Young bride

[ElizabethHerts]

OH's ancestors again - Abel Hyde and Sarah Hollinworth.

They married by Licence - the marriage is well documented.

I have two papers for the licence:

http://search.findmypast.co.uk/results/world-records/cheshire-marriage-licence-bonds-and-allegations-1606-1905?firstname=abel&firstname_variants=true&lastname=hyde&lastname_variants=true&yearofmarriage=1730&yearofmarriage_offset=2

They married at Cheadle, not in their own parishes, which I thought was strange.
http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=gbprs%2fm%2f745050477%2f1

Sarah's father was Higham Hollinworth and her mother Sarah, maiden name Moult. She had a brother called Alexander. Her father left a will, with everything to his wife. Neither of the children are mentioned. However, Sarah and Alexander are well documented.

Here is the surprise:

First name(s) Sarah
Last name Hollingworth
Gender Female
Birth year 1715
Baptism year 1715
Baptism date 11 Jun 1715
Place Mottram-in-Longdendale
County Cheshire
Country England
Father's first name(s) Higham
Father's last name Hollingworth
Record set Cheshire Diocese of Chester parish baptisms 1538-1911
Category Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records
Subcategory Births & baptisms
Collections from Great Britain

This makes her 15 on marriage - one of the earliest I have found in our lines.

[kiterunner]

When was their first child born, Elizabeth?

[ElizabethHerts]

She didn't seem to be pregnant, Kate.

First name(s) Abel
Last name Hyde
Gender Male
Birth year 1731
Baptism year 1731
Baptism date 24 Oct 1731
Place Mottram-in-Longdendale
County Cheshire
Country England
Father's first name(s) Abel
Father's last name Hyde
Record set Cheshire Diocese of Chester parish baptisms 1538-1911

I've got the image.

I think they must have married secretly, hence the trip to Cheadle.

Her mother's will was proved in 1758 by Sarah Hyde who was sole Executrix. Her mother provided her for her very nicely. She got all the household goods and a property. Her brother got much less than her.

[HarrysMum]

I have a few 13 year old brides in Australia. Times were tough though and one less mouth to feed was good.

I have come across quite a few 15 year old brides in England when I went through the Lancs PRs.

Jus as an aside........the year of birth has just been taken from the baptism date, I'd say and she could have been a bit older.

[ElizabethHerts]

I have a few 13 year old brides in Australia. Times were tough though and one less mouth to feed was good.

I have come across quite a few 15 year old brides in England when I went through the Lancs PRs.

Jus as an aside........the year of birth has just been taken from the baptism date, I'd say and she could have been a bit older.

I realise that, Libby. As a rule they didn't leave long between birth and baptism.

[Lindsay]

I appear to have 15 year old brides on a couple of my lines, Elizabeth - both families comfortably off, and neither apparently pregnant when they married.

I know it was possible but it does make me look twice as hard at other supporting evidence, and I still have question marks over both of mine.

Do you know how old Sarah was when she died?

[Olde Crone]

I have a 13yr old girl and a 15 year old boy marrying in the mid-1700s, in Cheshire as it happens. They were both from prosperous farming families and though she was pregnant that wouldn't automatically trigger a marriage in this particular family!

They had many children and lived to a ripe old age, leaving lovely detailed wills.

OC

[ElizabethHerts]

I appear to have 15 year old brides on a couple of my lines, Elizabeth - both families comfortably off, and neither apparently pregnant when they married.

I know it was possible but it does make me look twice as hard at other supporting evidence, and I still have question marks over both of mine.

Do you know how old Sarah was when she died?

Lindsay, she was buried on 4th June 1790 but the burial register doesn't give an age. I wonder if there are any MIs for the church (Mottram-in-Longdendale).

[tenterfieldjulie]

Liza I seem to remember some very young marriages were arranged to safeguard or acquire property. (especially in the middle ages). Children didn't come along to a number of years after the marriage, because they didn't live together. In last century in Aus men often left control of their money and their children to male rellies rather than their wives!! When I see a very young marriage related to property I often wonder if the push from that came from a wife who didn't want her brother or brother in law in charge of her .. thinking a young sil a better bet..

[kiterunner]

I would have thought that if they got married on the 6th Mar 1730 and their first child was baptised 24 Oct 1731,she was pregnant when they got married, because the new year started on the 25th March in those days. But in the BT's, there is an August marriage listed for 1730 after the March one. The dates on the list of marriage licences seem to be a bit of a muddle, so I can't figure out from that whether they mean 1729/30 or 1730/1. Is the parish register entry available, do you know?

[ElizabethHerts]

The only actual marriage entry I have seen is this one, Kate:

http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=gbprs%2fchs%2f4011835%2f00051&parentid=gbprs%2fm%2f745050477%2f1

It is from the Bishops' Transcripts.

The marriage is given, then followed by a marriage for August of another couple, then we have 1731.

Sarah was transcribed as Williams by FMP. I have submitted a correction. It is faint, but you can see Hollinworth.

[kiterunner]

Yes, I looked at the BT entry, but if we could see the PR's, it might be clearer whether it was 1729/30 or 1730/1. We can't be sure whether the entries in the BT were copied out in the same order that they were in the PR. But the marriage licence bond says 1730 on it and I would have thought they would be using the official year on those, which would mean it was 1730/1.

[ElizabethHerts]

Yes, I looked at the BT entry, but if we could see the PR's, it might be clearer whether it was 1729/30 or 1730/1. We can't be sure whether the entries in the BT were copied out in the same order that they were in the PR. But the marriage licence bond says 1730 on it and I would have thought they would be using the official year on those, which would mean it was 1730/1.

I realise that, Kate. I can't find the PR, unfortunately.
I'll make a note in my tree.

[kiterunner]

It doesn't look as though FMP have the Cheadle PR marriages online. I suppose you would need someone to look it up at Cheshire Archives. The Cheshire PR project says 1730 but again, not 1729-30 or 1730-1.

[ElizabethHerts]

Thanks for your help, Kate.