From: chris@cjpl.co.uk   
      
   On 23/06/2020 15:39, Charles Ellson wrote:   
   > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:54:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 8. One of the documents (for each marriage), in the pre-printed section,   
   >> has "... not knowing or believing any lawful Let, or Impediment, by   
   >> reason of any Praecontract, entered into before the Twenty-fifth Day of   
   >> March, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four, ... to hinder the said   
   >> intended Marriage: ..."; this seems odd, as the document is dated later   
   >> than that (it has pre-printed "One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty"   
   >> [with "Five" written thereafter] at the top). What happened on 1754-3-25   
   >> that made whether things were "entered into" before or after then   
   >> important?   
   >>   
   > Anything after that date would be on the current calendar with the   
   > year being unambiguous. An ambiguous (was it new or old style ?) date   
   > before that could cause uncertainty where any limitation period was   
   > involved.   
   >   
   Nothing to do with the calendar change (which was in 1752).   
      
   25 March 1754 is the day that the Marriage Act 1753 (Hardwicke's Act)   
   came into force. One provision of that act made a contract of marriage   
   entered into on or after that day unenforceable, in the sense that legal   
   action could not be taken in the Church Courts to force the parties to   
   go through with it (other consequences such as an action for damages   
   might still have been available, I think). So an agreement to marry made   
   before that date might still be enforceable, and would be an impediment   
   to a different marriage.   
      
   The age of the parties was not included in the documents for the   
   assistance of future genealogists, but because under the same Act a   
   marriage by licence of a person under 21 (not being a widow or widower),   
   without parental consent, was void, so a licence should not be issued.   
   So "21 and upwards" is all that really needed to be said. Didn't stop   
   people lying, or being genuinely confused or ignorant as to their   
   precise age. The marriage would be treated as valid unless someone   
   actively took court proceedings to annul it.   
      
   There was no such provision for marriages by banns, presumably because   
   it was assumed that a disapproving parent would object to the banns.   
      
   --   
   Chris Pitt Lewis   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)