U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-21-2013, 03:46 AM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
8,223 posts, read 12,818,867 times
Reputation: 10451

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
I'm not sure I'm understanding where any "shame" lies. Because they were young? That was certainly not uncommon at that time.
It was not unheard of but 15 was considered pretty young for a bride and 17 was young for a groom, even in the past (marital age was usually higher for men because they were expected to be old enough to support a family) - usually, you needed consent from your parent/guardian to marry that young, even back then. I think the key to understanding this situation is in the fact that they lied about their ages, which suggests that either they weren't old enough to marry at all or they needed their parent's consent to marry that young and didn't have it. Either way, they were breaking the law and either way, that's somewhat scandalous but for me, it wouldn't be scandalous enough to take to the grave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-21-2013, 07:45 PM
Status: "Even better than okay" (set 11 days ago)
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
51,308 posts, read 50,558,025 times
Reputation: 60234
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
It was not unheard of but 15 was considered pretty young for a bride and 17 was young for a groom, even in the past (marital age was usually higher for men because they were expected to be old enough to support a family) - usually, you needed consent from your parent/guardian to marry that young, even back then. I think the key to understanding this situation is in the fact that they lied about their ages, which suggests that either they weren't old enough to marry at all or they needed their parent's consent to marry that young and didn't have it. Either way, they were breaking the law and either way, that's somewhat scandalous but for me, it wouldn't be scandalous enough to take to the grave.
Thanks for the explanation. I wouldn't have found that scandalous at all. I remember being a kid and reading the Little House books and being shocked that Laura Ingalls Wilder was married at 15!

Also, my grandmother once told me that her father made her oldest sister and her boyfriend (not sure of his age) get married at 15 "before they had to". I was kind of shocked at that, too, because I didn't think that people did THAT back then outside of marriage, lol, but since then, I've seen great-aunt Bertha's grave. Her daughter is buried next to her, and she is only 16 years younger than her mother.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 06:03 AM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
8,223 posts, read 12,818,867 times
Reputation: 10451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
Thanks for the explanation. I wouldn't have found that scandalous at all. I remember being a kid and reading the Little House books and being shocked that Laura Ingalls Wilder was married at 15!

Also, my grandmother once told me that her father made her oldest sister and her boyfriend (not sure of his age) get married at 15 "before they had to". I was kind of shocked at that, too, because I didn't think that people did THAT back then outside of marriage, lol, but since then, I've seen great-aunt Bertha's grave. Her daughter is buried next to her, and she is only 16 years younger than her mother.
Again, it's not so much their age as it is the fact that they lied about their age to the government. They broke the law. Marrying young in itself was not scandalous as long as it was legal. But this probably wasn't legal.

Similarly, I also have someone in my tree who claimed to be over 18 on her marriage application but she was actually 17. I did some research of the area during that time and it WAS legal for her to have married at 17 WITH consent of her parent/guardian - so the fact that she lied suggests that she didn't have permission to marry from her father/mother/guardian, which would have been considered fairly scandalous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 08:09 AM
 
Location: CHicago, United States
6,936 posts, read 6,995,027 times
Reputation: 3487
Quote:
Ancestors just didn't know much about THEIR ancestors? is this common?


I recall that my grandparents generation knew a lot about their ancestors. They didn't record much of it in writing, however. Preferring, instead, to memorize the information. And, in my family, when that generation passed on so did much of the ancestoral history. I find interesting, though, that my generation, cousins of mine in Irelandl, as an example, think it odd that we, their cousins in the USA, seem so interested/investigative regarding ancestoral history. They behave as if it's a big secret and it's been difficult gaining their cooperation when I've done research. Grandparents couldn't shut-up about this topic, but I was too young to know of its importance. Counsins, my generation, seem to run away from it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Table Rock Lake
971 posts, read 1,134,547 times
Reputation: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
Again, it's not so much their age as it is the fact that they lied about their age to the government. They broke the law. Marrying young in itself was not scandalous as long as it was legal. But this probably wasn't legal.

Similarly, I also have someone in my tree who claimed to be over 18 on her marriage application but she was actually 17. I did some research of the area during that time and it WAS legal for her to have married at 17 WITH consent of her parent/guardian - so the fact that she lied suggests that she didn't have permission to marry from her father/mother/guardian, which would have been considered fairly scandalous.
My mom was 17 when she was married and her mothers signature was one her marriage license.

A couple of years prior my father had run off and got married and my grandmother said her father had the marriage annuled. The Joplin Globe stated my dad was granted a divorce.

25 years later the first wife visits and tells my 9 year younger twin brothers that they could have been her children. It wasn't a happy few days around the homestead. LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
15,372 posts, read 25,591,738 times
Reputation: 19649
When asked any family questions, including geneology, my grandfather always said that is water under the bridge. Now at age 47 I am doing a lot of swimming trying to get down stream to find all this information out. Lots of fun it is. LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 11:48 AM
Status: "Even better than okay" (set 11 days ago)
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
51,308 posts, read 50,558,025 times
Reputation: 60234
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
Again, it's not so much their age as it is the fact that they lied about their age to the government. They broke the law. Marrying young in itself was not scandalous as long as it was legal. But this probably wasn't legal.

Similarly, I also have someone in my tree who claimed to be over 18 on her marriage application but she was actually 17. I did some research of the area during that time and it WAS legal for her to have married at 17 WITH consent of her parent/guardian - so the fact that she lied suggests that she didn't have permission to marry from her father/mother/guardian, which would have been considered fairly scandalous.
OK, thanks, I understand what you're saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Stuck in NE GA right now
4,585 posts, read 10,482,984 times
Reputation: 6597
My father's side of the family were Indian and NO ONE talked about it, considering my father was born in 1919 and his parents and their parents would not have been considered citizens of this country until 1924. They kept all sorts of secrets that died with them. My Gr Gr grandmother was asked who was the father of her first born son, my gr grandfather and until her dying day she said none of your business. Only a few weeks ago I found out that my father and his sibs KNEW they were Indian and what tribe, yet that went to the grave with them. The daughter in law of one of my cousins spilled the beans and said my aunt would talk about it often to her.

On my mothers side her father was NEVER talked about, I never saw a photo of him and he died only 4 years before I was born, I found his obit and it did mention being survived by his children but no mention of his wife my grandmother who lived for another 25 years. His side of the family came from Canada and was probably of mixed Indian blood.

I've always known in my soul I was of Indian decent, but because of all the wanna be's I did have DNA testing done and I have enough % to be enrolled in any tribe. I still search for any info on this and I KNOW who most of them were but still have yet to unravel it. The above mentioned Gr Gr grandmother disapeared off the census records after 1860 and didn't re-appear until 1900. Her first born son (illegitimate) was already an adult in 1900 and married with children and no trace prior to then has yet to be found.

My fathers side of the family has always been very very secretive about heritage and my mother's side secretive about her father's family heritage. Her mother's side lived in and around eastern TN in the early 1800's and were probably mixed with some Cherokee but I've yet to uncover any, it just wasn't something you advertised.

I even posted on Ancestry with the pro's and one contacted me and I gave them all the info I had and a link to my tree and he never called me back, I've had 2 other pros stumped and my LDS cousins can't find the brick walls either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 10:54 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,013,920 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReturningWest View Post
My father's side of the family were Indian and NO ONE talked about it, considering my father was born in 1919 and his parents and their parents would not have been considered citizens of this country until 1924. They kept all sorts of secrets that died with them. My Gr Gr grandmother was asked who was the father of her first born son, my gr grandfather and until her dying day she said none of your business. Only a few weeks ago I found out that my father and his sibs KNEW they were Indian and what tribe, yet that went to the grave with them. The daughter in law of one of my cousins spilled the beans and said my aunt would talk about it often to her.

On my mothers side her father was NEVER talked about, I never saw a photo of him and he died only 4 years before I was born, I found his obit and it did mention being survived by his children but no mention of his wife my grandmother who lived for another 25 years. His side of the family came from Canada and was probably of mixed Indian blood.

I've always known in my soul I was of Indian decent, but because of all the wanna be's I did have DNA testing done and I have enough % to be enrolled in any tribe. I still search for any info on this and I KNOW who most of them were but still have yet to unravel it. The above mentioned Gr Gr grandmother disapeared off the census records after 1860 and didn't re-appear until 1900. Her first born son (illegitimate) was already an adult in 1900 and married with children and no trace prior to then has yet to be found.

My fathers side of the family has always been very very secretive about heritage and my mother's side secretive about her father's family heritage. Her mother's side lived in and around eastern TN in the early 1800's and were probably mixed with some Cherokee but I've yet to uncover any, it just wasn't something you advertised.

I even posted on Ancestry with the pro's and one contacted me and I gave them all the info I had and a link to my tree and he never called me back, I've had 2 other pros stumped and my LDS cousins can't find the brick walls either.
Check the "Indian Census Rolls" (1885 -1940), in many cases it was done annually...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 11:07 PM
 
2,319 posts, read 1,982,597 times
Reputation: 3812
Oh, man, I can really relate to these posts! My aunt (father's side) died of cancer in 1956 at age 42, and I was named after her when I was born in 1964. The family was just pleased as punch that I carried on her name, but boy, whenever I tried to find out anything about her, I was "shusshed." ALL I could ever get anyone to say was, "___ was just different."

Okay, so different in what way? What does that mean? Despite all my questions, that family may as well have sewn their lips shut, because if I even so much as said her name among a group of them, there would be this weird silence.

So, though I never knew what they meant, I bet nearly 100 percent she had some form of mental illness because I have clinical depression and two of my second cousins, once removed, have more serious issues that have required lengthy hospitalizations and/or care facilities.

But at the time, it just drove me crazy. I got interested in family history around age 14, and no one -- NO ONE -- would answer me. They'd either ignore the question or just shrug it off. I'm stiil on it, but running out of "live sources." I've sent emails to first cousins I barely know because of a big age difference (my father was born in 1917 and the youngest of seven); I've tried everything I can think of.

I guess "different," even in the late 1950s, meant "mental illness" of some kind and just was not talked about. She never married, always lived at the family home, did not go to college but always held a regular, full-time job, and...of course I know nothing else!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top