Newsflash!
Ancestry (its a an American based genealogy website) will not let you save a child if they were born "outside the father's adult age". A sister of my ggg grandmother, it seemed had a child when the father was fifteen (well if the census records are correct), and I cannot input this.
Yes I know its young, but hey newsflash! Its possible to father children at that age. Some fifteen year olds end up having sex. The Sun et al, or whatever press that does the reporting for thirteen year old fathers these days, obviously has not reached the USA's shores.
Someone needs to teach Ancestry about ejaculation, either that or they are America's moral police.
Comments
It also doesn't allow for changes in the age of consent:
"A statutory age of consent to sexual intercourse for the purposes of the criminal law in the
United Kingdom can be found as early as 1275. It was originally 12, was raised to 13 in
1875 and to 16 in 1885." (source: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/165f479bcf457c38ca256ecf0009f629/$FILE/bf21-1997.pdf page 6)
Posted by: JHB | June 29, 2009 10:49 PM
Thanks for that, I wasn't sure when 16 came into force.
I knew you could marry at 16, with parents consent, the age of the majority being 21 back then. Any child born out of wedlock - whatever the age - was just labelled as 'bastard' or similar obtrusive language. Insane morals: fine for kids to get pregnant, but not fine for an adult to have a child unmarried.
The above, it would have (just) been legal. The 'morally corrupt' baby was born 1864, father's DOB is 1849.
Legal dates aside, it doesn't stop someone being a child's biological father. Sperm put in certain places(!) pays no attention to man made structures that is the law. However, imagine being a parent at 15. Jeesh.
Posted by: Alison | June 29, 2009 10:57 PM