Mary Parker K2HL-86G: Was 17 too young to Marry in 1803?

Dean, Barton David

For some time the Mary in my tree was assumed to have been baptized 9 March 1777 in Stapenhill parish. This was taken from a Legacy source , the only source available for viewing at this time (see source page). Her family's home was in neighboring Church Gresley Parish. The town of Stapenhill is 3.5 miles away town center-to-town center. By age and place all seemed good until I saw the marriage by banns record (in sources).

According to the marriage sources, the marriage took place 11 April 1803 and that both Mary and her groom were from Church Gresley Parish. I searched the parish register of Gresley to see if there was a Mary Parker of age living in that parish. I found one born 6 March`1786 and baptized 12 March 1786. That would put her at 17 years, one month old at the time of her marriage. That seemed a bit young, so I tried to find the range for marriagesin the early 1800s. At www.history.com, I found the following statment: "They didn't marry young. At the end of the 18th century, the average age of first marriage was 28 years old for men and 26 years old for women". Marrying a man ten years one's senior at age 17 seems a bit wierd to me, but I've seen it happen before.

I am inclined to go with the entry in the Gresley Parish record, assuming parish records and transcripts to be more authoritate than trying to "fit" the age, but 17 is quite young. Some of you are seasoned with years of experience. I'd like to hear your ideas or opinions before I being whacking away and reconstituting the tree branch.

Thanks!

Bart

Paul W

I stand to be contradicted, but I believe the "legal" age (there even seems to be controversy about the definition of that word - Roman law, Church law, etc.) was 14 for boys and 12 for girls at this time. However, in my entire family tree I have found only one instance of a marriage where an individual was under 16: a 15 year old, who married in County Durham in 1803.

I, too, have read articles on "average ages" at various countries and periods in history, but naturally there are always exceptions. The girl / woman being pregnant is the obvious example. This was no doubt the reason my 3x great grandfather, aged 18, married my 3x great grandmother - some ten years his elder - in 1827. (Their first child was born a couple of months later.)

Like you, I have tended to accept the "more likely" individual (with regards to age) when there have been two possible "candidates" with regards to an individual in a marriage event, but I would not completely rule out one or the other in this case.

Paul W

Aaargh! I just lost the whole of my original response to your question!

In brief, what I did comment was that I believe the legal age in England at this period (under Church law or Roman law, I can't remember which) was 14 for boys and 12 for girls.

However, I have only one person in my entire family tree who married under the age of 16 - a 15 year old female who married in County Durham, also in 1803.

Whilst one can generalise about average ages at marriage during any set period, there are always exceptions. Often these involved pregnancy, of course. This can lead to the otherwise unusual situations, as in my family, where a set of 3x great grandparents married when he was 18 and she 28.

I admit I have not examined your example in depth, but believe I would remain open minded about the main possibilities, for the time being.

Dean, Barton David

Thank you Paul! I enjoy reading your responses. I am not completely sure what you meant by "remaining open to the main possiblities, for the time being", but I took it to mean: "Don't summarily dismiss the possibility of an early marriage". I won't. As you have probably figured out, I am one who likes to have all ducks in a row, and packages securely fastened with a bow. I'm learning I will not always have things my way.

After I read your response, the words 'Out of the books you shall be judged" came to mind. (Not a direct quote from 3 Nephi). If I am using the books to do this work, then I should go with what they are telling me. I would be more decisive if the FamilySearch tree was exclusively mine.

Again, Great response and Thanks!

Bart