He was having an affair with a woman almost 30 years older than himself, and she died in 1951

And surely a wealthy Christian man in England 70 years ago would never be hypocritical....

But like I said, maybe it's a coincidence and not an intended statement. But the books are incredibly preachy and Lewis writes as if his personal beliefs are clearly and obviously the right and only beliefs.

It's been decades since I've read them, but I'm not the only one with that takeaway from his writings.

And while a child being married under 16 immediately sounds like pedophilia to you (as it should) this was back when the law was being passed and lots opposed it. There were people fighting it for decades after even.

And it literally explains why Susan was held to a different standard than Pete:

This section re-enacts section 1 of the Age of Marriage Act 1929 which set the minimum marriage age at 16 with consent of parents or guardians and 21 (since lowered to 18) without that consent. Marriages contracted by persons either of whom is under the age of 16 years are void.[10][11] Before 1929, the common law and canon law applied so that a person who had attained the legal age of puberty could contract a valid marriage. A marriage contracted by persons either of whom was under the legal age of puberty was voidable. The legal age of puberty was 14 for males and 12 for females.

In 1971, Eekelaar wrote that the prohibition now contained in this section "though desirable, is extreme and inflexible." According to him it could result in "genuine hardship", such as where it is discovered, after years of apparent marriage, that a mistake was made, at the time of the ceremony, regarding the age of one of the spouses, or where one of the spouses concealed their real age, though, after 1971, some protection was afforded by section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970[12] (now repealed and replaced by the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1949

So while you think I'm making an assumption in saying his opposition to this law was likely and may have influenced what he wrote about....

You've also twisted that into me labeling him a pedo that wants to marry a child younger than 16 and implied everyone agreed that this law was a good thing. One thing you've just invented and another that's easily disproven