Age of Consent to Marry in Jane Austen’s World, or How Could Lydia Bennet Marry So Young?

Age of Consent to Marry in Jane Austen’s World, or How Could Lydia Bennet Marry So Young?

18th and 19th Century: Gretna Green - The Place for Elopements 18thcand19thc.blogspot. com
18th and 19th Century: Gretna Green – The Place for Elopements

During the Regency, despite what some authors may include within the story line, the age of consent for females was twenty-one, not twenty-five as some would lead the reader to believe. Although I do not know from where the idea of the female having a guardian until age 25, what I assume is happening is the author (and many times the reader) is confusing the idea of a female’s guardianship with the age of majority. The confusion likely comes from fathers or another person setting up a trust for a female. The trust would provide the woman a “fortune” at age 25 or when she married (if she married with the approval of the man named as guardian of her money.)  

If the woman did not have her guardian’s approval (and was less that age 21) and chose to marry, she just would not receive the money.  So age of consent was not the issue as much as age of majority. In most places it was 21. In the Danish West Indies it was 25. 

If an underage lady eloped to Gretna Green without her guardian’s consent, can the guardian have the marriage declared illegal and annulled? The answer is “No.” One could marry in Scotland at 14 without permission, so as long as the girl was 14, the marriage could not be annulled.

English males and females considered a journey to Gretna Green when permission was withheld because Scottish Law meant they required only a witness, not even a priest. A clandestine marriage, sometimes referred to as “handfasting,” was legal in Scotland. As long as they were fourteen or over, then English Law accepted a marriage that was witnessed in Scotland. For the aristocratic class, there were fewer mad escapes to Scotland than the Regency romance genre would lead the reader to believe. The “Smithy” was just the first building one came across over the Scottish border, and that is how the Smithy became the place the deed was done (or generally not done), but when English Law first changed there were some ten different people all over Gretna who set themselves up to offer to be a witness to couples crossing the border.  

                                          A book about Robert Elliot: Gretna Green Anvil Priest 1814-1840 describes his stint

as a “marriage priest” in Gretna. “Elliot was born in Northumberland, the son of a farmer. While working for a stagecoach company, he met Ann Graham, the granddaughter of Joseph Paisley. They were married in January 1811 at the village church in Gretna Green, as was considered proper; very few of the local people were married in the irregular way.

“The couple lived with Paisley, and Elliot assisted the old man with his marriage ceremonies. When Paisley died in 1814, Elliot was a natural successor and he continued the marriage trade.

“In 1842 Elliot had his memoirs published. In them he states that he performed between 4,000 and 8,000 ceremonies. He also claims that he was the only priest working in Gretna Green at that time and had been for the last thirty years. However, it had been put beyond doubt that there were at least two other priests at the time. 

Gretna Green and the Runaway Regency Bride | Shannon Donnelly's ...
Gretna Green and the Runaway Regency Bride | Shannon Donnelly’s …

“The majority of Elliot’s history is taken from his memoirs in which he also gives accounts of ‘noteworthy elopements’ but it is likely that the events of some of his stories occurred before he became a Gretna Green Priest. Unfortunately the majority of his registers, and those of Paisley, were lost when Elliot’s handicapped daughter set fire to her bed one night, and burned herself to death together with the registers that were stored on the bed’s canopy.” (Visiting Gretna Green)

“He [Elliot] gives the form of service he used for celebrating marriages – which, though much abbreviated, appears to be taken almost direct from the Marriage Service of the Church of England. He also narrates several stories of runaway marriages – some of them tragic ones. The most dramatic, if I remember aright, told of the shooting of a bridegroom, immediately after the consummation of the marriage, by the father of the bride – infuriated to find that his pursuit had been in vain…. These tragic occurrences, however, would appear to be matters of the far past. Nothing of the kind was ever mentioned by Mr Linton – who succeeded Elliot as Priest – as I was informed by Mrs. Armstrong, his daughter, when I came to examine Gretna Hall Registers; which, together with copies of the marriage certificates, are in her keeping. In these Registers – which date from the year 1825, and some of which are in the handwriting of Robert Elliot appear, among many of less note, the names of a Bourbon Prince of Naples, Duke of Capua; of a Duke Sforza Cesarini, a Lord Drumlanrigh, and a Lady__Villers, a daughter of one of the Earls of Jersey. (The Scot’s Magazine. Volume 4, June-November 1888-1889, Edited by the Rev. W. W. Tulloch, B. D., Perth: S. Cowan & Co., Printers and Publishers, 1889)

The Scottish “priest” asked the couple their purpose in appearing before him and then asked the traditional question of whether the male took the female to be his wife and if the female took the male to be her husband. He also presented them with a marriage certificate and recorded the marriage in his books. Scotland had a civil register years before such a recording appeared in England. One could be married merely by going to this registrar and having him record the marriage. Quite often the man was willing to predate the entry back several months if the woman was pregnant even though it legally did not matter when the child was conceived. All that mattered was whether or not the parents were married when the child was born.

What about marrying by common license?  Did those have to be done at the local parish as well, or could they be done at any church? Also, how common were common licenses?  

Some sources lead us to believe that most aristocratic marriages were done by common license and only the lower classes had the banns read.  Is this true?

Marriage Banns were read for three consecutive Sundays. Minors wishing to marry had to provide proof of parental/guardian consent. One of the pair who was marrying had to be a resident of the parish in which they were to to be married. The banns were read in both the parish of the groom and the parish of the bride if they came from separate parishes. The curate of the parish where the vows were to take place could not conduct the ceremony without a certificate from the curate of the other parish, warranting that the banns had been duly read three times. Banns were good for three months. After that time, the process would need to be repeated. Weddings were conducted between 8 and noon only. From the first reading to the third, the time required to wait for the publishing of the banns was 15 days. Generally, people think of the period being three weeks. Theoretically, if the couple resided in the same parish and no wait was required for verifying the proper reading in another parish, they could wed on the sixteenth day. 

“I publish the Banns of marriage between [Groom’s Name] of [his local parish] and [Bride’s Name] of [her local parish]. If any of you know cause or just impediment why these two persons should not be joined together in Holy matrimony, ye are to declare it. This is the first [second, third] time of asking.” 

A Common or Ordinary Marriage License could be obtained from any bishop or archbishop. The use of the common/ordinary license meant no public announcement of the wedding was necessary. The wedding could take place with only a seven-days’ waiting period. Another name for these licenses was Bishop’s Licenses. Proof of parental or a guardian’s consent must be provided for minors under 21 years of age, as well as a sworn statement was given that there was no impediment [i.e., the couple were not related to one another in the prohibited degrees or proof of a deceased spouse if one of the pair was a widow/widower]  The name of the parish church where the ceremony would take place was required on the license. Witnesses were required, and either the groom or the bride had to have resided in the parish for at least four weeks prior to the marriage. [Do you recall this issue when Mr. Wickham married in Lydia Bennet in London in Pride and Prejudice? The license, like the banns, was good for 3 months from date of issue. The cost of a common or ordinary license was 10 shillings to one pound. According to the parish registers, many people of the gentry and middling sort, as well as aristocrats married by common license. It seems that some felt that the ribald remarks and boisterous fun executed by some of the villagers/friends kept them from having the banns called. 

“La! You are so strange! But I must tell you how it went off. We were married, you know, at St. Clement’s, because Wickham’s lodgings were in that parish. And it was settled that we should all be there by eleven o’clock.”

A special license could only be obtained at Doctors Commons in London from the Archbishop of Canterbury or his representative. With a special license, the couple could marry at any convenient time or place, as long as the ceremony was presided over by a clergyman from the Church of England. The names of both parties were inscribed on the license, so no “surprises” as we often see in romance novels. One could not fill in the certificate AFTER the ceremony. There was also NO such thing as marriage by proxy in England at the time. An average bloke off the street (assuming he could fork over the money for a special license) could not purchase one. They were available to peers and their children, members of Parliament, Privy Councillors, baronets, knights, Westminster court judges, etc. Originally, special licenses cost 20 guineas (approximately one pound + one shilling), but the Stamp Duty imposed on the actual paper, vellum or parchment upon which the license was printed, in 1808 brought the price to £4, which increased to £5 by 1815.

Did couples need to receive special approval to marry at a local church, like St James or St. Peter’s? A couple married at their parish church unless they had a special license so they could marry at any place a clergyman would conduct the ceremony, including a drawing room in a great house or even a village green. 

Although it was legal to marry in Scotland at 14 without permission, English children needed permission until they were 21. However, a child could be married off at age seven in England with parental permission. Supposedly this child had the right to deny the marriage at age 12. Any marriage after age 12 for girls and age 14 for boys was considered valid if done with parental permission. The number of marriages of infants decreased during the age of enlightenment until the 18th century when people started to think age 16 was too young. Also, the trend of the day was towards “nuclear families,” instead of  more communal living with many generations in the same house. Marriage statistics take in all classes of people. A peer of the realm or his wealthy heir could marry at any age, for he had the fortune to provide for his new family, as well as his widowed mother and siblings. A man of lower status had to be established in his profession or job to be able to afford a wife. In such cases, quite often the would-be bride was also working in some way to acquire money for the new home.

The fact that it was legal to marry at fourteen does not mean it was common. There are statistics that say during the early 19th Century the average age for women to marry in the British Isles was mid-twenties. As for the short life expectancy, one must look at how the statistics were developed. For example, many who passed early on did so in the first few years of infancy and childhood. If one had six children, and three passed before the age of one and the other three lived to be fifty, their average life expectancy was only twenty-five. We must remember that numbers can be manipulated to prove whatever we wish. 

NOW FOR THE GIVEAWAY!!! (First I must apologize. I had planned to give this prize away sooner, but I caught the flu the last week of January, which turned into bronchitis, which turned into pneumonia and a brief stay at the hospital. My ailments consumed some 5+ weeks of my life. It was the beginning of March before I realized I had not presented the prize to one of our followers. That being said, it is still a lovely piece. I hope it will still interest some of you. ) I have a 2018 Victorian Slang Calendar for one of those who comments below. The giveaway will end at midnight EDST on Thursday, March 29. As always, will choose the winner. Good Luck!!!


Sharing is Caring!
Follow by Email
0 0 votes
SUBSCRIBE (optional)
Email alert of:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Elin Eriksen
April 1, 2018 6:06 AM

I just wondered… I thought that a special licence was for the nobility only, could mr Darcy even buy one if he wanted to?

Interesting information on Gretna Green. Historically, it does not seem to have had the significance one might think.

Red Romance Reader (@ReadRedRead)
March 29, 2018 11:23 AM

The information on Gretna Green was quite interesting. Hope you are feeling better! Thanks for the giveaway. Fingers crossed to win. Can’t wait to add some Victorian slang into my vocabulary.

March 27, 2018 10:16 PM

Great post! So sorry to hear that you had been ill! May brighter days be ahead!

Lynn Char
Lynn Char
March 27, 2018 9:40 PM

What a wonderfully informative post. I’ve had pneumonia and it isn’t pretty, I do hope you’re about done with illness! And Victorian slang, how wicked!!

March 27, 2018 7:28 PM

So excited that you are offering a Victorian Slang calendar. Love the era. Fascinating and always so enlightening the info that you share and your wonderful stories. Sorry to hear you have been so sick and glad you are on the mend. Keep on feeling our hearts and minds with your beautiful works.

March 27, 2018 2:11 PM

I’m sorry to hear that you were unwell, Regina. I hope your health is back to normal again. Take care.

I always look forward to your post as they are definitely informative. Thanks for offering the beautiful calendar. I don’t know many Victorian slangs and it’s a good opportunity to learn them.

March 27, 2018 9:47 AM

You always have interesting knowledge to share. Brings it all in perspective. So glad you are feeling better. My ‘healthy’ sis recently had pneumonia. Nasty stuff! Takes awhile to bounce back. So glad you are on the mend. Love the calendar.

March 26, 2018 9:55 PM

Thanks for the informative post. Hope you’re feeling better!

March 26, 2018 3:28 PM

Glad to know you are feeling better. Lovely post. We had the banns read for our wedding 34 years ago, and were among the last to be able to do so. Now everyone must get a license from the government. I remember how exciting it was to hear our names being called in church at each reading of the banns.

Teresa Broderick
Teresa Broderick
March 26, 2018 3:26 PM

A fascinating insight into the marriage laws Regina. It’s hard to imagine the legal age being 12. Children weren’t often allowed to be children for long in some eras. I’ve always found the idea of Gretna Green very interesting. It’s nice to know a bit more about it.
You’ve had a very rough time of it health wise lately. I do hope you feel better soon. Not easy to get over all that.

John Smith
John Smith
March 26, 2018 3:16 PM

It all sounds very complicated! I suspect that the church and government authorities wanted (as ever) more money and power.

March 26, 2018 3:03 PM

Fascinating article. I didn’t know there was a difference between age of consent and age of majority.

March 26, 2018 2:52 PM

Very informative post. So much of this I didn’t realize.

Pam Hunter
Pam Hunter
March 26, 2018 11:47 AM

As always, amazing research, Regina! I hope you’re feeling much better! Sounds like you had a very rough beginning of the year.

Thanks for the giveaway!

March 26, 2018 11:06 AM

thanks for the chance to win this fun calendar! loved the article!

March 26, 2018 11:02 AM

Thanks for this lovely feature and giveaway. Interesting, informative and special. Wishing you great health and happiness. Sorry that you were so ill. Our health is so vital to our quality of life and when we are stricken we are vulnerable and frail. I have been ill with serious medical issues, etc. for the past 6 years so I wish you only the best of health and enjoyment.

March 26, 2018 9:59 AM

Your pieces are always so informative, Regina. So sorry to hear about your health issues but happy to know you are feeling better now!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x