From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Richard Smith   
    writes:   
   >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".   
      
   Ah, right, so it's a "speak now or forever hold your peace" thing.   
      
   >Sidling up to the priest one evening in the local pub was not   
   >sufficient.   
      
   That's what I was thinking of. Thanks for clarifying.   
   >   
   >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.   
      
   Right.   
   >   
   >> 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   
      
   Was there _any_ minimum?   
      
   >(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,   
      
   So, it was valid, but instant divorce was possible. Interesting.   
      
   >this remained the legal situation until 1929.   
      
   It is indeed surprising!   
   >   
   >> (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).   
      
   And, though the most famous of its kind, was far from the only such -   
   basically anywhere just over the border would do; there was one almost   
   as famous (locally) on the east side, just north of Berwick - there was   
   a toll house at about the right spot that served. I think I have   
   ancestors wedded there.   
   >   
   >Richard   
   John   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   Less rules means fewer grammar? - Marjorie in UMRA, 2014-1-28 13:14   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)