Issue with Ages on Staffordshire Marriage Index
I noticed marriage licenses in this index set have most people as 21 years old because that was "full age" to be married. In reality, most were not that exact age. I used 1810 as the restriction in my example, but it's like that for the the other years as well, e.g. 1850.
I see there's a note here about "full age," but it's not explicitly said that the index itself simply recorded 21 for entries with that designation. I understand that the index might not be changeable, but could that note be amended or some warning applied? An incorrect birth year causes a lot of confusion!
Thank you.
Best Answer
Answers
-
Minor detail: When I look in FindMyPast at the John Reece example quoted by @GFre, the image of the original actually has "aged 21 years and upwards", so 21 hasn't been indexed as a substitute for "full age". (There isn't any reference to age on the actual marriage record). The bit "and upwards" is pre-printed and I've seen it on licences used by other dioceses, but how prevalent it is across the UK, I've no idea.
Personally, I've always been very way of these "aged 21 years and upwards" entries, as I suspect GFre is, and interpret them simply as "not a minor". (In fact, I'm always suspicious of an age of 21 anywhere!)
Ideally, I would agree that people ought to know that
- Both "full age" and "aged 21 years and upwards" simply mean "not a minor";
- "Age 21" in the FamilySearch index may mean that "aged 21 years and upwards" appears on the original and the image of the original should be consulted. That may not be financially possible, of course.
I don't know the best place to put such warnings.
4 -
I once raised this issue under the former "Indexing" category of Community. An experienced indexer responded that he felt it to be quite in order to index an age as "21" when the original record recorded the commonly found "upwards of 21" (or variant phrase). As far as he (and I believe "project instructions") was concerned, it was better to record the number that was written, rather than leave the age field blank.
Unfortunately, this attitude - which originally caused me no end of confusion (until I became familiar with the original documents' wording) is often applied by Family Tree users. Many deduct 21 years (sometimes 25 for the male!) from the known date of marriage and enter that as the year of birth in the Birth field (in the Vitals section). Very misleading when I have eventually found these individuals actually married at around 40 (or even 60) years of age.
4 -
As marriage records may have the only clues about female ancestors with their surnames, family witnesses, etc., it's particularly unfortunate to have unsaid rules potentially causing brick walls. I know that I had dismissed a record for a long time, despite being a strong match, because the bride would've been about 21, but the groom was closer to 29. The "birth year" also being present seems especially concrete and misleading to me.
I'm sorry to hear, @Paul W, that this has been brought up before. I hope something can be done to help make this rule more obvious. I couldn't find mention of it even in the research wiki.
1 -
The frequent appearance of age “21” in the Staffordshire Marriage Index typically reflects the legal designation of “full age” under Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753, rather than an exact birth age. In this context, the number functions as a legal shorthand indicating that the individual was 21 or older, not necessarily that they were precisely 21 years old.
FamilySearch record hints operate in the same way: they are suggestions, not conclusions. Each one requires independent verification before being added to a person’s profile. I agree that routinely entering ages such as 20 or 21 without supporting evidence can create confusion and may even hinder later research. Contributors should make every effort to confirm the accuracy of any information they attach to a record.
Regarding the proposed warning, where do you envision placing it—within the index itself, on the record-editing interface, or as guidance in the FamilySearch Help Center or Wiki?
Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753
(formally the Clandestine Marriages Act 1753) was the first statutory legislation in England and Wales to require a formal ceremony for a marriage to be legally valid. Introduced by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, it aimed to end "clandestine" or irregular marriages.
The Act, which came into force on March 25, 1754, established several strict requirements for a valid marriage:
- Marriages had to be conducted by an Anglican clergyman in a parish church or public chapel.
- Couples were required to either have banns (public announcements) read for three consecutive Sundays or purchase a formal license
- For those under the age of 21, the express consent of a parent or guardian was mandatory for marriages by license
- The ceremony had to be recorded in a specific marriage register and signed by the couple, the minister, and at least two witnesses.
- Weddings could only take place between 8:00 AM and noon
There is no FamilySearch rule requiring contributors to record an individual as age 20 or 21. These values function only as placeholder ages to initiate a search and should be updated as accurate information becomes available.
The wording on the marriage license itself is unambiguous. The phrase “of the full age 20 years and upwards” is a legal formula indicating that the individual had reached the age of majority—not a statement of their literal age.
FamilySearch also provides clear guidance on this point. The warning on the England–Staffordshire Church Records search page explains:
“Occasionally, ages of the couple may be listed as ‘full’ or ‘of age’. This was a customary way of noting that they were over the required age of 21. If the bride or groom was under the age of 21, ‘with consent of parents’ is noted in the record.”
Together, the license language and the Wiki guidance make it clear that these age indicators are legal categories rather than biographical facts, and they should be treated accordingly when entering or editing information in the shared tree.
1 -
Thank you, @sc woz. I really appreciate the information and historical context. I also understand this is something that wouldn't be easy to change.
The quoted guidance is very helpful, but it might be clearer with an added sentence explicitly noting that ages were sometimes standardized in the index—for example: “As such, ages may be recorded as 21 in this index and may not reflect the individual’s actual age.”
An addition feels important because on the original records, ages are often given as “full” or “of age,” whereas the index instead provides a specific age and even a birth year. Example:
That difference can be misleading, as it was in my case. I understand and respect the indexing conventions and now realize that when an age is indexed, even when technically unknown, a corresponding birth year may be automatically generated. However, when practices like this aren’t clearly explained, they can affect genealogical research. I guess what I was most trying to express is that it may be worth clarifying this point for future users, though I acknowledge doing so isn't straightforward.
0 -
@sc woz, I'm sorry I haven't had time to answer you until now.
This is what the description currently says for the England, Staffordshire, Church Records, 1538-1944, (bolded where relevant to my argument).
"This set of records are from the Staffordshire collection held by the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service. Staffordshire is a county in the West Midlands of England. It borders Cheshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, West Midlands, Worcestershire and Shropshire. These records contain banns, baptisms, burials, and marriages, from 1538-1944.They were captured as part of a joint effort with FindMyPast.com, Family Search captured the images and the index was provided by Find My Past. In some of the earlier parish registers, baptisms, marriages, and burials may be written in Latin. Occasionally, ages of the couple may be listed as "full" or “of age”. This was a customary way of noting that they were over the required age of 21. If the bride or groom was under the age of 21, “with consent of parents” is noted in the record. Also note that some of the images may show a black mark followed by the words ‘his mark’ or ‘her mark’ in the records of those who were unable to write."
The issue with the current description is that it explains the historical meaning of “full” or “of age,” but it does not explain that the indexers sometimes converted those words into a literal numeric age of 21 in the searchable index. In other words, this numerical conversion introduced information that does not exist in the original record.
Researchers may incorrectly assume that the original record explicitly said age 21, that the person was born around that calculated year, and/or that the indexed data reflects the actual wording of the register. In reality, the original source only said the person was an adult.
What's absent from the passage is a warning that the index may have transformed those phrases into an exact age of 21 and even generated an artificial birth year.
As for adding a warning, perhaps something like this would help to clarify:
Where the original record used terms such as ‘full age’ or ‘of age,’ the index may have standardized the individual's age as 21, and estimated birth years may have been automatically calculated from that value. Researchers should not assume that age 21 or the resulting birth year appeared in the original document.
0 -
@GFre Thank you. I have been informed that this would make a great suggestion and should be submitted through the Suggest and Idea route. You can find the form at this location. This is the best way to direct your information to the engineers responsible for that specific area.
1 -
For reference, here's an example from a family I've recently been researching from the collection England, Cheshire, Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1606-1900. The groom is listed as 21 and the bride as 18, in the index.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FBNG-BZJ?lang=en
Both are "upwards" in the record.
I have the bride's baptism, from Dublin; she was born in July 1816.
4 -
And just to add a bit more background for those less than familiar with this area... The Diocese of Chester is today pretty similar to the Historical County of Cheshire. However, at that time the Diocese of Chester also included all (?) of the county of Lancashire. Chunks were being spun off into their own diocese at about this time with, from memory, the Diocese of Manchester being the first new one. The county and diocese combinations may therefore be unexpected to anyone familiar with the current setup.
You may also note that the Event Place in FS is Chester - presumably that's because Chester compiled and stored the records. Exactly where the parties were standing when applying for the license is sometimes not clear. I know I've had to rely on the minister's signature and a Church of England directory to deduce where the parties were when applying. Fortunately, the answers made sense. In this case, it seems very likely that Liverpool, over the water in Lancashire, was involved.
4 -
FYI @Adrian Bruce1 this couple married twice on the same day. First was a Roman Catholic marriage in St Nicholas' Chapel, Coppers-hill (Liverpool), and the second was a CofE marriage at St David's.
Newspaper snip:https://www.newspapers.com/article/liverpool-mercury-etc-1835-stuart-farr/198070405/
RC marriage (with the groom's name as "Stark")
https://www.findmypast.com/transcript?id=PRS%2FLIVERPOOL%2FMAR%2F0541810%2F15
