Age required for Witness at wedding.....

AnneMT · Post by **AnneMT** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:07 am

Can anyone tell me what age a witness must be in a marriage ceremony?
Has the age limit changed over the years? Does it differ church or civil ceremony.

May seem a silly question, but trying to identify if a witness is a mother or daughter, due to similar names.

Hope someone can help!

Thrall · Post by **Thrall** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:25 am

Hi Anne, I´ve just checked, and I do have one ten, and also a twelve year old in pretty IMHO staid families! Perhaps saving by having a youngster along who gets a half on the bus?

Obviously, it wasn´t uncommon to use right down to almost single figures, maybe that makes in your case things more iffy!

Good hunting anyway,

Thrall

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:03 am

In Scotland, currently, the witnesses need to prove that they are at least 16.

Before that, back to legislation in 1939, the witnesses only had to state that they were 16 (I believe that there one case where they actually weren't, which led to some problems).

Before 1939, back to 1855, they had to be "of at least 14 years of age", but nothing, as far as I'm aware stated about this having to be proved.

Prior to 1855, wha kens?, but as it was legal to be married at 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy (derived ultimately from Roman law), it could have been the case that the same limits applied for witnesses..........

Up to 1939, irregular marriages apart, there was no such thing as a civil marriage, i.e. the church route was the only possibility, although the procedure was controlled from 1855 onwards by the Act that introduced statutory recording.

David

AnneMT · Post by **AnneMT** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:45 pm

DavidWW wrote:In Scotland, currently, the witnesses need to prove that they are at least 16.

Before that, back to legislation in 1939, the witnesses only had to state that they were 16 (I believe that there one case where they actually weren't, which led to some problems).

Before 1939, back to 1855, they had to be "of at least 14 years of age", but nothing, as far as I'm aware stated about this having to be proved.

Prior to 1855, wha kens?, but as it was legal to be married at 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy (derived ultimately from Roman law), it could have been the case that the same limits applied for witnesses..........

Up to 1939, irregular marriages apart, there was no such thing as a civil marriage, i.e. the church route was the only possibility, although the procedure was controlled from 1855 onwards by the Act that introduced statutory recording.

David

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I am still not sure who was the witness in the case of a wedding in 1923 in Catholic Church. I must admit, I am only curious, there is no real need to identify the witness.

The witnesses could have been either my mother, then one month away from her 14th birthday, or my grandmother, who would have been 39 or 40, and the eldest sister, while the bride was the youngest living sister.

Curiousity killed the cat, and I suffer from a lot of curiousity, so it may kill me too!!

Thanks again for all suggestions offered.

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Hi Anne

Hmmmmmmm....... .you have a problem there as the virtual 14 year old just might have been a witness, but then, more traditional for a sister to be involved in the role.

k

David

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:15 pm

Hi all
Don't know if it is any help but I have a marrriage which took place in Edinburgh in 1879. One of the witnesses is an Annabella Dick - the only one I know of in that family (my gr grandmother) would have been the niece of the groom, Hugh Rose Smith (m. to Eliz. Reid) and she would have been aged 9yrs at the time. The other witness was from the Reid side of the marriage, brother of the bride. It continues to puzzle me, but she is the only candidiate I can find for that witness - she was the eldest child of Lilias Smith who was married to John Dick, so it is not as if it is a Dick family wedding, where previously unknown Dick family may have appeared - it is a Smith family wedding (my Easter Ross lot, come south, and not much other family about in Edinburgh yet).

Best wishes
Lesley

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:41 pm

This is a fascinating area, as there is actually nothing in the civil registration legislation that applied between 1855 and 1939 that sets out the minimum age for the witnesses.

In addition, the registrars' "bible", Bisset-Smith's "Vital Registration - A Manual of the Law and Practice Concerning the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages" is silent on the matter, but the 1st edition was only published in 1902!

There are, however, guidelines stated on the marriage schedule issued by the registrar that witnesses should be 14 or older ............ but the key word here is "guidelines", i.e. there appears to have been nothing laid down in statute regarding a minimum age for witnesses until 1939.

Interestingly, in the section on informants for births, Bisset-Smith states, inter alia, "As a rule, no-one under fourteen should be taken as an Informant", but elsewhere he makes it clear that, as long as a younger child appears to understand fully the nature of the situation, then such a younger child should not be precluded from being the informant. Nowhere in the equivalent sections on marriage and birth registrations is there any statement as regards a minimum age ............

From the pre-1855 Scots Law position on 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy being the youngest ages possible for marriage, it could be inferred that Scots Law saw these ages as those when children reached majority, in terms of being fully aware of the consequences of their actions.

David

AnneMT · Post by **AnneMT** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:13 pm

DavidWW wrote:Hi Anne

Hmmmmmmm....... .you have a problem there as the virtual 14 year old just might have been a witness, but then, more traditional for a sister to be involved in the role. k

David

If Catholic Church records become available on Scotlandspeople, then I would be able to check out the signatures. I would, obviously, recognise my mother's signature.

If I was really, really organised, I could check with Diocesan Office in Glasgow, for likelihood of viewing this, and many other records, I have been unable to find. It would probably take me the rest of my life, if I am lucky.

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:42 pm

AnneMT wrote:
DavidWW wrote:Hi Anne

Hmmmmmmm....... .you have a problem there as the virtual 14 year old just might have been a witness, but then, more traditional for a sister to be involved in the role. k

David

If Catholic Church records become available on Scotlandspeople, then I would be able to check out the signatures. I would, obviously, recognise my mother's signature.

If I was really, really organised, I could check with Diocesan Office in Glasgow, for likelihood of viewing this, and many other records, I have been unable to find. It would probably take me the rest of my life, if I am lucky.

These records should eventually come on line at SP, but it could be a few years before they are digitised and indexed by NAS .........

David