why money was exchanged when it is was marriage

[Suzy W]

This was written in 1743, but I have no idea why money was exchanged when it is was marriage.  Any ideas please
Hope I posted this in the right place?

[jaybelnz]

No idea either SuzyW, but as you say it was connected to a marriage, do you think it possibly refers to a dowry?  Just a thought!

[Suzy W]

500 pounds in 1740's was a large amount of money, crumbs I hope she was worth it .
Very strange to have all that listed on the marriage

[Suzy W]

The other half of the page

[jaybelnz]

Really still no idea, but I wonder if this could be some sort of dispensation granted between a Catholic and Protestant to allow them to marry, and there was a cost involved, payable to the Priest, by one of the parties.  But as I said, really no idea, is just of the top of my head.

Where did you source the record from, might give a clue.

I'm sure someone with a much better knowledge is sure to turn up with a better theory than mine!😄

[a chesters]

It looks very similar to the Marriage Bonds and Allegations of Durham Diocese 1692-1900, on the Family Search website.

Had a look at one at random from 1809 between Walton Reay bachelor and Dorothy Ann Leaton spinster at a cost of £200, put up by Walton Reay and her father John Leaton.

As I say, it looks very similar, but £500 in 1740's was a huge cost. £200 in 1809 was still a large amount of money.

Hope it helps

AC

[BumbleB]

As I understand it, the £500 would only have to be paid if the marriage did not take place.

A Bond and Allegation was only used in conjunction with a Marriage Licence, which meant that the couple did not have/wish to wait for the Banns to be read over 3 consecutive weeks.

[stanmapstone]

It is the same as the 1733 Marriage Bond at  http://anguline.co.uk/cert/allbon.html
As said the marriage would be by a Common/Ordinary Licence - This could be obtained from any bishop or archbishop, Chancellor or Surrogate, and meant the Banns need not be read - and so there was not the minimum delay of two weeks.
A visit to the clergyman issuing the licence resulted in three documents, an allegation or affidavit, a marriage bond and the licence. Bonds were a very common legal device. By entering into a bond a person would agree for instance that a statement was true, for a marriage  that there was no "lawful let or impediment" to the proposed marriage. If this was not the case  a penalty was due to the church official concerned, if the marriage did not take place the bond was irrelevant. A marriage bond would mention the two people who wanted to get married, not just one.  By the late 18th Century the penalty was £200. I would expect that they would not have to prove they had the money. After 1823 bonds ceased to be necessary.
You can see examples of a Marriage Bond, Allegation, and Licence at http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,438148.msg3016813.html#msg3016813
The actual wording varied over the years.

Stan

[jaybelnz]

Suzy, I knew someone with more knowledge about this sort of record would soon come to your rescue.

I read somewhere a long time ago, that marriages by licence were usually for upper class people, and if there was a need or request for a hasty marriage, without having to have banns read.

But that may well  be something else that's in my head!  😄😄