Marriage and birth laws? in 1888?

Question

ok my great great grandparents, married in 1888, ages are 18 and 26

but they lied her birth certificate shows she was only 16 when married, that's my first question, did she lie because at the age she needed parents consent? or was the age limit to marry 18?

next question, when she had her first child 1887, on his birth certificate it doesn't have a fathers name but the child has the fathers last name.

to have your child have the last name of its father, havent the father got to be present? or has he only got to be present to say he is the father? no matter what name?

Answer 1

At that time, he could not be entered as the father unless they were married. Nothing to stop the child having his surname though.

fibbing about ages at marriage is frequently found, particularly on an 'immodest' age difference. Saying that, I've seen 13-y-olds in that era getting married as '18' with a (widowed) mother as witness, so pragmatics may also play a part.  

Answer 2

yes she would have needed parental consent at 16 to marry.



i believe the father would have to have given his permission to have his name on the birth certificate, but as far as i know you can call a child any name you like.  but im not certain on this front.

good luck with your research.

Answer 3

Although the age of consent which you can marry without parental consent is now 18 (the minimum age being 16), in the past the defination "of full age" meant over 21.  Although girls could marry as young as 12 in the 1800s (and boys at 14 - don't ask me what the logic of that is) they were supposed to have parental permission until they reached the age of 21.  This limit wasn't lowered until well into the 20th century.  Claiming to be 18 doesn't really mean one thing or another - parental permission would have been needed regardless.  It's more likely that the bride simply tried to up her age to something a little closer to the groom to make the age gap a little more palatable.  She'd have added on what she thought she could get away with.  Unlike today, people didn't have to prove they were who they said they were or how old they were.  People just didn't bother that much with things like age.  Without things like the old age pension to fall back on, there just wasn't any need.  Ages are always the first thing to change somewhat randomly up and down on census returns and certificates as the occasion demands.

The second part of your question sounds intriguing.  If she was married, then the certificate should name her husband as the father - he doesn't have to be there - it is assumed that he is the father.  If it doesn't appear on the cert then that is very weird indeed.  The child would take whatever surname the mother was using at the time.  If the couple weren't married then the only way the father could appear on the certificate is if he registered the birth as well at the same time and admitted paternity. You've got me stumped with that one.

Answer 4

Where did all this happen? Every country had different laws back then, and even in the US and Canada laws varied widely. She may legitimately not have known how old she was. She may have lied. She may have been bad at math. You may have the wrong birth certificate. There's just not enough information to draw conclusions because so much information is missing. But you have to start with telling us where they lived for anyone to help you figure out what "the law" was at the time.

Answer 5

England

In England and Wales, the Marriage Act 1753, also called Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act (citation 26 Geo. II. c. 33), required required that if both parties to a marriage were not at least 21 years old, then consent to the marriage had to be given by the parents. Even with consent, parties were not allowed to be married unless the male was at least 14 years old and the female was at least 12. Previously, people could be married at as early as seven years of age, but until the participants reached the age of consent of 14 and 12 years, such marriages could be voided easily.

There are many instances when the age was "massaged" to make it a little more palatable! Brides who were older than their grooms often "lost" a few years or grooms who were younger "acquired" a few. Some people genuinely wouldn't know precisely how old they were.

Unfortunately some marriage registers simply state "of full age" which tells you nothing except that the bride and/or groom were aged 21 or over and could have been anything from 21 to 80+ - not terribly helpful. It was always possible for a bride under 21 to add a few years if she thought she could get away with it so that she did not require the consent of her family.

In the past, at the age of 21 a man or a woman was considered old enough to give their own consent to their own marriage. Under that age, the consent of the parent(s) or the legal gaurdians or the court was required. Parents of people under the age of consent were notified separately that a notice of marriage of their child had been taken - giving them time to object to the marriage if they should wish. If one or both parents objected and stated so (no reasons need be given) then the marriage cannot take place until the bride or groom reaches the age of their own consent. Technically, a marriage of a couple who should have had consent of parents and have married without it is not legal.

The age at which a person could marry and at which they would require consent has changed since 1837. Then marriage could be at 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy, but consent of parent(s) was required for both up to the age of 21. In 1926 the age of marriage for both parties was raised to 16 but consent for both was still required until 21. Now, the age at which people can marry is still 16 but the age for consent has been lowered to 18.

The only exception to the requirement for consent was for a second marriage before the age of 21 ie if a bride/groom had married once with consent of parents and had been widowed they could marry the second time without consent of parents. I thought that the logic of that was - if they had tried it once and still wanted to do it again....! but in fact it stems round the fact that once a woman has married, her father no longer has legal status with regard to consent, and so she can give her own consent to her own marriage.

Marriage before the legal age is invalid.

And no, the father doesn't have to be present. The mother names who the father is and it goes on the birth certificate.