From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message <4fzyE.291334$fq5.256787@fx27.am4>, Ruth Wilson   
    writes:   
   >On 01/05/2019 22:52, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >> (Wybunbury, Cheshire)   
   >>  "_William Perry_ of _this_ Parish and _Ann Green_ of _this_ Parish   
   >>were  married in this _Church_ by _Banns_ with Consent of _______ this   
   >>_second_ Day of _December_ in the Year One thousand eight hundred and   
   >>_twenty one_". (Bits shown _thus_ are handwritten on a line; the rest   
   >>is  printed.)   
   >>  Would I be right in thinking "by Banns" [is it always capitalized?   
   >>If  so, why?], especially with nothing filled in after "with Consent   
   >>of",  means they were both 21? (The "with Consent of" _isn't_ crossed   
   >>out as  it often is, but is certainly left blank.)   
   []   
   >Hi John,   
   >I'd take it with a pinch of salt as I don't think you can take anything   
   >on a marriage (or other) certificate or register as the exact truth,   
   >certainly not the more historic ones. I have several ancestors that   
      
   See Richard's most excellent reply! In short, he said people under 21   
   could marry by Banns without explicit consent, provided nobody objected.   
   (Presumably if the parents/guardians didn't consent, they just had to   
   speak out at one of the banns [or maybe just make their objection known   
   to the vicar during the 3+ weeks?].) I guess that means down to 14 for   
   the boy and 12 for the girl! (I wonder if that means a couple of   
   youngsters could marry without consent, if they were able to support   
   themselves for 3+ weeks in another parish, provided nobody in that   
   parish objected!) [Until the raising to 16, but that wasn't until the   
   1920s!)   
      
   >were under 21 but have found very few marriages that have "with consent   
   >of parents" or similar entered. (there was one parish that seemed to   
      
   I've seen a few - often only one consenter (maybe when one partner was   
   over 21 and the other wasn't).   
      
   >have "consent of friends" in almost every entry though - I wonder if   
   >the clergyman had interpreted that as nobody objected?)   
      
   Interesting: maybe his way of recording lack of objections.   
   >   
   >I suspect that they didn't bother looking for consent as long as the   
   >parties looked over 21, or close enough. (I bet you bought a drink   
   >under 18 in the olden days when we didn't all carry ID!). I also wonder   
      
   (I didn't, actually - mainly because I didn't like the taste of beer   
   [still don't] rather than any attempt to be a goody-goody, and in those   
   days drinking anything else - such as a sweet sherry - would definitely   
   get you odd looks from the sort of "friends" you'd be under-age drinking   
   with!)   
      
   >how many people were absolutely sure if they were 20 or 21 - as per the   
   >1939 Register where many give birth years one out.   
      
   Indeed.   
   >   
   >Good luck with Ann Green ... I'm still holding out hope for John   
      
   After Richard's fairly authoritative answer, I will probably go with the   
   Wybunbury one, after checking the distances from W. to some of the other   
   candidates.   
      
   >Johnston ...   
      
   My worst case was when doing research for our secretary at work: one   
   line was a Jones, and I traced it to a village in Wales which appeared   
   to be about 60% Jones. I'm afraid I didn't pursue that line ... (I was   
   only doing it for free, as I enjoy doing it.)   
   >   
   >Ruth   
   John   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   "Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum." Translation: "Garbage in, garbage out."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)