From: richard@ex-parrot.com   
      
   On 02/05/2019 22:20, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   > Richard Smith writes:   
   >> On 02/05/2019 13:16, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> 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?   
      
   It depends what you mean.  Most genealogy books will tell you that 12   
   (for girls) or 14 (for boys) was the minimum age for a marriage, and   
   they're sort of right.  The problem was that there was no punishment for   
   disobeying, not for the priest, nor for the bride and groom, nor for the   
   parents or guardians who consented to it; nor could the courts dissolve   
   the marriage without the consent of either the bride or grrom if this   
   was discovered to have happened.  It's a matter of semantics whether or   
   not you consider this to be a minimum age; certainly it was not an   
   enforceable minimum age.   
      
   Having said that, even though there was no enforceable minimum age,   
   there were other enforceable requirements arising from canon law, in   
   particular the requirement that the bride and groom understand the   
   commitment they are making.  This requirement has existed since time   
   immemorial, but its interpretation has changed with time.  In 1477, the   
   four-year-old Duke of York (latterly known as the younger of the Princes   
   in the Tower) married the six-year-old Countess of Norfolk.  You can be   
   pretty sure that by 1929, when the law finally changed, a court would   
   not have accepted that children so young could understand the commitment   
   of a marriage.  Of course, the fact that the Duke of York was the King's   
   son was a major factor.   
      
   (Although I say the law changed in 1929, none of the changes apply to   
   the Royal Family.  So long as they obtained the Queen's consent, it is   
   possible that a prince or princess could legally marry under the age of   
   16, if perhaps not as young as the Duke of York was.  Of course that   
   will never happen so it will never be tested in court.)   
      
   >> (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.   
      
   Perhaps not instant: either the bride or groom still needed to apply to   
   the courts for a decree of nullity, but to get this, all they needed to   
   do was demonstrate one party was under age which would normally be   
   beyond dispute (and, of course, they had to pay various legal fees).   
      
   An annulment is not quite the same as divorce.  A divorce recognises   
   that the marriage existed and has now come to an end.  An annulment is a   
   ruling that the marriage never existed.  Until fairly recently (maybe   
   1949, maybe more recently, I'm struggling to find the reference), a   
   child born to an annulled marriage was made illegitimate by the   
   annulment, which meant they lost inheritance rights; this was not the   
   case with a divorce.  Another, more famous example, is that a divorcee   
   (or someone married to one) could not be head of the Church of England   
   but someone whose marriage had been annulled could.  This is how Henry   
   VIII and Edward VIII differed: Henry's marriages to Catherine of Aragon   
   and Anne of Cleves were annulled (albeit on dubious grounds in the   
   former case), while Wallis Simpson's two previous marriages had ended in   
   divorce.   
      
   >>> (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.   
      
   Indeed.  And in fact Gretna didn't become famous until a bit later than   
   1754.  It wasn't until a new road was constructed a couple of decades   
   later that Gretna Green became a byword for eloping.   
      
   Richard   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)