit more clearly - without having lived in those times it's sometimes difficult to understand why anyone would allow their 12 year old daughter or son marry! (And they say kids grow up too fast these days!). As I have said before, I have a sneaking suspicion that she was pregnant and to be 19 and pregnant was probably more acceptable than 17 and pregnant! Some things don't change I guess! The legal age limits fascinate me - 21 to make up your own mind but as young as 12 if your parents are OK with it!

karen x

One other thing that springs to mind reading Michael's last post is, to the parents of a very young couple getting married, it may also seem like an attractive proposition because it meant an extra breadwinner in the family circle. That way, if Mum or dad dies, the surviving parent can go to live with their married child and their family.

I had a succession of this going on in one branch of the tree for two generations. 3xgreat grandma Ann was widowed and went to live with her daughter Catherine for about ten years before she died. Then, when Catherine was older and widowed (her husband died at 52 years old) she went to live with her married daughter, another Ann.

Probably this type of arrangement solved a lot of problems. It meant mothers got an extra pair of hands to help with the kids and housework. It meant older people or parents who could no longer work through illness or injury could live somewhere that wasn't the workhouse (which was considered the absolute last hope - I believe people would do practically anything to stay out of there) and also it allowed older parents, relatives etc to be able to survive in a world where old age pensions just didn't exist.

So to the parents, it was probably best to get the kids married off as soon as possible (if they could). It saved them money, meant there was more food/money to go around and was a bit of insurance in case a parent was unable to work through some kind of injury etc.

Hi Mick, thanks - but both bride and groom did sign the certificate, her father signed with an X though. I am more inclined to think that they did not or could not get parental permission to marry under age, (perhaps the reason for George's father not signing the cert?). Does anyone know what the legal age limit would have been in 1892?

Thanks, Karen x

They generally lied about their ages to get married without parent permission

Hi, Have just received the birth, marriage and death certificates of my partner's great-grandparents, who we know very little (in fact, nothing other than research - no family stories etc.).

Catherine Seal birth cert. gives DOB as 14 August 1875.

George Barefield gives DOB as 16 February 1874.

Marriage certificate - 5 Dec 1892, Catherine's age is given as 19, George's age as 20. By my maths, both ages are 2 years out.

Please can someone tell me...

- how easy it would have been for them to lie about their ages.

- what reasons they may have had for doing so. I cannot find a birth immediately after the marriage (although Geprge's mother had a baby 6 months after the marriage, which I am a little suspicious of!)

- the certificate is signed by Catherine's father and George's mother - his father is named on the certificate, and occupation given, so I am assuming that he is not dead.

Anyone who has any idea, thank you!

Karen x