Thanks to those who took a stab at trying to answer my "spinster"
riddle...  But I'm still stuck.

According to a VA law passed in 1632, no one could marry before the
age of 21 without the consent of parents or "governors" (Hening, Vol
I, p. 181).  The age of consent of 21 seems to have been carried
forward for at least 100 years (as it appears over and over again in
later laws) or more, but in later laws "governor" was replaced by
"guardian."

But even that clear-cut age definition seems (to me) to have been made
murky when a new law was passed in 1696 which said "That if any woeman
child or maiden being above the age of twelve and under the age of
sixteen years doe att any time consent or agree to such person, that
so shall make any contract of matrimony without the consent of the
parent or guardian or without the publication of the banes as
aforesaid" shall be disinherited; i.e., her next of kin will inherit
any estate to which she is entitled (Hening, Vol 3, p. 151).  This
law, then, seems to imply that if a girl was at least 16 she could
inherit her estate, WITHOUT the marriage consent of a parent or
guardian, thereby implying that there was no penalty or law against a
girl of 16 marrying without consent of parent or guardian.  (1696 was,
of course, after 1670/1, but I'm looking at this as insight into the
thinking of the time).

It is obvious from the record I originally posted that the couple had
not gone the route of publishing their banns on three successive
Sundays (Hening, Vol 1, p. 181), so they were apparently married by
license.  The problem is that the license, with consent (or absence of
consent), is no longer extant.  The record I posted was a marriage
contract, but it was totally one-sided - John Hunnicutt was doing all
the giving.  I'm not at all sure that Elizabeth Warren (or her
guardian, if she had one) would have had to sign the contract under
the circumstances.

Thomas Warren, Elizabeth's father, died in 1670.  He left a will, but
that will was apparently never recorded and is now lost.  Mathias
Marriott, a son-in-law of Thomas Warren, was apparently made the
executor or the administrator of the estate of Thomas Warren.  A
subsequent record reveals that sometime between the time of the
marriage contract for John Hunnicutt and Elizabeth Warren, and when
they were actually married, he, Mathias Marriott, provided Elizabeth
Warren (and John Hunnicutt) her share of the estate.  I.e., in the
short period between the death of Thomas Warren and Elizabeth's
marriage, she had not been given her share of Thomas Warren's estate.
So she would not have appeared on any tax list, as a land-owning
person.

As to the Black's Law Dictionary definition of spinster:  "a spinster
is a woman who has never been married."  I don't find that definition
terribly helpful.  While I'm sure it was true, it seems to be too
broad to be of any practical use.  E.g., I seriously doubt that a girl
of, say, 14, was ever referred to as a "spinster."  Maybe that
definition hinges on another definition: the definition "woman" :-)

So it seems to me that to get a resolution to the question of
Elizabeth's likely age, it still comes back to how the term "Spinster"
was commonly (and legally, or formally) used in that time period.

Lou Poole

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html