From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Richard Smith   
    writes:   
   >On 06/06/18 17:25, Norfolkman wrote:   
   >> Would it have been common to baptize a child around the age of 9 in the 16th   
   >> century?   
   >   
   >I think it would be pretty unusual.  I don't recall having found any   
   >instances of late baptisms in the 16th century in my family.   
      
   How would you know, unless the age was given in the record?   
   >   
   >> It looks from records as if she was born (or rather Christened) in 1599 and   
   >> married in 1612 which would make her 13 when she married and had her first   
   >> child.   
   >   
   >Childhood marriages were not especially uncommon in the 16th century,   
   >and certainly less rare than late baptisms if my experiences are   
   >anything to go by.  Most of the time there was a gap between the   
   >marriage and first child, but not always.  One of the most famous   
   >examples of a woman having children at a very young age is Lady   
   >Margaret Beaufort.  She is usually reckoned to have been 13y 8m when   
   []   
   And of course Juliet was only about 14, and I think Romeo similar, and   
   the play wasn't considered scandalous: it was about a young couple,   
   certainly, but not startlingly so, and that aspect wasn't _that_ central   
   to the plot.   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   We'd agreed to overlook each others' families and everything, and get married"   
   (The Trouble with Harry)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)