From: richard@ex-parrot.com   
      
   On 02/05/2019 13:16, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
      
   > (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?].)   
      
   The parent or guardian had to "openly and publickly declare, or cause to   
   be declared in the Church or Chapel where the Banns shall be so   
   published, at the Time of such Publication, his, her or their Dissent".   
     Sidling up to the priest one evening in the local pub was not sufficient.   
      
   I should also note that although I've said "parent or guardian", the   
   mother's rights were not the same as the father's.  A mother could   
   object to a marriage by banns but could nor normally consent to a   
   marriage by licence.   
      
   > I guess that means down to 14 for the boy and 12 for the girl!   
      
   Yes.  Or even younger: persons under these ages could marry but the   
   marriage would be voidable.  A voidable marriage is a valid marriage   
   (unlike, say, an incestuous or bigamous marriage), but can be   
   subsequently annulled by either party and for this reason it was rare   
   for people to enter into a voidable marriage knowingly.  Astonishingly,   
   this remained the legal situation until 1929.   
      
   > (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!)   
      
   Certainly.  This was not uncommon, and probably easier for most than   
   eloping to Gretna Green (which, being just over the Scottish border, was   
   no covered by English marriage law).   
      
   Richard   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)