any historical buffs?

[erastes]

Does anyone have any links to any sites, or knowledge of married ages in 17th Century here in England? I can't find if there was any official age of majority - and I doubt there was as Pepys' wife was 14 or 15 it seems.

If there was an age of majority, did the young people have to have permission if they were under it?

I'm specifically looking for pre-civil war, around 1630. Hope someone can help.

grrrrr - writing is easy. research - NOT SO MUCH!

Comments

[maidenform.livejournal.com]

OMG, I know how you feel. I'm writing a research paper right now too, and even though it's on LotR, I still hate it.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

It sucks. I mean - WHY - WHY!!! do I love doing historical fiction? I just don't know. I should write about today or something. Or build my own world then I wouldn't have to FAFF about finding out minutiea like this sort of rubbish. every single thing you write about, you have to check, and with the 17th Century there's just not that much - there's LOADS of stuff about the Civil War, but nothing much about the every day life of the people.

I can be whizzing along, words pouring out, and then I need a character's name - or I need to check that a pub existed in the 17th century and BAM! it all grinds to a halt.

I mean - who is going to write to me and say [insert anorak voice here] "er.. Erastes, I think you should know that in 1645 they had done away with using bandoliers to hold their powder..."

it's gay porn! People are going to want to know when they have sex next, not quibbling over the details!

*tears out hair*

[bawdy-letters.livejournal.com]

According to someone studying History at Uni I just IM'd it's around 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Could be complete bollocks though.

[nassima.livejournal.com]

If England still followed the canon (religious) law for this, the above is right for the age under which marriage is impossible (12 for girls and 14 for boys was considered the age of puberty). However, both boy and girl were still considered minors under the authority of their parents (well, father) at that age, and would have needed their authorisation to marry. There seems to have been quite an important debate in France about clandestine marriages, i.e. marriages of minors without the authorisation of their families - as long as the local priest was conducting the marriage, it seems that it was considered legal though both lay and religious authorities tried to discourage it.

In Europe, contrary to the general opinion, marriage at an early age was rare except in the upper noble families where political alliances came into account. For common people and even lesser nobility/gentry families, marrying was considered after a financial situation had been assured (for women, it could be some ten years of being a servant for example). According to a book about marriage in France, the medium age for the first marriage is 27/28 for men and 25/26 for women. Still in France (but as these laws are derived from christian canon, I don't think it would be majorly different in England), the legal majority age for men was 30 years and for women 25. And even after, the advice of the parents had to be asked (but I believe, not necessarily followed).

There were strong punishments for clandestine marriage, but as it depends on kingdom law and catholic law, it was probably a bit different in England. In France, marrying without the parents' authorisation could lead to excommunication and even death.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

There were strong punishments for clandestine marriage, but as it depends on kingdom law and catholic law, it was probably a bit different in England

In 14th century (too early, I know!) England, at least according to Hanawalt's book I cite below, "clandestine marriages...were canonically valid, for all that was needed was for both parties to agree to the marriage." In fact, clandestine marriage became a problem when consent of the parties as opposed to consent of the king/overlord or family became the standard, so the church instituted reading of banns and took other steps to prevent clandestine marriage.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

I don't know about the 17th century, though I remember reading something about marriage in that time in Fraser's The Weaker Vessel: Woman's Lot in 17th Century England, but can't find my copy.

However, in the 14th century according to Barbara Hanawalt's The Ties that Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England, "in the early 14th century, when land was hard to come by and wages were depressed, couples (speaking specifically of peasant and lower class couples) married in their late twenties. With the new economic opportunities opening up following the Black Death, the marriage age for women and men dipped into the late teens." (p.96)

The same book talks about clandestine marriages and their validity, but since that was under Catholic church law, not protestant, I'm not sure it would be relevant.

Though I can't document it, I remember a similar pattern in marriage age in Tudor/Elizabethan society from my college coursework, so I think this is a pattern you can logically assume would continue, with hard times making it more difficult for young people to set up their own households. The aristocracy would be a different kettle of fish, of course.

[tavaran.livejournal.com]

AS far as I know it was puberty - but bear in mind that puberty back thent tended to strike later than it does now. I don't think there was a specific age in years, it was just when a girl reached womanhood. Girls (and boys) could be betrothed at birth, then the marriage was finalised around the teens.

This was very much true for upper classes and royalty who had to contract marriages for political purposes. I know a lot less about lower class marriages and any age issues for that, but I suspect it would be the same.

Hope that helps!