Marriage age.....

[jillruss]

Hi,

Was the minimum age for marriage - with parental consent - the same in Scotland as in England in the 19th and 18th centuries i.e. 12 for girls and 14 for boys?

Jill.

[AndrewP]

Hi Jill,

The 12 for girls and 14 for boys existed in Scotland until 1929, when the appropriately named "Age of Marriage Act 1929" was applied to Scotland, England and Wales (not Northern Ireland).

See http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regscot/ ... -scotland/ (most of the way down the page).

All the best,

Andrew Paterson

[DavidWW]

Hi Jill,

The 12 for girls and 14 for boys existed in Scotland until 1929, when the appropriately named "Age of Marriage Act 1929" was applied to Scotland, England and Wales (not Northern Ireland).

See http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regscot/ ... -scotland/ (most of the way down the page).

All the best,

Andrew Paterson

Up until 1929 it wasn't explicitly written down anywhere in civil law. The original 1854 Act introducing civil registration of marriages in Scotland, and later amendments up to the 1929 Act, are completely silent in terms of a minimum age for the witnesses.

But other aspects of Scots law, separate and distinct from the system of law in England & Wales, meant that the ages of 12 and 14 were generally recognised as the minimum ages in terms of canonical, i.e. church, law (Established Church of Scotland), - see below, - but couldn't be enforced in civil law !!

Scots law is largely based on Roman law as developed and codified by pre-eminent jurists of the day in The Netherlands and Germany in the 17th and 18th centuries, where many Scottish lawyers received their post-graduate education, and the ages of 12 and 14 derive from Roman law.

The 1929 Act was the first time that the situation had been explicitly codified in Scots law.

Interestingly, a later Act, - can't recall the date, - introduced a subtle but important change whereby the witnesses had to prove that they were aged 16, - I believe that there were some cases where a marriage was annulled on the basis that a witness had stated that they were 16, but was later shown not to be !!

Davie

[MaryB]

Davie - I think the date was 1977 although didn't come into effect until 1978. I had to contact the registra's office as my witness was aged 15 at the time of my marriage in 1977 - they said I was OK as the law went into force in 1978 -

[DavidWW]

Davie - I think the date was 1977 although didn't come into effect until 1978. I had to contact the registra's office as my witness was aged 15 at the time of my marriage in 1977 - they said I was OK as the law went into force in 1978 -

Mary

Thanks !!

Davie

[AnneM]

Hi folks

By the Common Law of Scotland which as Davie says was partly (though by no means totally) derived from Roman Law, the minimum age for marriages was as you say 14 for a boy and 12 for a girl ( the ages in which a child passed from what was known as pupillarity with no ability to make contracts, wills etc to minority where the right to contract etc. was available if subject to protections).

As everyone else has said that changed in 1929 though interestingly the age of consent for sexual intercourse (outwith marriage) was 16 some years before that.

The Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 states that the witnesses have to purport to be over 16.

There has never been a requirement for parental consent to marriage in Scotland, though this now applies only to people with a Scots domicile. I think that restriction was brought in also in 1977.

Anne

I'll check my facts once I have time.

[AnneM]

Hi just to be boring and in case anyone is interested by any chance I reprint a Cook's tour of a history of Scots Law I posted once before. Please note that I am no legal historian.

All this discussion about the different histories of Scots Law and the English variety moved me to start to brush up my knowledge of legal history, which was never that extensive in the first place. though I find it fascinating.

While it is true to say that there is a major Roman Law constituent in Scot's Law it is not accurate to describe it as a pure roman law based (civilian) system. It is more properly described as a mixed system along with such jurisdictions as South Africa, Sri Lanka and the state of Louisiana. That is to say that it has aspects of Roman Law and 'English-type' Common Law in its development. .

In the mediaeval and early modern times Scotland had a customary law system based partly?largely on Norman/English common law and some surviving Celtic and other local practices, together with some Roman Law imported through the law of the Roman Catholic church. Most of it was not written down. However, unlike in England, the common law failed to develop adequately to meet the needs of the growing population and increased sophistication and in the 16th and 17th Centuries the emerging legal profession turned to Roman Law, as taught in the continental universities which most of them attended, to fill the gaps. The Roman Law provided many of the solutions on which some aspects of Scots Law are still based It is however worth noting that a very major part of Scot's Private Law i.e. the system for holding and transmitting the ownership of land remained until November 2004 totally feudal, based on Anglo-Norman Law, and owed nothing at all to Roman Law influences.

Following the union of the parliaments in 1707, however, most continental influence ended and throughout the C18 and C19 the Scots looked increasingly to their more powerful neighbour jurisdiction for legal solutions in those circumstances where their own were not available. The Code Napoleon, end C18 beginning C19, definitely post dates the period of continental influence on Scots Law.

That is not to say that English Law and Scots Law are not very different. In many aspects they are but they share rather a lot of history.

I am not a legal expert. I have culled this much from books written by those who are and talking to my husband who undoubtedly is, though he would never refer to himself as such.

This is also a very rough tour and leaves lots out. There is much more to it that this. What I'll do when I have time and if it would not bore everyone to death is read the stuff in more detail and produce a potted history which will owe nothing to my own knowledge but everything to those who do know. However I'll try to make sure it is in English and not in legalese!

Anne

[MaryB]

I married at 17 in Scotland (got engaged at 15 and still married to the blighter, must be doing something right ) Any way my mother appeared from England (I was born in England) and told me, as she had legal custody of me, (parents were divorced) I would have to get her permission to marry, as this was required in English law.

But as I had lived in Scotland most of my life (from aged 6 weeks) and brought up by an Uncle and Aunt, who I called dad and mum, I deceided I didn't need mommy's permisssion, I also got married using their name rather than the name on my birth certificate.

[jillruss]

Mary,

So, not only have you changed names since birth but you've also changed countries.


You do know you've made it virtually impossible for some poor family history enthusiast in about 100 years time to find your marriage and the rest of your life!! Don't you feel for them?

You'll have to start laying clues now before it's too late!

Jill.

[AnneM]

Hi MaryB

If you got married before 1977 the law relating to consent would have been the law of Scotland anyway and having lived in Scotland since you wre 6 months and considering yourself more or less Scots you have a Scottish domicile and would have been OK post 1877 whatever your birth mother said.

I think it is excellent that there are people around to prove that not all teenage marriages are destined to fail.

Anne