Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Marriage bond - quaker? 1786  (Read 2241 times)

Offline Liz_in_Sussex

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
  • "We wunt be druv."
    • View Profile
Marriage bond - quaker? 1786
« on: Sunday 19 May 13 15:26 BST (UK) »
Hi,

I have found what I think is the marriage bond of my 5x Great Grandparents but I am puzzled by some of the contents.  (It is on Ancestry and at the LMA.)  The names are Thomas Brewer and Ann Hyde.

"... Thomas Brewer ... and John Doe ... are hereby become bound unto the Right Reverend Father in God Brownlow ... Bishop of Winchester..." and it goes on.

Brownlow was indeed Bishop at the time - but who is John Doe - is that really his name?  ::)  I mean, I know that he is the other person who acts as bondsman - but was that likely to be his real name?

What am I missing - the Bond looks fairly straightforward?  My understanding is that in 1786 Quakers did not have to marry in a C of E Church* - why then would a Quaker have needed a marriage bond?  Or have Ancestry arbitrarily labeled Thomas as a Quaker?  :o  (I would add that if he did turn out to be a Quaker I would not be in the least surprised given what I know of his descendents and family.  ;))

Please could anyone help explain?

Thank you,

Liz

ADDED: They did actually marry in St Mary's Lambeth 3 days after the bond was issued.
Research interests:
Sussex (Isted, Trusler, Pullen, Botting), Surrey (Isted), Shropshire (Hayward), Lincolnshire (Brown, Richardson), Wiltshire (Bailey), Schleswig-Holstein (Isted),  Nordrhein-Westfalen (Niessen).

Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage bond - quaker? 1786
« Reply #1 on: Sunday 19 May 13 15:33 BST (UK) »
According to various books some second Bondsman were usually a legal fiction, "John Doe" having offered more collateral than anyone else.

Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Liz_in_Sussex

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
  • "We wunt be druv."
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage bond - quaker? 1786
« Reply #2 on: Sunday 19 May 13 15:36 BST (UK) »
 :o  ;D  :o  ;D

Thank you!  I rather thought he must be fictional! 

Liz
Research interests:
Sussex (Isted, Trusler, Pullen, Botting), Surrey (Isted), Shropshire (Hayward), Lincolnshire (Brown, Richardson), Wiltshire (Bailey), Schleswig-Holstein (Isted),  Nordrhein-Westfalen (Niessen).

Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage bond - quaker? 1786
« Reply #3 on: Sunday 19 May 13 16:18 BST (UK) »
The marriage bond has no mention of him being a Quaker.  http://www.rootschat.com/links/0u0j/

Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Liz_in_Sussex

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
  • "We wunt be druv."
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage bond - quaker? 1786
« Reply #4 on: Sunday 19 May 13 16:25 BST (UK) »
Quote
The marriage bond has no mention of him being a Quaker.
No, but strangely Ancestry has added it to his name.  ::)

Liz
Research interests:
Sussex (Isted, Trusler, Pullen, Botting), Surrey (Isted), Shropshire (Hayward), Lincolnshire (Brown, Richardson), Wiltshire (Bailey), Schleswig-Holstein (Isted),  Nordrhein-Westfalen (Niessen).

Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage bond - quaker? 1786
« Reply #5 on: Sunday 19 May 13 16:30 BST (UK) »
That has been entered as though it was his middle name, otherwise it would have Thomas Brewer (quaker). I think you can safely assume it is a mistake by whoever entered the data in Ancestry. In any case a Quaker would not marry in a Church of England church.

Stan

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline jim1

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 24,466
  • ain't life grand
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage bond - quaker? 1786
« Reply #6 on: Sunday 19 May 13 21:41 BST (UK) »
Although they didn't have to marry in the C of E they still had to obtain a Special Licence in order to marry in the Quaker Meeting House.At this time this right was given to Quakers & Jews.

jim
Warks:Ashford;Cadby;Clarke;Clifford;Cooke Copage;Easthope;
Edmonds;Felton;Colledge;Lutwyche;Mander(s);May;Poole;Withers.
Staffs.Edmonds;Addison;Duffield;Webb;Fisher;Archer
Salop:Easthope,Eddowes,Hoorde,Oteley,Vernon,Talbot,De Neville.
Notts.Clarke;Redfearne;Treece.
Som.May;Perriman;Cox
India Kane;Felton;Cadby
London.Haysom.
Lancs.Gay.
Worcs.Coley;Mander;Sawyer.
Kings of Wessex & Scotland
Census information is Crown copyright,from
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage bond - quaker? 1786
« Reply #7 on: Monday 20 May 13 09:12 BST (UK) »
After 1837 a  Registrar's Certificate had to be obtained for Jewish and Quaker Marriages, see section II of the 1836 Act for Marriages in England at
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1835Act.htm
Before then marriages of Jews and Quakers had nothing to do with Church of England Licences, ordinary or special.  Section XVIII of Hardwicke's 1753 Act exempts Jews and Quakers from the requirement that marriages after 1754 can be celebrated only after the issue of a licence or the reading of banns.


Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Pages: [1]