"full" age.....

dido2 · 28-09-2011 7:23pm #1

I know that Full age means someone is 21 or over getting married, I have my Mother in laws parents marriage cert and it says both are full age, but the age the family have for her puts her at 19 getting married, so my question is, when it came to getting married how did they prove their age if at all??? I know I had to have my baptism cert getting married and I'm wondering if that was the case then too, we're talking 1930's here...
I'm trying to trace a birth record for this woman and not getting anything, I have found one but it's 7 years earlier than the family think, and a few in a different county, Surname isn't a very common one, but very unique either, just less people show up in a search, if I thought they'd have to prove their age I'd be inclined to get the one record, I don't know this womans mothers name other than a vague name, but do know her fathers name, there is a possible record for their marriage but I don't see the point just yet in getting it as it won't prove much!!

pinkypinky · 28-09-2011 9:17pm

Yeah, they might have lied. I don't think they would have had to prove age in the 1930s.

I've certainly got a couple of examples of "full age" being written where the person is younger. One gg grandmother has full on her 1874 marriage but her age on both censuses, which tally, puts her at 17 or 18, depending when her birthday was.

dido2 · 28-09-2011 10:05pm

Thanks Pinky

I wasn't sure of the "normal" way these things were done back then! Finding it hard to find a birth record for this person so was kind of half hoping that there was no way they could have gotten away with it!

CeannRua · 28-09-2011 10:06pm

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wpAgeofMajority.htm

See paragraph 4.9 of link.

Is this a Catholic marriage? I'm open to correction here but I think baptism certs would have been asked for to show maybe not age but that at least one of the parties to the marriage was Catholic. So even if checking age was not the intention, it would have been known in any case.

dido2 · 28-09-2011 10:17pm

Yes Ceannrua, it's a catholic marriage...

Maybe knowing the family at the time might have been enough to prove to the church?

CeannRua · 28-09-2011 10:30pm

I don't understand. Enough to prove what to the church? Her age?

If yes, agreed - because they would have been able to check the records anyway if she was baptised in the same church.

dido2 · 28-09-2011 10:34pm

Maybe or that the family were actually catholics......

But I can't understand how 2 people would have been allowed to get married without producing something to identify they were who they said they were, my own grandmother almost didn't get married because she had no birth cert nor baptismal cert and no idea who her parents were, but she had so happened to have been christened in the church she was to get married in so she was ok, but had been told she wouldn't have been allowed to get married without a baptismal cert and that was 1946

KazM · 28-09-2011 10:46pm

Laws have been changed over time so 'Full' could be 16, 18, 21, 25 - depending on the period. And I've had dates be more than 20 years out - if you were to believe even half what folks would try to fool you with.

When a parish priest knew everyone in his parish and in all catholic families, so long as the participants were over the age of consent, then he perhaps would not require paperwork - he'd have the person's baptism record in his own hands.

It is a very modern concept that we have to prove we are who we say we are with documentation etc - the price of massive growth in population and the movement around the planet that means priests know very few of the folks who reside within their parish these days. This goes further with non-conformists, obviously and civil marriages.

Mis-representation doesn't only include ages. I've examples where the 'bride' claimed to be a spinster when she had already a 10 yr old son and he believed his 'father' was dead [said father lived a long and happy life 2 counties distant] and I've never been able to prove he actually married the woman - perhaps he left her because of her ability to tell a plausible tale. She ended up with a second family and outlived the second husband anyway - that I can prove lol

CeannRua · 28-09-2011 10:48pm

I'm missing something here because I still don't understand...

I think it's altogether possible that a couple wouldn't be asked for baptism certs etc by a priest who has long known the families. For instance, if a long-serving priest had baptised a couple he later married, it would be a bit daft for him to ask them for baptism certs. He would be writing them out himself.

Are you saying that the couple you are talking about were married in a church where they were not known and were not asked for identifying paperwork?

Edit - sorry cross posting on my part. KazM got in there with the same points while I was typing! I still think though if couple not known baptism certs might have been check to prove Catholicism due to marriage being a sacrament.

Waitsian · 29-09-2011 4:54am

In my research, both in Ireland and North America (mostly Canada) I've discovered that as well as names, for the most part, ages are the least reliable statistic. I've found a few marriage entries where one or both are listed as being over 21, but other records prove otherwise. And as for ages in census records? Sometimes you wonder if they just made them up!! It can be frustrating, but I think you just have to think outside the box sometimes, or use an educated guess. Cross reference other records, if you have them, and you can figure out the truth.

Victor · 29-09-2011 6:03am

KazM wrote: »

Laws have been changed over time so 'Full' could be 16, 18, 21, 25 - depending on the period.

Until 1935 you could legally get married at age 12, although I imagine it was rare.

CeannRua · 29-09-2011 7:55am

Just to say that in the document I attached to an earlier post, it seems to say that there were two different concepts at play
(1) age of majority (which was 21 and until which time a person was a minor)
(2) marriageable age which was lower but marriage parties required parental consent until they turned 21

P. Breathnach · 29-09-2011 9:26am

Victor wrote: »

Until 1935 you could legally get married at age 12, although I imagine it was rare.

In 1856 my great-grandmother's sister was married on her thirteenth birthday. It was not a romantic arrangement, but a way of settling property (a small cottage and a few acres on the side of a mountain). It is reported that there was a letter from the priest agreeing to the marriage on condition that her husband not touch her until she was of age; it's as well he told them what was in the letter, as they were both illiterate.

dido2 · 29-09-2011 10:58am

I've no idea if they were married in the church where they were known, but it seems theres no reason to think that this woman was actually 21 when she got married so puts me back where I was!

I could see where it wouldn't be necessary to ask for proof of age or who you are where you've lived in the one parish all of your life though...

Reason I asked in the first place was because of the age thing on the census the ability to gain 20 years in 10 years was so common!

Thanks for the re

Waitsian · 29-09-2011 11:04am

dido2 wrote: »

Reason I asked in the first place was because of the age thing on the census the ability to gain 20 years in 10 years was so common!

In the 1901 Census my great grandfather is listed as 50 years of age. According to his baptism record, which I've seen, he was in fact 61. In 1911 he has somehow aged, on paper that is, 16 years and is now 66. 66 is closer to his true age of 71, but still incorrect. It can be frustrating.

dido2 · 29-09-2011 11:11am

I've actually taken to using a 15 year window for ages with people which is why I don't think I'm that daft to consider that this woman who's birth record I'm trying to find is possibly the one in 1926 rather than 1933 which is when the family think it is, there are a few other ones with the right year in a different county which is also a possibility and I did order one of them already!!!

KazM · 29-09-2011 10:44pm

General rule of thumb with anything genealogical-related:

Believe nothing you're told unless you've seen - or have copies of - at least two primary sources of information which corroborate a fact. Ensure you fully record what records you have seen, if you don't plan to collect a copy for your 'memory box'. So if you're challenged about it down the line, you know where you got your information.

Secondary sources can help sort out 'mysteries' - is there a family bible/someone's private journal of the period in question where life-events of family members may have been recorded? Local Church/Parish Newsletters are brilliant for recording Births/Deaths/Marriages.

All these questions - they keep us all hooked on finding out why/how/who/when/what

dido2 · 29-09-2011 11:00pm

I'm doing the whole collecting thing!! I've folders for those certs that I know are right and another for the duds but i'll still keep the duds just in case something pops up for them!!!
It's an expensive hobby but I would like to be able to provide a paper trail if anyone should ask for proof and I'm sure someone will do!!!

"full" age.....

Comments