Age at Marriage

[SandySandilands]

c. 1790 - I seem to have quite a few family members from the Borders who married in their 30s with no record of their having been previously married. It strikes me as rather odd, I thought they would off getting married around 21 years. Does anyone know if this was a common thing around that time?

[joette]

Not sure but I have been surprised at the mature ages some of mine in all areas married at.I suppose if you have to help support parents/siblings & save money to set up home & the fact that most women would have to give up work outside the home marriage may have to wait.
I also believe that in some areas women had to prove their breeding potential before a ring went on the finger.

[SandySandilands]

Thanks Joette - makes me feel better knowing that.

Was beginning to think the dates didn't add up but then again it's more of a rare occasion when they do

I also believe that in some areas women had to prove their breeding potential before a ring went on the finger.

Made me chuckle that one.

[trish1]

Thanks Joette - makes me feel better knowing that.

Was beginning to think the dates didn't add up but then again it's more of a rare occasion when they do

I also believe that in some areas women had to prove their breeding potential before a ring went on the finger.

Made me chuckle that one.

I am almost convinced that between about 1750 & 1870 it was compulsory in my Scottish and English families for the brides to be pregnant. When I think of the moralistic nightmares a few of my more recent family members went through, I sometimes wonder when/why this change in the view as to premarital sex happened.

And in regard to that question on age - one of my Scottish families that I am currently researching had the sons marrying at a much earlier age than the women. (this was around 1850s/60s) I often think it related to women being more "protected" in relation to where they went and who they were allowed to meet.

Trish

[Andy]

Registering a Marriage - even in the Church - cost about 10/- (Ten Shillings) in the Borders from the late 1700's. Effectively a whole months' pay!

Apprentices may have started their tenure at 13 or 14 but would have had to pay back Masters for use of tools, and cost of materials to MAKE the tools they needed in engeneering.

After paying off the tenure about 27 - 34 years old was about right to afford a wife and family.

The lowly farm servant wouldn't have saved anywhere close to 10/- in about 4 months. It would have taken a lot of pennies saved and real love to commit to a marriage partnership.

In 1817 the fees went up!

[joette]

Andy said

Registering a Marriage - even in the Church - cost about 10/- (Ten Shillings) in the Borders from the late 1700's. Effectively a whole months' pay!

I have the Banns from my Ggggreat-Grandparents marriage 1826 it cost 10/6d to call the Banns..

[SandySandilands]

Trish - I've also noted the pregnancies and age differences

I have a copy of a small booklet, The French in Selkirk written by Walter Elliot and published in 1982 by the Ettrick and Lauderdale District Coucil Museum Services. It concerns the diary of a French prisoner of war who was billited on the town. Fascinating reading. There appears to have been a lot of socialising between the locals and these men, quite a few pregnancies and at least one marriage. What struck me most was the easy going way of life he describes for the local folk.

One of the local girls who had a child with a French soldier later had a child out of wedlock with a member of my own family and after that went on to have a couple of children with a married man. This girl was from a "respectable" family, her father was "an Elder of the Church" who together with his wife helped to raise the children. No one seems to have batted an eyelid.

There is a list of approximately 300 names in the book relating to the French soliders. I often see some of these names pop up in the Census for the area and wonder how many of them are a brickwall in some poor soul's research...


Andy - That explanation could fit my 5 x great grandparents?

In Jan 1794 Alexander Sandilands was a cautioner at a marriage and described as "a servant man at Oakwood Mill."
At his marriage 4 months later he was described as "tenant in Oakwood Mill." His bride was 27.

I've only found one burial which could possible be him which was in 1816:
"Alexander Sandilands aged 66 - had 2 mort cloths."
If this is him, it would make him 44 when they married and my concern was that he was rather old to be marrying for the 1st time at that period?

It could possible have been a 2nd marriage for him or alternatively the burial could relate to another family member.

Sandy

[SarahND]

The HistPop site has some interesting facts and figures on Scottish marriages. Each year since Statutory Registration there’s been a detailed report. Here’s what it says about marriage ages in 1855.
http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/Pag ... =20&zoom=4

“Of the 19,680 males who married, 1010 were under 20 years of age; and of these one was under 15 years of age, one was under 16 years, 12 were under 17 years, 73 under 18 years, 267 under 19 years, and 657 under 20 years of age. Most Marriages took place among the males between the 20th and 25th year of life, 6714 males having contracted Marriage at that period of life. The next most common age for Marriage with men was from 25 to 30 years of age, 5832 males having married at that age. After this age, speaking in a general way, the number of Marriages contracted by men diminished nearly a half every quinquennial period, until only 4 Marriages were contracted by men between 75 and 80 years of age, and one by a patriarch between his 85th and 90th year of life.”

“Women, on the other hand, were, generally speaking, married at an earlier age than men; for whereas only 1010 men entered into the married state under 20 years of age, 3070 women, or more than three times the number of men, married at that early age. By far the largest number of women, however, entered the married state before the 25th year of life; of the total 19,680 women who married, 11,118 were under 25 years of age, 8048 of these being between their 20th and 25th year of life. During the next quinquennial period, viz., from 25 to 30, only 4914 women contracted Marriage; being little more than half the number of women as compared with the number of the previous five years. After this the numbers went on diminishing by about a half during every quinquennial period, till only 8 women contracted Marriage when between 60 and 65 years of age, 4 between the ages of 65 and 70; while one spinster between 70 and 75 was the oldest woman married in Scotland during 1855.”

(Next a table showing ages at marriage in 1855.)
Under 15, 1M 0F; 15-16 1M 40F; 16-17 12M 190F; 17-18 73M 474F; 18-19 267M 987F; 19-20 656M 1379F; 20-25 6714M 8048F; 25-30 5832M 4914F; 30-35 2564M 1764F; 35-40 1456M 900F; 40-45 846M 483F; 45-50 534M 201F; 50-55 264M 88F; 55-60 195M 27F; 60-65 108M 8F; 65-70 37M 4F; 70-75 17M 1F; 75-80 4M 0F; 80-85 0M 0F; 85-90 1M 0F; Age not stated 98M 172F.

“The general rule of Marriage, in so far as shown by these Tables, seems to have been, that the advantage of age was on the side of the men; and this seemed to hold good with regard to the Marriages of bachelors with spinsters, of widowers with widows, and quite remarkably so with regard to the Marriages of widowers with spinsters. All this, however, was reversed in the case of the Marriages of widows with bachelors; the general rule being, that the widow was the senior in age. Even the most cursory examination of the Table shows this to be the case. Thus, whereas 110 of the bachelors who married widows were under 25 years of age, only 53 of the widows were under that age. There is no difficulty in understanding how this should be the case. The status which the widow had acquired by her former Marriage presented inducements to the unsettled bachelor which
gave the widow a great advantage over her unmarried sisters; and as power is dear to every heart, a younger member of the opposite sex was selected, as more likely to leave that power in her hand than if the chosen second husband had been her senior in years.”

It’s a bit later than 1790 but probably not too far from the situation then.

Alan

(Posted by SarahND but really from Currie)

[SandySandilands]

Thanks Alan.