- From: Anne Chambers <anne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:55:46 +1030
Richard van Schaik wrote:
On 06-01-2012 23:39, Anne Chambers wrote:I would imagine it would only apply to someone who did not look over 21.JFHHgen wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Chambers" <anne@xxxxxxxxxxx>Same for marriage - when *proof* of age was required (i.e. in the
20th century, see the Marriage Act of 1949, maybe earlier) she would
use the surname she was registered under,
otherwise it could be either.> > -- > Anne Chambers> South Australia
No proof of age required, AFAIK, though recently proof of identity has
begun to be demanded in Register Offices.
From the marriage Act, 1949 -
[F2(1A)A common licence shall not be granted for the solemnization of a
marriage mentioned in subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act unless—
(a)the person having authority to grant the licence is satisfied by the
production of evidence that both the persons to be married have attained
the age of twenty-one;
<grin> gives then an impossibility for England and Wales to marry as the age can only be derived from the
birth certificate which says expressly that it contains no proof of identity. Biting ones own back I think.
The OP's original query was so vague that the type of marriage was not specified - but proof of age can be required according to the 1949 Marriage Act, which is what I originally said; she would then use her birth certificate which would have the name she was registered under. Perhaps I should have said "if proof of age was required" rather than "when" to make it clearer.
anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com
- Prev by Date: Re: stepfathers
- Next by Date: Re: stepfathers
- Previous by thread: Re: stepfathers
- Next by thread: Re: stepfathers