Married at 14 years old?

I just would like to sound my findings from today, and see if they sound reasonable to everyone, please...

I am researching a direct ancestor George Stanley, born around 1781 in Sutton Mandeville, Wiltshire, having got his particulars from the 1841 census, 1851 census, his marriage information and children's marriages. Obviously I would like to find out more about the family going further back and believe I have found a most probable record of his baptism.

Parish Record Collection - Baptism Record
Day:12
Month:Jan
Year:1780
Forenames:George
Surname:STANLEY
Fathers forenames:George
Occupation:
Mothers forenames:Sarah
Birth day:
Birth month:
Birth year:
Abode:
Place:Sutton Mandeville
Description:
County:Wiltshire
Country:England
Record source:Wiltshire Baptisms (pre-1852)
Data provider:Wiltshire Family History Society

As you can see on this record his parents are George and Sarah. I deduced that it seems reasonable for my George to have a father called George? I then looked at parish records on Findmypast and as well as my George, there appears to be four possible siblings of his all with the same parents, in the same village of Sutton Mandeville, within a ten year span.

Then I found a marriage record for a George Stanley and a Sarah Feltham, which is before the first child was baptised in February 1770.

Wiltshire, England, Marriages, 1538-1837 about George Stanley
Name:George Stanley
Marriage Date:29 Dec 1768
Parish:Sutton Mandeville
Residence:Sutton Mandeville
Spouse:Sarah Feltham
Spouse Residence: Of This Parish
Document Type:Banns

Seems reasonable that they could well be the parents of my George? So off I go to hunt for a Sarah Feltham's birth. This is where I have come unstuck as indeed I have found a record of such a person in Sutton Mandeville.....but she would be 14 when she married.

England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 about Sarah Feltham
Name:Sarah Feltham
Gender:Female
Baptism Date:28 Jun 1754
Baptism Place:Sutton Mandeville, Wiltshire, England
FHL Film Number:1279430

What I want to ask is could this be possible? It seems young to me but then again I dont know much about that time. So did women get married that young in those days? I mean this all could be wrong anyway, but still I would like to know

 

The fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia, confirms that it would have been legally possible but unlikely for Sarah to be only 14 at marriage, as the minimum age was 12 for girls and 14 for boys but early marriage was rare. Assuming you have found the right Sarah, Alexander's explanation is the far more likely one, especially as the dates suggest she probably wasn't pregnant when they married.

 

Whilst perhaps not a certainty, I would agree with both Alexander & Suzanne that the likelihood of baptism as a young child rather than as a baby is the answer. I too have many, many such baptisms, and in one case where 4 siblings where all baptised at the same time as their newly born brother.

 

Cheaper By The Dozen?
I think the clergyman would sometimes do christenings for free, because they were so bothered about the unbaptized youngsters in their parish. I certainly have batch lots in my tree. Actually, both my nephews were 'done' together as small boys, and one was sufficiently confused by it to tell people he met that it was his birthday

 

I just want to let you know that I posted this as a question on the message board at Ancestry/Roots web thingie under Sutton Mandeville in Wiltshire today and had a reply back within two hours with this.....

First name(s):Sarah
Last nameSTANLEY
Date of burial:23 Jan 1814
Age at death:65
Calculated year of birth:1749
Place of burial:Sutton Mandeville
Dedication:All Saints
County:Wiltshire
Notes:
Sutton Mandeville All Saints
Denomination:Anglican

It is the same date of death I had, but the kind lady obviously had more details available than I did. The birth year is more in line with the marriage thank goodness, so maybe she did indeed get baptised when she was a few years old?

 

...or in my ancestor’s case perhaps just remission of sentence from being thrown out of his Baptist Chapel?

The Minutes of the Chapel Committee Meetings c1819 (held by the Elders) record several mentions of my ancestor (and his spouse). Mostly for non or irregular attendance ‘failure to fill up their place’ and asks friends to visit (to have a word with them). Similarly neglect in having subsequent children baptised – other than their first born. (No doubt accounting for the multiple baptisms)

He appears to have survived another two years when the Minutes of 1821 show him excluded from the Chapel with the charge “non attendance and charging the scriptures with absurdity” (don’t ask). Three months later his wife is also excluded for non-attendance.

Post script: 26 years later his wife dies and he re-marries her widowed sister. This was quite a taboo thing at the time and would not have gone down at all well with the Chapel Elders had either been members. (Funeral services for all were held in (Conformist) C of E churches)

 

...and mine too, not just because we are talking about a paternal 2 x GGF. He sired 10 children by his first wife, 7 of whom survived and are named in his will.

He was a Cabinet Maker by trade, surviving to 73 and outliving his second wife by 3 years. Of the 7 surviving children, one of course became a GGF (another Cabinet Maker), and another son made quite a name for himself as a Surgical Truss Manufacturer with his own patents.

But we must not forget the black sheep, a son sentenced to transportation to Van Diemen’s land (Tasmania) for larceny (stealing a tortoise shell comb). After serving a comparative short sentence (transportation was being phased out) he settled in Victoria and became a prominent fishmonger with land and property. He too sired a dynasty -one of whom (a daughter) – reached the amazing age of 105 and others well into their 80’s.

So hats’ off to both great x 2 grandparents and I don’t think either were too troubled by being ostracised from the Chapel. I am intrigued to know how Daniel ‘charged the scriptures with absurdity’ but perhaps it is best I don’t know.

 

How interesting. I think you can get a real insight into your ancestor's outlook on life from that. I must admit I did giggle although it was probably quite a serious thing to have happened.

 

When I googled "charging scriptures with absurdity" I got the linked hit and three more like it, and a link to Bob's posting on the forum Do you suppose your ancestor quoted the good preacher James Purves who coined the phrase and that's what got him into trouble? Seriously though Chapel Committee minute books are news to me so thank you for the insight.o

 

Yes I am indebted (note Britjan) to a lady in Canada (before the Forum I have to say) who learned I was researching her ancestor (actually her husbands but no matter) through her Nephew in England a fellow Ancestry researcher. He advised she was interested in making contact and would I mind if he passed on my email; it was to prove a most beneficial contact.

During our exchanges I learned she had a copy of the last Will & Testament of my 2x GGF and of the Minutes of the Baptist Chapel where the family worshipped. She said it contained some interesting stuff', as indeed it did. In return I was able to fill her in on the son who was transported and pass on newspaper reports of his trial. She later sent me photos of family members.

It a wonderful lesson in genuine symbiotic research relationships (that's quite a mouthful) which although few and far between, are wonderful when they occur.