TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2005-07 > 1120561811


From: Symonds <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] nonage OT
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 06:10:43 -0500
References: <BLEIIOMGOOBKFBKFNNDMEEJCCLAA.grswede@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <BLEIIOMGOOBKFBKFNNDMEEJCCLAA.grswede@comcast.net>


"Nonage" by legal definition (Black's Law Dictionary) means that the
person is of insufficient age to perform or undergo the subject event.
The below quotation appears to indicate that in 1717 Sarah and Ruth were
"adults" and thus over 21 years, and that three sons Abraham, Benjamin
and Eleazer "in nonage" were definitely under the age of 21 years,
possibly under the age of 14. Since the minister is circumspect about
announcing the "adult" status of the daughters, he may have meant to
convey the lack of adult status of the sons, i.e. under the age of 21.
The parents here are sponsors of all the baptisms.

Marilyn

>
> I have just spent the last hour trying to find what the legal age was in NH
> in 1717. I'd be happy if I could find what the legal age was for any place
> in Colonial days. I have a family that was baptized in 1717. The record of
> the Minister states that the parents and "Sarah and Ruth their adult daus.,
> Abraham, Benjamin and Eleazer their sons in nonage." I have no birth dates
> for any of these children so I would like to figure them out from this
> record. I would have assumed that 21 was the age, but then I have 2
> daughters, 21 & abt. 23 who are unmarried. That seems a little unusual, so
> I thought I'd look into just how old "nonage" was. I've done word searches
> on ancestry, the dictionary and the Brittanica and still haven't hit the
> information I am looking for. Does anyone know?
>
> Anne

This thread: