Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Of full age doesn't always mean over 21!
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Mog | Report | 7 May 2006 13:15 |
|
According to one of the family history books I have, the term 'of full age' was sometimes taken by whoever conducted the marriage ceremony to mean over the age of consent, rather than over 21. Since the age of consent varied quite considerably over time, some of the brides and grooms could have been a lot younger than 21! Does anyone know exactly what was the age of consent and when? |
|||
|
Glen In Tinsel Knickers | Report | 7 May 2006 13:20 |
|
Pre 1929 girls if 12 and boys if 14 could marry,but under the age of 21 the marriage was 'under licence'.eg Parental consent was required. Post 1929 to 1969 different ages applied,and post 1969 it changed again. Glen |
|||