CHESHIRE-L Archives

Archiver > CHESHIRE > 2001-02 > 0981806659


From: Guy Lawton <>
Subject: Re: [CHS] Ages on Marriage licences
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 12:04:19 +0000
References: <000201c092be$5992ac40$492e883e@raider87>
In-Reply-To: <000201c092be$5992ac40$492e883e@raider87>


In message <000201c092be$5992ac40$>, Gail Stokes
<> writes
>Thanks to all who offered suggestions on this topic. Unfortunately, I cannot
>double-check on a census for these ancestors as they are too early! The problem
>I had was that my gggg grandfather John Stokes stated he was 21 years and
>upwards on his marriage allegation, when in fact, if he was the only John
>baptised at Cheadle (where he came from) he was in fact born in 1733 - making
>him more like 29 in 1762 than 21 years and upwards! His bride was born in 1736.
>However, his brother Charles Stokes has no baptism at Cheadle. I have often
>wondered whether Charles and John were actually born somewhere else, and just
>moved to Cheadle to be near a relative, John Stokes the gardener. As I am
>directly descended from John married in 1762, this does matter. John Stokes
>senior (the gardener) has an 8 year gap in his children in Cheadle, which makes
>me wonder if he married again after being widowed. However, he did have a John
>(1733) but no Charles.
>
>Ah well - the mystery goes on. I am still a bit loathe to accept my John as
>being a whole 8 years older than he stated, and will continue to search for his
>death/burial (after 1782) in another parish, just to be sure. My John and
>Charles were also educated and signed their marriage licences very neatly
>indeed, and all John's children were likewise literate. Charles died the year
>after he was married and had no issue. I should think if they could read and
>write, they could also calculate age correctly. The family also had their own
>pew in the Church, so were well known to the Rector of Cheadle. I doubt John
>could have got away with lying so much about his age.
>

Dear Gail

I have not examined all the replies to your original request, but those
that I did see appeared to miss the real point, choosing to dwell on age
discrepancies between different records.

So far as I am aware all that the phrase "21 years and upwards" means is
that the individual is at least 21. Thus your 29 year-old John from
Cheadle is a likely ancestral candidate and would be correctly described
as "over 21" in modern parlance. He was most definitely **not** 8 years
older than he stated! He presumably gave his correct age and the
issuing clerk merely used the standard formula for stating it on the
licence.

Good hunting!

Guy
--
Guy Lawton
Research: LAWTON, LEECH, POTT(S), SMALLWOOD Cheshire/Staffordshire mainly
BATTISHILL, CARWITHEN, LUKE, RICHARDS Devon/Cornwall
ROCHFORT worldwide, mainly Ireland

This thread: