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
Full!
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Chris | Report | 25 Aug 2003 21:18 |
|
Thanks Kathleen things are a bit more clearer now |
|||
|
Kathleen | Report | 25 Aug 2003 14:27 |
|
In 1929 the minimum age for marriage (which had been 14 for a boy and 12 for a girl) now 16 for both with parental consent (or licence) needed for anyone under 21. This is from notable dates in British History. Kathleen |
|||
|
Chris | Report | 25 Aug 2003 14:01 |
|
Thanks Brenda thats a great help, i have him as being married at 15 but i thought it was wrong,but in the 1800s well i suppose anything goes! Christine |
|||
|
Brenda | Report | 25 Aug 2003 13:55 |
|
Christine,I have found that at least two of my great aunts were only 15 when they married in the late 1890's,I have not got the certificates to prove the age stated,but they certainly married then as I have found them on the sites.Hope this helps ,Brenda |
|||
|
Chris | Report | 25 Aug 2003 13:36 |
|
Thanks Everyone but im even more confused now! my ggg grandfather was married in 1845, but his father was born in 1811, iv got this info from parish records, im now thinking that these records are wrong Christine |
|||
|
Steven | Report | 25 Aug 2003 11:51 |
|
On 2 occasions I have found that "of full age" looks like a lie. The clergyman had no way of verifying the ages of the couple, and may have preferred to say "of full age", rather than putting down an age which he suspected was incorrect. |
|||
|
Beryl | Report | 25 Aug 2003 11:36 |
|
Christine, I think 'full age' usually means over 21 but keep an open mind. Ages can be notoriously inaccurate. I was told once that most males married at 21 as that was when they went on to a 'man's wage' and could afford to keep a wife! Beryl Darlington DUR |
|||
|
Gary | Report | 25 Aug 2003 11:24 |
|
Christine On all the marriage certificates I have obtained. Where it says full it means full age and does mean 21 or over. If they were 20 is says 20 if they were 21 and above it says full. This applies to certificates obtained between 1846 to 1890's. Gary |
|||
|
Chris | Report | 24 Aug 2003 21:26 |
|
Keith Your a star! i worked it out that he must have been 14 when he got married, which confused me but that now fits in with his father Thank you Christine |
|||
|
Keith | Report | 24 Aug 2003 21:21 |
|
Hi Christine, not necessarily over 21 as the legal age for marrying has changed a couple of times in the past. Not exactly sure when but it was at one stage realy low like 12, or 14 |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Chris | Report | 24 Aug 2003 21:17 |
|
Heather So i guess thats 21? or over, if it is then i cant link it with his father as i dont know his exact age |
|||
|
Heather | Report | 24 Aug 2003 20:56 |
|
believe it means that they were over the legal marrying age hevi |
|||
|
Chris | Report | 24 Aug 2003 20:54 |
|
I have just got my ggg grandfathers marriage certificate, but were the age should be it just says "full" does anyone no what this means Christine |
|||