From: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com
Date: 2007/07/18 Wed PM 08:11:05 EDT
To: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk>,
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com
CC:
GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.comSubject: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!
Yvonne,
Well, I was looking into the Mary Hathaway-William Williams annulment
proceedings today. I got so involved that I actually ordered a book that
included this case, and it looks fascinating -- __ By Birth or Consent:
Children, Law and the Anglo-American Revolution in Authority __ by Holly
Brewer. I'm easily sidetracked! This book says that Mary's annulment
petition was based on her being underage (and coerced by her mother and
others). It further states that the marriage wasn't consummated, and that,
if it had been consummated, it would have been an abomination or abhorrent
or something similar (can't remember the exact phrase used). And the fact
that it hadn't been consummated and that she could afford to hire a good
lawyer is why the annulment was granted.
But, it turns out I *may* have to eat my words and admit that Joan Burdyck
was right that Jane Presley might have married at age 12 or even 11.
Supposedly, one of the attorneys in Mary Hathaway's case -- William
FitzHugh -- married 10-yr. old Sarah Tucker in 1674. And she had 5 children
by 1684, so they may have consummated their marriage right away. And, in
1692, William FitzHugh's 15 yr. old son William married Ann Lee who was only
about 9! I haven't had time to check out when William and Ann's children
were born, so I don't know yet if they waited until she was 12. 12 seemed
to be the magic age for consummation because the court records called it the
"age of reason" but maybe if you were wealthy enough you got away with
consummating it? The book says that Mary Hathaway's request for annulment
was rare enough that she had to go to great legal lengths to obtain it but
that her young age at marriage didn't seem to be all that unusual. I don't
want to go by just one book, so I'll keep looking.
Vickie Elam White
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
To: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com>; "WJhonson"
wjhonson@aol.comCc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record
Vickie,
Very many thanks for taking the time and trouble to reply, with such
interesting details.
I would be delighted to hear if you do manage to find a specific age at
marriage mention.
It makes strange reading, in our time, that 9 year olds were being married
off.
I have a direct ancestress, baptised 25 December 1610, married on 8 March
1622/23, so 12 years old. Her husband was slightly older at not quite 15,
but at least their first recorded child was not baptised until 14 March
1626/27. I think that Will is quite correct that they weren't allowed to
live together as man and wife until they were older, although I do wonder
whether all parents/guardians took such care if great wealth or good
connections were at stake.
Regards,
Yvonne Purdy
From: Vickie Elam White [mailto:VEWhite@nycap.rr.com]
Sent: 18 July 2007 15:04
To: Yvonne Purdy; WJhonson
Cc:
GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.comSubject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record
Yvonne,
I have never said that the marriage of a 12 yr. old would not be allowed,
I
said that it would have been unusual, if not downright rare, in VA in the
1680s. Since I believe that Richard Rogers married before 1675 (based on
my
belief that his son Richard was older than his son John, who was b. in
December 1676) -- when Jane Presley would have just turned 11 -- I think
he
must have married someone else first. What I mean by not comparing
different eras and countries is that, while something may technically be
allowed, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is common practice.
I do know that, in 1688 in Stafford Co. VA, Rev. John Waugh was brought
before the court for marrying underage girls - Mary Hathaway was only 9
yrs
old when he performed her marriage to William Williams. So, 9 was not
allowed. Age 12 was probably the minimum age allowed, and I'll keep
checking to see if I can find specific mention.
Anyway, I checked Hening's Statutes at Large to see what the VA laws were
at
that time. Interestingly, actual ages at marriage weren't mentioned until
Volume 3:151-152 (1684-1710), so it doesn't cover the period when Richard
Rogers first married. The previous 2 volumes mentioned only that licenses
and publishment of banns were required, not any ages. Vol. 3 says -
" And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That if the clerk of any county court doe grant any certificate or
certificates to any person or persons for any lycence or lycences for any
marriage or marriages without the personall consent of the parent or
guardian or signified under the hands and seales of the said guardian or
parent and attested by two witnesses or if any person or persons doe grant
any lycence or lycenses for any marriage or marriages without such
certificate or certificates, he or they soe offending shall for every such
offence forfeit and pay the sume of five hundred pounds current money, to
be
recovered and divided as aforesaid, and be imprisoned the space of one
whole
yeare, without bayle or mainprise.
And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That
if any woeman child or maiden being above the age of twelve and under the
age of sixteen years doe att any time consent or agree to such person,
that
so shall make any contract of matrimony without the consent of the parent
or
guardian or without the publication of the banes as aforesaid, that then
the
next of kin to the said woman, child or maid to whome the inheritance
should
descend, fall or come after the death of the said woman, child or maiden,
shall from the time of such agreement and assent hold, have and enjoy all
such lands, tenements and hereditaments as the said woman, child or maiden
had in possession, reversion or remainder att the time of such assent and
agreement and dureing such coverture and after the decease of the husband
of
the said woman, child or maiden haveing so contracted matrimony that then
the said lands, tenements and hereditaments shall descend revert and
remain
to such woman, child or maiden, or such person or persons as they should
have done in case this act had never been made."
Vickie Elam White
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
To: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com>; "WJhonson"
wjhonson@aol.comCc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record
Vickie,
Thank you for your reply. I should have explained that Antonia Fraser's
book, "The Weaker Vessel" is a study of "Woman's Lot in
Seventeenth-century
England", and is very interesting in the details she provides of all
aspects
of a woman's life then.
What was the law relating to age of marriage in colonial America through
the
1600s? I thought it might have been similar to English law, but maybe
not?
Regards,
Yvonne Purdy
From: Vickie Elam White [mailto:VEWhite@nycap.rr.com]
Sent: 18 July 2007 00:37
To: Yvonne Purdy; WJhonson
Cc:
GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.comSubject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record
Yvonne,
Well, the study I cited used mean ages, so by definition half of the
girls
were younger and half were older. How much younger and older it doesn't
say. But marrying at age 11, in the 1680s, I think was extreme.
Also, it can be misleading to compare colonial America to England and to
compare different eras, too. So, while the book you mentioned sounds
fascinating, I'm not sure it helps in this case.
Vickie Elam White
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
To: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record
In a message dated 07/16/07 12:08:23 Pacific Standard Time,
von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk writes:
Whether these were actually 'marriages' or pre-contracts,
I'm not sure. Whether any of the girls involved became mothers at an
early
age because of these 'marriages' would also be interesting to study.
We all agree that "marriages" between a minor girl and even a minor
boy
did
occur. But they were not allowed to sleep together. That's the
point.
Will Johnson
Dear Will,
I was really responding to Vickie's posting where she said:
I agree that 12-yr. old mothers happened, but it wasn't the norm then,
even in an area where young brides were common. According to __
Albion's Seed __ by David Hackett Fischer, p. 285, in VA during the
1660s and 1670s, the mean age of brides in the elite class was 18
almost
19 and the grooms were about 27. In the 1680s, the mean age for
brides
was just above 20 and for grooms was slightly over 25. Fischer used
many
sources, and I'll gladly cite them if you're interested.
I'm curious as I've just been reading "The Weaker Vessel" by Antonia
Fraser.
She says on page 12:
"So, in an age before the English had properly discovered the
rumbustious
sport of fox-hunting, heiresses were hunted as though they were
animals
of
prey. But these vulnerable creatures, unlike foxes were neither wily
nor
predatory. For the most part they were very young. The age of
consent
for
a girl was twelve (fourteen for a boy), but the exciting whiff of a
glittering match, particularly if the girl was an orphan, was often
scented
long before that; then the chase was on. The mention of 'unripe
years'
might mean the postponement of such routine accompaniments to the
marriage
as consummation; but the contract itself was made, even though a bride
was
theoretically entitled to her own choice of husband at the age of
consent,
without a previous betrothal to inhibit her.
The peculiarly confused state of the laws of England concerning valid
marriages and the marriage ceremony before the Hardwicke Act of 1753,
helped
to make the chase still more exciting when much was at stake.
Throughout
the seventeenth century a girl might well haven been forced into a
marriage
against her will, by parental pressure, or even outright violence from
a
stranger, and have found herself thereby robbed of her freedom and her
money."
Where the age of 12 was the age of consent for a girl, are you totally
sure
that some would not have become mothers within several months of that
date,
to confirm marriage to possibly an undesired husband?
Kind regards,
Yvonne Purdy
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message