A Question of Age

[Robin]

Steelwhisper wrote: "But I am quite positive about that, as I was much astounded at the time."

It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I am working on a written family history for my tree and I want to include all my sources, including stuff on cultural history like this.

"However, apparently "marriage vows before God" were considered just as valid as long as they were taken in front of the godly presence/representative. It took me a while to understand (me being an atheist ;)) that with "presence" the consecrated altar and cross was enough and considered to be representative of God enough for valid vows. These even the local priest would accept."

That is what confuses me - isn't that basically a marriage? If they made "marriage vows before God" and with a religious representative, why weren't they considered married? In the Norwegian Parish records, there are often columns for "Betrothals and Marriages" and I know in some cases, betrothals were considered as binding as a marriage. But to my agnostic mind, I just think "what's the difference?" - they made vows before God, a religious authority approved it and recorded it and in those days, I thought that if the state church approved it, it was legally binding as well? Isn't that a marriage?

[Steelwhisper]

Robin wrote: "But to my agnostic mind, I just think "what's the difference?" - they made vows before God, a religious authority approved it and recorded it and in those days, I thought that if the state church approved it, it was legally binding as well? Isn't that a marriage? ..."

Enough of a marriage to satisfy the other good citizens, but not a legal marriage, at least in England. Only a legal marriage (which includes the licence, etc.) will suffice before the law.

There was a whole zoo of stuff going on somewhen between 1600 and 1800, particularly in England, with people e.g. being married several times, marriages declared invalid because the licences were never obtained, or those which were obtained were from entities which not anymore where allowed to give them, and what not else. Some people ended up marrying each other several times over!

And I'm positive that were articles on JSTOR now.

[Ana]

Robin wrote: "Steelwhisper wrote: "But I am quite positive about that, as I was much astounded at the time."

It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I am working on a written family history for my tre..."

They were considered married earlier, but such a marriage posed a few problems, legally. It was easier to contest (for example by conflicting heirs). Official marriage required 2 witnesses who signed the document, and banns, meaning there were even more witnesses that could attest to the fact the marriage indeed have been announced. If there were only 2 people involved and they later disagreed, whose side the court was supposed to take? There was the obligatory condition that the partners enter the marriage of their free will. If not, the marriage was considered invalid. What if later one of them decides he or she were coerced?
And the religious representative could die by that time or be bought off by the interested side.

[Robin]

Steelwhisper wrote: "Enough of a marriage to satisfy the other good citizens, but not a legal marriage, at least in England. Only a legal marriage (which includes the licence, etc.) will suffice before the law."

I know today there is a difference between a legal marriage and religious one - I guess I just thought that in history, they were considered one in the same (if done in the church of the state of course).

[C.P.]

Yes, licenses are a relatively new invention. As late as the 16th century, the church was still struggling in many places to convince people they needed an ecclesiastical blessing for the marriage to be valid. And betrothal was as binding as marriage: hence many couples treated the two as the same. That is why breach of promise was such a big deal into the 19th century.

Consummation (not consumption) mattered only in the West. The Orthodox Church considers a marriage valid on the basis of vows. The nobility, focused on the continuation of the lineage, did not agree....

But then, age at marriage was much younger in the East. Teen years for first marriage, male and female—and teens for girls after that.

[Steelwhisper]

C.P. wrote: "Consummation (not consumption)..."

LOL, right, I've read too much on same-sex marriage laws and the "non-consumption debate" lately ;) Interestingly this also may become a non-issue now here in the West with same-sex marriage.

I think going purely by (church) registration statistics isn't that helpful. The closest we may come to the truth is extrapolating from all sources, even the softer ones. If to Shakespeare writing about a couple of 13 and 18 is not noteworthy per se and the height of his idea of romance, then this also tells us something.

[Kate]

And of course in many historical eras, the idea of an official marriage was increasingly casual the lower you went down in social scale. In the peasant class in the Middle Ages, as mentioned earlier in this thread you were often supposed to cry banns which meant announcing for several successive Sundays your intention to be married in 3,2,1 weeks - but even so, that process could get skipped (especially if, say, the couple had jumped the gun and a pregnancy meant they had to get married immediately). And betrothal was frequently considered a binding agreement, even if it was just a private exchange of promises between a couple with no witnesses. (Though one then could get into the case of "he said, she said", I'm sure.)

The legal steps of marriage get more complicated and formal the more money and/or power there is tied up in the social status of the couple.

[C.P.]

Yes, and common law marriage was still valid into the 19th century in many places (even later? not sure when the state grew strong enough to insist on formal licenses). So one does have to take this stuff with a rather large grain of salt.

[Steelwhisper]

C.P. wrote: "Yes, and common law marriage was still valid into the 19th century in many places (even later? not sure when the state grew strong enough to insist on formal licenses). So one does have to take thi..."

That was earlier than the 19th century for marriages to hold up in law-cases, if I recollect correctly.

[Ana]

Steelwhisper wrote: "C.P. wrote: "Yes, and common law marriage was still valid into the 19th century in many places (even later? not sure when the state grew strong enough to insist on formal licenses). So one does hav..."
If you mean in England - not after the The Marriage act of 1753.

[Steelwhisper]

Precisely :) and one of the reasons for the popularity of Gretna Green.

By the way, and which was one of the reasons why I researched that topic at the time: does anyone know whether and under which conditions an employer of an underage person could replace parental consent?

I was thinking of an 18 year old (in 1918 still a minor by 3 years) marrying, in case of his parents disowning him (so no way he can get proper parental consent)? His employer is also his landlord, and a lord of the manor. I never found any reliable source for such a constellation.

[C.P.]

Steelwhisper wrote: "That was earlier than the 19th century for marriages to hold up in law-cases, if I recollect correctly."

In England, yes (and thanks, Ana, for the year of the Marriage Act, which I could not remember offhand). But in Scotland, marriage by declaration was still legal in the early 19th century. And I was actually thinking of the American West—although I admit to being far from an expert in that area of the world.

In fact, I just checked, and certain US states and the District of Columbia still recognize common law marriage under certain conditions. And according to Wikipedia, Scotland stopped recognizing it only in 2006.

[Kate]

Actually, in the American west and in other frontiers where women were at a premium, marriage was far easier to dissolve than it was in the more law-bound east. An excellent book called The Believers follows a frontier woman whose husband goes into the Shaker religious sect - and she is able to get away from him because the state passes a law that a woman may get a divorce if her husband goes to the Shakers. The logic being that the Shakers preach abstinence even among husbands and wives; so the state enabled young women to be able to get a divorce and find new husbands. Women were simply too valuable to have them rot away in religious compounds!

[Jennifer]

The thing I can never get over is reading about infants being betrothed to one another. I've only read about it in regard to royal offspring, and obviously it's about creating alliances between two countries but it's unimaginable to me that you could formally promise someone's hand in marriage when the person isn't old enough give their consent.

[Steelwhisper]

Jennifer wrote: "The thing I can never get over is reading about infants being betrothed to one another. I've only read about it in regard to royal offspring, and obviously it's about creating alliances between two..."

Ah, but consent wasn't much of a commodity for the two betrothed. I don't write only m/f historical romance, but also gay historical fiction/romance, and there are loads of gay men who were quite against their declared will, their needs and their conscience married to women simply because the family and lineage demanded it. Or, vice versa, there were enough adult--as in above age of consent--women who were held down by a couple of footmen in their wedding nights (and any necessary consecutive nights) so that they submitted to their matrimonial duties. Until well into the 19th century women had no recourse in such cases, and it wasn't all butterflies and roses and Jane Austen, nor always so well-mannered once the bedroom doors were closed.

[Ana]

Jennifer wrote: "The thing I can never get over is reading about infants being betrothed to one another. I've only read about it in regard to royal offspring, and obviously it's about creating alliances between two..."
Yes, but they weren't married until they grew up and by that time they were mostly resigned to their duty. It is maybe hard to take but love wasn't prerequisite for marriage and I imagine if you don't know you should marry for love you suffer much less. Not like in the 19 century when the notion became popular.
On the other hand, coercion was one of the few grounds the marriage could be declared invalid in times when there was no divorce, not that it was easy to prove without support. And of course for royals it was impossible, nobody would contest the King's will.

[Hilda]

To go back to the question that was raised in the original post in this thread, this business of how age is perceived also varies across cultures in the present day. When I was in my early forties I lived in Zanzibar for a year and was horrified to find myself being addressed as mzee, a Swahili term of respect for older people. At the time I still looked much younger than my real age - in fact, in France, where I lived just prior to Zanzibar, I was still sometimes being addressed as Mademoiselle. Later on I moved to Malaysia and was again horrified - this time because people such as the plumber were calling me Auntie.

[Melissa]

Kate wrote: "A charismatic and well-preserved 60, definitely. And I do remember that when I was seventeen, my celebrity crushes tended less toward Leonardo di Caprio than Harrison Ford and Sean Connery, so I f..."

Um, yeah. I can see how a man 30, 40 years older than the woman he's hitting on could win her over with that approach. I tend to date people older than me.

[P.D.R.]

The upper crust always had very tight legal contracts for marriages because of the land and money being exchanged.

It only became necessary for ordinary people when more people began to have property and money to leave to heirs. By 1735 in the UK there had been enough legal squabbles by heirs and problems with inheritance for the marriage act to be thought necessary.

[Melissa]

It does seem odd that people 500 or 1,000 years ago would think of a 40-something as being in their prime. If I'd gotten married at 16 or 18, had a house full of kids by the time I was 25, and had to worry about dying every time I gave birth, I think would have been well past my prime by the time I hit 40.

[Melissa]

Kate wrote: "I don't blame you - what a rant that guy subjected you to! That's a reader you DON'T want.

I think it's also worth bringing up that it can be a bit all-encompassing to assume that 18 was automati..."

That's fascinating.