|
|
Post by Mal on Nov 18, 2008 19:38:14 GMT -5
Hi guys, some second opinions needed.... After a few pointers from White I have been doing some work on a Ludgvan Scaddan line, it all seems to be there. I have come up with some strange names indeed, Lowdye, Sinnobie and the inevitable Jane  . Surnames include LEGOE/LEAGOE/LEGOW & VELLENOWETH & HUTCHINS. So if anyone has these in the 17th century around Ludgvan pray tell.... Now to my question, The one problem is this, I have Anne Legow marrying William Bennat. 3rd of January 1669 in Ludgvan Phillimore with a mysterious note "At Zennor" included. I am 99.99% sure I am on the right line but there is another hitch, Anne would have been maximum 15 years old at the time and William would have been 44. Is this feasible, possible or was it even legal at the time? I have come across another marriage at 15 years of age but not with such an age difference. If this marriage is correct then I have children from 1671 to 1691. William also leaves a will that was proved 1719 so he lived to a fairly ripe old age for the times! It could explain the late births for the children but it does seem a bit odd.... if not a bit "icky" to our "modern" views on things. Any advice, suggestions on this one? |
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Nov 19, 2008 2:41:44 GMT -5
I think you are right to be cautious. While significant differences existing in age between marital parties are by no means not unheard of, they are also relatively uncommon, and this one's quite an age difference. Worth double-checking, especially given that we are talking about a time when the survival of relevant records can be quite patchy depending on the identity of the parish concerned. That means that there could be other candidates that are presently unknown to us.
One alternate possibility could be that there was an older namesake Legoe spinster named Ann. Another possibnility is that the bride in this instance was actually a Legoe widow, not a spinster. Bennattses are found around Ludgvan at that time frame so I am presuming that if the marriage was actually celebrated at Zennor then that must have been the bride's home parish.
You say that Ann could have been no more than 15 at the time. Am I right in therefore concluding that you have her parents' marriage as c. 1654? If so, where was that marriage? Do wills exist for the parents or grandparents? If so they may shed light on the matter.
Your situation reminds me of one I have in my own line in the 1700s, and even now I am uncertain just who the bride was, although I am leaning towards one particular possibility but would like more definite evidence if I can find it.
Trencrom
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 19, 2008 2:50:04 GMT -5
I seem to recall that at one time the legal age for a girl to marry was actually 14 in which case there is no great problem.
Just what era I am not sure and it may be more likely that a marriage at that age would be more probable amongst the 'upper classes' with arranged marriages.
As for the age difference - I would not be at all concerned about that (provided the right marital parties have been identified).
Only last night I had cause to look at another part of my own family and found something rather similar.
John TREWHELLA marred zjane CHINN at Hayle in 1850.
John was baptised at Towednack in 1811.
Jane appears to have been baptised at Phillack in 1834.
In the 1841 Census Jane was 6 and, although her age varied each time, the earliest she would have been born (according to the Census) was 1829.
She died in 1896 at the age of 63.
The age difference - 22 years!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Nov 19, 2008 7:11:24 GMT -5
In response to Trencrom, I have been as thorough as I can be with the resources, I have checked at Zennor and found nothing connecte with the Legow (Anne's spelling) family. I can only find one in Phillimore's and on a Will by William Bennet we find daughters Anne and Joan/Jone mentioned but no wife.
Just a note the Legoe's of Ludgvan in the 17th century seem fairly few and consistent, I can find none at Zennor. The marriage is recorded in the Ludgvan section so why this note "at Zennor", I really cannot tell.
The Lego name is also a problem owing to the many spellings,
Leggow/Legow/Legoe/Leagou/Leggoe etc
What is the "accepted" spelling? Derivation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Nov 19, 2008 7:22:32 GMT -5
Found this too ELIZABETH BENNETT of Ludgvan, widow written: 5 May 1735 proved: 11 Feb 1735/6 son: THOMAS BENNETT 10 sh. dau: ELIZABETH TUCKER 10 sh. dau: HESTER SIMSON 10 sh. grandchildren 1 sh. each dau: ANN BENNETT all the rest & executrix Elizabeth (X) Bennett witnesses: JOHN CARNOW, JOHN STEPHENS Vol. 11, p. 335 We have two lot's of Bennet's here, no Gordon I am afraid , The old marrying cousins. Just for clarity I have William Bennets and Anne Legow daughter Jone who marries Robert Scaddan in 1696 Elizabeth Bennets shows up as William Bennets mother! Now I am getting confused. We also have Anne Bennets daughter of William and Anne Legow who marries, guess what, Robert Scaddan in 1712 This points to the young age again as there is twenty years age difference between oldest and yoingest children if my theory is correct. |
|
|
|
Post by HeatherC on Nov 19, 2008 9:57:35 GMT -5
Hello All Right up until the Age of Marriage Act was brought in in 1929 (Yep, 1929!) the legal age of marriage for girls was 12 and boys, 14 with parental consent. After the act was brought in the minimum age for both sexes was 16, with parental consent. Another interesting thing whilst we are talking marriages....... It may not just be because Parish Registers have not survived that we are unable to find certain records (although that is often the reason). 1538 saw the decree go out stating that all Church of England ministers had to keep a record of all baptisms, marriages and burials. (Note as the decree only stated baptisms, marriages and burial dates the church ministers did not bother with actual dates of birth and death, although many of the church ministers in the North of the country were foresighted enough to record these too in the registers...... some even went as far as naming both the mothers maiden name for baptism and the names of grandparents on both sides, how I love those entries) By 1597 it was then decided that all these records must be kept on parchment and copies sent each year to the Bishop (the start of Bishops' Transcripts). One of the benefits of these (BT's) was that any omissions or errors made in the original registers could then be amended, but of course being transcriptions themselves, new errors could and were made. Now we get onto the other reason we cannot find parish register records of certain events, or why in some parish registers some years seem very light of entries compared to others. During the time of Cromwell (1648-1660) civil officers were appointed that could perform marriages (early civil ceremonies?) So these events are not recorded. Then of course we have that perhaps our ancestors never married... Even back in the 1700's as although Church Law stated that a marriage needed to be performed by Banns of License, English Common Law was not so strict and many couples (not so much in the rural areas) joined in informal marriage contracts which were recognised by the State. This practice was ended by the Marriage Act of 1754 when the new law made it illegal for a marriage to be performed anywhere other than a Church of England, a Jewish synagogue or a Quaker meeting house. It was when this law was passed that church ministers started to use the registers with the printed form in them rather than how they recorded marriages previously (often just the event recorded under a handwritten heading of "Marriages" and then just the names of the two parties and date). By 1812 standard parish registers were brought in to cover baptisms and burials too Of course the next stage was civil registration which was brought in in 1837. Even this at first was not compulsory, so again you may not find an event recorded until the law was changed to make it so in 1874. Also after the new Act of 1874, the onus was then on the person to report the event by visiting the registrar office themselves. Previous to this the registrar traveled around visiting the people. Hope this proves useful Best regards Heather |
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Nov 20, 2008 21:41:42 GMT -5
In response to Trencrom, I have been as thorough as I can be with the resources, I have checked at Zennor and found nothing connecte with the Legow (Anne's spelling) family. I can only find one in Phillimore's and on a Will by William Bennet we find daughters Anne and Joan/Jone mentioned but no wife. Just a note the Legoe's of Ludgvan in the 17th century seem fairly few and consistent, I can find none at Zennor. The marriage is recorded in the Ludgvan section so why this note "at Zennor", I really cannot tell. My experience is that usually when a marriage is recorded at one parish and stated as taking place at another, it is indicative that one of the parties came from the other parish. That's why I think one of the parties must have been from Ludgvan and the other from Zennor. I don't immediately recall seeing any Leggoes at Zennor either, but given the sparse extent of surviving records for that parish for the period that we are talking about, a lack of any mention in what little there is should not be taken as conclusive. This frustrating lack of data for 17th century Zennor is in addition the widespread lack of parish records for the Cromwellian period i.e. 1649-1660. My point in the earlier post was that it may therefore be difficult to nail down the identity of the parties, and hence to verify that there was such age difference between them, given the lack of surviving records for the period you are looking at. A 20 year age difference in the children indicates that the bride was most probably no older than 27 when she married, and could well be younger. |
|
. Surnames include LEGOE/LEAGOE/LEGOW & VELLENOWETH & HUTCHINS. So if anyone has these in the 17th century around Ludgvan pray tell.... 
