The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text:
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g. Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They
aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
On 25/09/2025 11:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text:
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and
upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g.
Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They
aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
Isn't is just another way of saying "at least n years old"?
On 2025/9/25 12:47:25, Jenny M Benson wrote:
On 25/09/2025 11:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Yes, but why say "at least 23" (for example)? If the person is unsure of
The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text:
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and
upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g.
Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They
aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
Isn't is just another way of saying "at least n years old"?
his (or her) age, and just wants to swear he (or she) is over the age of >majority, say 21 (and I've seen enough who do say that when it isn't
true!), but if he knows, why the "and upwards"?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 16:10:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/9/25 12:47:25, Jenny M Benson wrote:The simple description of "x years" only applies for one year. The
On 25/09/2025 11:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Yes, but why say "at least 23" (for example)? If the person is unsure of >>his (or her) age, and just wants to swear he (or she) is over the age of >>majority, say 21 (and I've seen enough who do say that when it isn't >>true!), but if he knows, why the "and upwards"?
The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text: >>>>
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and
upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g. >>>> Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They
aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
Isn't is just another way of saying "at least n years old"?
general legal requirements concerning age deal with being at least or
no more than x years old thus the verbose wording which in this case
dealt with a person who had reached their twenty-first birhday which >qualified them to marry without general hindrance from that day
onward. The form would also have allowed the age of a minor to be
entered; in some cases (not limited to marriage) that could expand to
e.g. "of x years or and less than y years"
or similar.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 21:01:10 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 16:10:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/9/25 12:47:25, Jenny M Benson wrote:The simple description of "x years" only applies for one year. The
On 25/09/2025 11:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Yes, but why say "at least 23" (for example)? If the person is unsure of >>> his (or her) age, and just wants to swear he (or she) is over the age of >>> majority, say 21 (and I've seen enough who do say that when it isn't
The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text: >>>>>
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and
upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g. >>>>> Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They
aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
Isn't is just another way of saying "at least n years old"?
true!), but if he knows, why the "and upwards"?
general legal requirements concerning age deal with being at least or
no more than x years old thus the verbose wording which in this case
dealt with a person who had reached their twenty-first birhday which"of x years and less than y years"
qualified them to marry without general hindrance from that day
onward. The form would also have allowed the age of a minor to be
entered; in some cases (not limited to marriage) that could expand to
e.g. "of x years or and less than y years"
or similar.
On 2025/9/25 12:47:25, Jenny M Benson wrote:
On 25/09/2025 11:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Yes, but why say "at least 23" (for example)? If the person is unsure of
The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text:
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and
upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g.
Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They
aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
Isn't is just another way of saying "at least n years old"?
his (or her) age, and just wants to swear he (or she) is over the age of >majority, say 21 (and I've seen enough who do say that when it isn't
true!), but if he knows, why the "and upwards"?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 16:10:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/9/25 12:47:25, Jenny M Benson wrote:
On 25/09/2025 11:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Yes, but why say "at least 23" (for example)? If the person is unsure of
The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text: >>>>
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and
upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g. >>>> Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They
aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
Isn't is just another way of saying "at least n years old"?
his (or her) age, and just wants to swear he (or she) is over the age of
majority, say 21 (and I've seen enough who do say that when it isn't
true!), but if he knows, why the "and upwards"?
The "and upwards" is for those who are unsure. If it weren't printed
there, and there was simply a blank to be filled in with the actual
age, "don't know" or "unknown" or "not sure" would not satisfy the
legal requirements. If the actual age is known, then it adds nothing.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 16:10:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/9/25 12:47:25, Jenny M Benson wrote:
On 25/09/2025 11:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Yes, but why say "at least 23" (for example)? If the person is unsure of >>his (or her) age, and just wants to swear he (or she) is over the age of >>majority, say 21 (and I've seen enough who do say that when it isn't >>true!), but if he knows, why the "and upwards"?
The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text: >>>>
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and
upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g. >>>> Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They
aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
Isn't is just another way of saying "at least n years old"?
The "and upwards" is for those who are unsure. If it weren't printed
there, and there was simply a blank to be filled in with the actual
age, "don't know" or "unknown" or "not sure" would not satisfy the
legal requirements. If the actual age is known, then it adds nothing.
On 2025/9/26 21:41:47, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 21:01:10 +0100, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 16:10:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/9/25 12:47:25, Jenny M Benson wrote:The simple description of "x years" only applies for one year. The
On 25/09/2025 11:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Yes, but why say "at least 23" (for example)? If the person is unsure of >>>> his (or her) age, and just wants to swear he (or she) is over the age of >>>> majority, say 21 (and I've seen enough who do say that when it isn't
The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text: >>>>>>
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and
upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g. >>>>>> Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They >>>>>> aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
Isn't is just another way of saying "at least n years old"?
true!), but if he knows, why the "and upwards"?
general legal requirements concerning age deal with being at least or
no more than x years old thus the verbose wording which in this case
no more than? A _maximum_ age? First I've heard of that, at least in the >context of marriage.
dealt with a person who had reached their twenty-first birhday which"of x years and less than y years"
qualified them to marry without general hindrance from that day
onward. The form would also have allowed the age of a minor to be
entered; in some cases (not limited to marriage) that could expand to
e.g. "of x years or and less than y years"
or similar.
(I have indeed seen a minor mentioned; that form had hand-annotated that
the father was also present, and approved.) But the words "Years and
upwards" are preprinted on the form, with no space for "and less than".
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 06:37:45 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 16:10:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/9/25 12:47:25, Jenny M Benson wrote:
On 25/09/2025 11:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Yes, but why say "at least 23" (for example)? If the person is unsure of >>>his (or her) age, and just wants to swear he (or she) is over the age of >>>majority, say 21 (and I've seen enough who do say that when it isn't >>>true!), but if he knows, why the "and upwards"?
The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text: >>>>>
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and
upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g. >>>>> Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They
aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
Isn't is just another way of saying "at least n years old"?
The "and upwards" is for those who are unsure. If it weren't printed
there, and there was simply a blank to be filled in with the actual
age, "don't know" or "unknown" or "not sure" would not satisfy the
legal requirements. If the actual age is known, then it adds nothing.
Yes. A lot of people would never have seen their birth certificate, or
birth register entry, and would have been dependent on what they were
told by parents or guardians. And they might not have always been
right.
The "and upwards" is for those who are unsure. If it weren't printed
there, and there was simply a blank to be filled in with the actual
age, "don't know" or "unknown" or "not sure" would not satisfy the
legal requirements. If the actual age is known, then it adds nothing.
Yes. A lot of people would never have seen their birth certificate, or
birth register entry, and would have been dependent on what they were
told by parents or guardians. And they might not have always been
right.
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 00:03:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/9/26 21:41:47, Charles Ellson wrote:Until 1929 in England and Wales, to marry you had to be 14 or more if
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 21:01:10 +0100, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 16:10:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/9/25 12:47:25, Jenny M Benson wrote:The simple description of "x years" only applies for one year. The
On 25/09/2025 11:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Yes, but why say "at least 23" (for example)? If the person is unsure of >>>>> his (or her) age, and just wants to swear he (or she) is over the age of >>>>> majority, say 21 (and I've seen enough who do say that when it isn't >>>>> true!), but if he knows, why the "and upwards"?
The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text: >>>>>>>
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and
upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g. >>>>>>> Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They >>>>>>> aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
Isn't is just another way of saying "at least n years old"?
general legal requirements concerning age deal with being at least or
no more than x years old thus the verbose wording which in this case
no more than? A _maximum_ age? First I've heard of that, at least in the
context of marriage.
male, 12 or more if female. For parents to be able to stick their oar
in you had to be no more than 21. Until both of the couple were 21 or
more there were other parties involved in the marriage who weren't all
counting in the same direction IYSWIM.
Yes, but the "and upwards" form (which sounds odd in today's English -The pre-GRO paperwork did not have every possible description featured
dealt with a person who had reached their twenty-first birhday which"of x years and less than y years"
qualified them to marry without general hindrance from that day
onward. The form would also have allowed the age of a minor to be
entered; in some cases (not limited to marriage) that could expand to
e.g. "of x years or and less than y years"
or similar.
(I have indeed seen a minor mentioned; that form had hand-annotated that
the father was also present, and approved.) But the words "Years and
upwards" are preprinted on the form, with no space for "and less than".
in the printing and was not all exactly the same unlike the legislated formats for current registrations.
On 2025/9/28 1:10:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 00:03:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/9/26 21:41:47, Charles Ellson wrote:Until 1929 in England and Wales, to marry you had to be 14 or more if
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 21:01:10 +0100, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 16:10:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/9/25 12:47:25, Jenny M Benson wrote:The simple description of "x years" only applies for one year. The
On 25/09/2025 11:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Yes, but why say "at least 23" (for example)? If the person is unsure of >>>>>> his (or her) age, and just wants to swear he (or she) is over the age of >>>>>> majority, say 21 (and I've seen enough who do say that when it isn't >>>>>> true!), but if he knows, why the "and upwards"?
The preprinted forms for marriage bonds and allegations have this text:
.. made oath as follows (to wit) That he is of the age of [ ] Years and
upwards, and a [ ] and intends to marry [ ] of the Parish of [ ] in the
County of [ ] and Diocese of [ ] aged [ ] Years and upwards ...
(or variations thereon). [The second box might be filled in with e. g. >>>>>>>> Bachelor, Widower; the long one with name of diocese Spinster. They >>>>>>>> aren't really boxes, just gaps.]
Can anyone explain the "Years and upwards" wording?
Isn't is just another way of saying "at least n years old"?
general legal requirements concerning age deal with being at least or >>>>> no more than x years old thus the verbose wording which in this case
no more than? A _maximum_ age? First I've heard of that, at least in the >>> context of marriage.
male, 12 or more if female. For parents to be able to stick their oar
in you had to be no more than 21. Until both of the couple were 21 or
more there were other parties involved in the marriage who weren't all
I was aware of those limits; I was quite surprised when I first
discovered that it wasn't raised from 14/12 until as recently as 1929. >Although in my own tree I've found very few - none I think - under 16,
and only a handful 16 or 17 (I'd expected more).
counting in the same direction IYSWIM.
I don't SWYM.
I was puzzled by charlesellson's use of the words "no more than",
implying that there was something for which a _maximum_ age existed; I
was (and still am) unaware of any maxima, at least relating to marriage.
(Very few altogether, even now: sometimes maxima for working age,
especially in the military, and I think there's a maximum age for >_compulsory_ jury service - and others where extra action has to be
_taken_ to continue, such as in UK driving licences have to be _renewed_ >every 3 years from 70.)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2Yes, but the "and upwards" form (which sounds odd in today's English -The pre-GRO paperwork did not have every possible description featured
dealt with a person who had reached their twenty-first birhday which >>>>> qualified them to marry without general hindrance from that day"of x years and less than y years"
onward. The form would also have allowed the age of a minor to be
entered; in some cases (not limited to marriage) that could expand to >>>>> e.g. "of x years or and less than y years"
or similar.
(I have indeed seen a minor mentioned; that form had hand-annotated that >>> the father was also present, and approved.) But the words "Years and
upwards" are preprinted on the form, with no space for "and less than".
in the printing and was not all exactly the same unlike the legislated
formats for current registrations.
I'd expect "or above" or "or more" after, or "at least" before) form
seems to have been common on printed forms.
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 15:26:39 +0100, Peter Johnson
<peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
The "and upwards" is for those who are unsure. If it weren't printed >>>there, and there was simply a blank to be filled in with the actual
age, "don't know" or "unknown" or "not sure" would not satisfy the
legal requirements. If the actual age is known, then it adds nothing.
Yes. A lot of people would never have seen their birth certificate, or >>birth register entry, and would have been dependent on what they were
told by parents or guardians. And they might not have always been
right.
Yu just have to look at census records for that. Children's ages given
at censuses often do not tally with their date of birth, if known, nor
with their age at the next or previous census.
The clerk filling in (up, out) the form (whether in holy orders or
not) might simply go by appearance, and would be saying that the
person was over 21. But if they looked 50, it would be silly to say
they were "21 and upwards" so they would write "50 and upwards".
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 15:26:39 +0100, Peter Johnson
<peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 06:37:45 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
There was more emphasis on the baptism date with some never knowingThe "and upwards" is for those who are unsure. If it weren't printed
there, and there was simply a blank to be filled in with the actual
age, "don't know" or "unknown" or "not sure" would not satisfy the
legal requirements. If the actual age is known, then it adds nothing.
Yes. A lot of people would never have seen their birth certificate, or
birth register entry, and would have been dependent on what they were
told by parents or guardians. And they might not have always been
right.
their actual birthday. Before 1837 there were no birth registrations
required in England and Wales with birth dates tending only to be
recorded in non-conformist registers.
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 07:06:42 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 15:26:39 +0100, Peter Johnson
<peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
The "and upwards" is for those who are unsure. If it weren't printed
there, and there was simply a blank to be filled in with the actual
age, "don't know" or "unknown" or "not sure" would not satisfy the
legal requirements. If the actual age is known, then it adds nothing.
Yes. A lot of people would never have seen their birth certificate, or
birth register entry, and would have been dependent on what they were
told by parents or guardians. And they might not have always been
right.
Yu just have to look at census records for that. Children's ages given
at censuses often do not tally with their date of birth, if known, nor
with their age at the next or previous census.
The clerk filling in (up, out) the form (whether in holy orders or
not) might simply go by appearance, and would be saying that the
person was over 21. But if they looked 50, it would be silly to say
they were "21 and upwards" so they would write "50 and upwards".
If you are legally required to record the fact that somebody is over x
years then that is what you record (in previous years with the simple
word "full" for their age) to avoid later legal confusion or argument
over what was being recorded or the purpose for which it was being
recorded.
I have encountered the occasional "over 21" but never "over <anythingNot in (for example) marriage certificates, no. But in marriage bonds,
else>" for an adult.
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 07:41:00 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
I was puzzled by charlesellson's use of the words "no more than",21 yeara minus a day was the maximum age at which you were liable to
implying that there was something for which a _maximum_ age existed; I
was (and still am) unaware of any maxima, at least relating to marriage.
have your marital plans spoiled by an objecting parent or guardian.
Before you got to the stage of registering the marriage there were
preceding documented hurdles to be overcome such as banns, marriade
bonds and licences (and also not being dragged home by Dad and/or his servants).
(Very few altogether, even now: sometimes maxima for working age,Your age can also affect what vehicles you are allowed to drive. You
especially in the military, and I think there's a maximum age for
_compulsory_ jury service - and others where extra action has to be
_taken_ to continue, such as in UK driving licences have to be _renewed_
every 3 years from 70.)
have to be no more than 70 to drive heavier vehicles (mainly C1 for
this example) without proof of fitness if you were previously entitled
to drive them without proof of fitness. Otherwise the main limits will
be the minima.
--Yes, but the "and upwards" form (which sounds odd in today's English -The pre-GRO paperwork did not have every possible description featured
dealt with a person who had reached their twenty-first birhday which >>>>>> qualified them to marry without general hindrance from that day"of x years and less than y years"
onward. The form would also have allowed the age of a minor to be
entered; in some cases (not limited to marriage) that could expand to >>>>>> e.g. "of x years or and less than y years"
or similar.
(I have indeed seen a minor mentioned; that form had hand-annotated that >>>> the father was also present, and approved.) But the words "Years and
upwards" are preprinted on the form, with no space for "and less than". >>>>
in the printing and was not all exactly the same unlike the legislated
formats for current registrations.
I'd expect "or above" or "or more" after, or "at least" before) form
seems to have been common on printed forms.
There was more emphasis on the baptism date with some never knowing
their actual birthday. Before 1837 there were no birth registrations
required in England and Wales with birth dates tending only to be
recorded in non-conformist registers.
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 01:17:56 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
There was more emphasis on the baptism date with some never knowing
their actual birthday. Before 1837 there were no birth registrations
required in England and Wales with birth dates tending only to be
recorded in non-conformist registers.
I've seen baptism that were several years after birth.
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 07:41:00 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
I was aware of those limits; I was quite surprised when I firstI have found a couple of 15s in England and Wales but only recorded as >minors. Mo brides under 15 so far.
discovered that it wasn't raised from 14/12 until as recently as 1929. >>Although in my own tree I've found very few - none I think - under 16,
and only a handful 16 or 17 (I'd expected more).
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 01:17:56 +0100, Charles Ellson ><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
There was more emphasis on the baptism date with some never knowing
their actual birthday. Before 1837 there were no birth registrations >>required in England and Wales with birth dates tending only to be
recorded in non-conformist registers.
I've seen baptism that were several years after birth.
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:25:12 +0100, Peter Johnson
<peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
I've seen baptism that were several years after birth.Yes, that tended to get the birth date mentioned. Not always as is
evident when the children have been batched up and oviously weren't a
recent multiple birth. Marriage was also sometimes a trigger for
getting baptised.
On 2025/10/1 1:26:32, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:25:12 +0100, Peter Johnson
<peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
[]
I've seen baptism that were several years after birth.Yes, that tended to get the birth date mentioned. Not always as is
Sometimes only the year, presumably because nobody could remember the date.
evident when the children have been batched up and oviously weren't a
Yes, I've got at least one of those (I think it was after moving from
Norfolk to Northumberland).
recent multiple birth. Marriage was also sometimes a trigger for
getting baptised.
Indeed. (Possibly because the vicar wouldn't marry them otherwise - or
even couldn't?)
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 08:56:17 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:
Indeed. (Possibly because the vicar wouldn't marry them otherwise - orIMU he had no choice but to marry them if they were parishioners but
even couldn't?)
that didn't stop some making up their own rules as still seems to
happen.
On 2025/9/28 8:36:29, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 07:06:42 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 15:26:39 +0100, Peter Johnson
<peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
The "and upwards" is for those who are unsure. If it weren't printed >>>>> there, and there was simply a blank to be filled in with the actual
age, "don't know" or "unknown" or "not sure" would not satisfy the
legal requirements. If the actual age is known, then it adds nothing.
If by "it" you mean the words "and upwards", it certainly adds no information: what it does is add _doubt_, or _take away_ certainty,
about the age in question.
Yes. A lot of people would never have seen their birth certificate, or >>>> birth register entry, and would have been dependent on what they were
told by parents or guardians. And they might not have always been
right.
Indeed.
Yu just have to look at census records for that. Children's ages given
at censuses often do not tally with their date of birth, if known, nor
with their age at the next or previous census.
Yes. With hindsight, it would have been better - certainly in more
recent decades/centuries when perhaps such things had been better known
- to ask for year of birth rather than age (as in fact was done in the
1939 register [and has it been in censuses since?]).
The clerk filling in (up, out) the form (whether in holy orders or
not) might simply go by appearance, and would be saying that the
person was over 21. But if they looked 50, it would be silly to say
they were "21 and upwards" so they would write "50 and upwards".
True. Plus, I'm guessing, since those words were preprinted on the form anyway (bond forms I mean, mostly), even if the age was known exactly
(well, to the nearest completed year which is all we're talking about),
I guess only the most conscientious clerk would think to _cross out_ the
"an upwards" words - and some may have thought they weren't supposed to
do anything like that.>>
If you are legally required to record the fact that somebody is over x
years then that is what you record (in previous years with the simple
word "full" for their age) to avoid later legal confusion or argument
over what was being recorded or the purpose for which it was being
recorded.
Yes, on marriage certificates (where the "and upwards" _isn't_
preprinted), that is often used. (IME, usually, when I see "of full age"
or similar, I usually assume that they actually weren't, and check other sources - and I'm often right! I. e. they were lying about being old enough.)>
I have encountered the occasional "over 21" but never "over <anythingNot in (for example) marriage certificates, no. But in marriage bonds,
else>" for an adult.
where the "and upwards" is preprinted, I've often seen what I guess is
the actual age (a number above 21) entered, but the words not crossed out.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:51:39 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 187,735 |