Did Jane need consent to marry?

One thing that has just struck me is whether Jane would have needed anyone's consent to marry Mr Rochester. Men reached the age of majority at twenty-one in those days, but I believe could marry younger provided they had permission. I believe people may still marry at sixteen with their parents' consent in the UK even now. Without consent, they would have to wait to eighteen. I am not quite sure what the situation was for women in 19th century England. When Jane wants to leave Lowood School to become a governess, Mr Brocklehurst says the school needs to write to Jane's guardian, Mrs Reed, to obtain her consent. Mrs Reed writes back to say she has given up any interest in Jane's affairs and she can do what she likes. By the time Jane wants to get wed, Mrs Reed is dead, but Jane is still only about eighteen or nineteen. Jane is an orphan, but does that allow her to make that decision independently? Jane does write a letter to her uncle, John Eyre, informing him that she intends to marry Mr Rochester, but I thought the main point of that letter was to inform her uncle that she was in fact still alive, not dead from typhus as Mrs Reed had informed him. Had her uncle become Jane's legal guardian at that point? By the time, Jane comes back to Rochester, another year has passed and she is about nineteen or twenty, but this time the only male relative she has is St John Rivers. Might she concievably have need his consent?

No, people didn't need their guardians' consent to marry. Jane's mother for example, married against her family's wishes. Of course, they could then cut you off without a penny, but that's a different matter.

However, Jane and Rochester would have either had to get a marriage license, or had the banns of marriage read out in their church 3 times before the wedding. This is when the pastor makes an announcement of the marriage to the congregation, and asks if they "know cause or just impediment why these persons should not be joined together in Holy Matrimony." It had to be a legal impediment, like having a mad wife locked up in the attic :D, and not some personal objection from the family or guardian.

I think Jane and Rochester would have gone in for banns, since they had a whole month before their wedding. The license is usually for people in a hurry.

From reading Les Misérables, I know that young men needed consent until the age of 25 although maybe the age of legal majority was also 25, I'm not sure. I thought it was lower, but that doesn't make any sense in legal terms, does it.

There was a mention in Anne Brontë's novel The Tenant of Wildfell Hall that Anabella Wilmot (about 23 to 25) 'no longer needed consent to marry'. Helen definitely still needs consent and she is 18. The age of majority cannot have been below 21, I don't think. Although the age of consent to marriage could maybe be lower tan the legal age of majority, for women at least. But I suppose for rich girls it was more a matter of not marrying against their family's wishes as they would get cut off without dowry. That could be seen *** such an important factor that it was a make or break thing, although there was no legal basis for it.

Maybe Jane didn't need any because her aunt had formally renounced it when she left Lowood or because she was really a major and she wouldn't get anything anyway.

A marriage licence involved the groom to swear that there was no legal impediment to the marriage with at least one witness, for the price of one pound. I have the impression that writers use them to emphasise richness (although by far not every marriage licence was owned by rich people) and enthusiasm :D. Darcy gets one. Eager bridegroom :D. I suppose in practice for the rich, it was more their privacy they cared about.

Although it would have been better for Rochester to get a marriage licence for his first attempt (no people would have been alerted, although none of them are now, but more to the point it would not ave given Jane's letter the time to reach her uncle...), the reason why Rochester did not get one I think is the assumption that he still did have some scruples about idle oaths (do you say that?). He would probably have had to swear on the bible there was no legal impediment and he knew very well that such was not the case...

This is interesting:

Age of consent

Hardwick's Act fixed the lower legal age of marriage as 14 for men and 12 for women. This was raised to 16 for both sexes in 1929, although parental consent was still required for brides or bridegrooms under age 21. Marriage of a minor by banns without consent did not render the marriage null and void, but was uncommon as usually someone in attendance when the banns were read would object on the grounds of age or lack of consent. Couples often went to another parish where no-one lived that knew their real age. Marriage of a minor by licence without parental consent was null and void, although it still happened, and as Hardwick's Act did not apply to Scotland, marriages in Gretna Green, the nearest Scottish town from the English border, were a regular occurrence for people under the age of 21. In 1939, Scottish law was changed to mirror English law.

In 1969, the minimum age for marriage without parental consent was lowered to 18 years of age.


So if Rochester had applied for a marriage licence, it may have been illegal on two counts: Rochester being already married and Charlotte not having parental consent.

Kev, it's my understanding of Hardwicke's Act that if parents did not approve of their minor children's proposed marriage, then they had to actively dissent once the banns had been read. If no such dissent were forthcoming, then the marriage could go ahead. So, it was a case of actively dissenting as much as actively consenting, if you see what I mean.