Age of a bondsman for wedding.

[hookleg]

Hi can anyone help with a technical detail? I have a relative who married in 1792. It says next to the couple's names that Richard was bondsman. I have 2 possible Richards, the father and brother of the bride to be. The brother was approx. 18 years old and the father approx. 50 years old. (Have been unable to find either's exact date of birth as both are extrapolated from later census info). I have read that it was often a brother or uncle who put up the bond.
My question is, would an 18 year old be eligible in law, in 1792, to be the bondsman? Thanks

[iluleah]

I can't find an age, however as 21 was 'full age' and the nature of the bondsman it is likely to be the older person

The groom and a suitable bondsman ("surety") would pledge an amount (usually specified by law) to an official as a guarantee that there were no legal impediments to the forthcoming marriage. The bond was "conditional"  that is, the pledged amount would be forfeited only if there proved to be a legal reason the couple should not marry. If no such legal barrier existed, the bond would be null and void, even if the wedding failed to take place for some other reason. In many jurisdictions the bond remained in force for a year or two after the marriage and apparently would have been forfeited if any illegality came to light during that time.

Use of the marriage bond began to fade in the middle to late 1800s and by the close of the century most jurisdiction relied on "sworn" statements made in the application for the marriage license to guard against illegal marriages.

[hookleg]

Thanks iluleah, that was 'my opinion' and the reason I put the question to the forum. I had read quite extensively about "Intentions to marry" with research on Banns, Licences, Bonds and Allegations. After 1823 marriage bonds were no longer made. Only the allegations were made after this date. However, nowhere did I come across conclusive evidence as to the required age of a bondsman, pre- 1823, if in fact there was one.
In my case the father, who was a farmer would have had the funds, however, the family was not short of cash so the son may also have been in a financial position to do the same. I was hoping to be able to decide for sure which it was and of course could have done so if the age was above 21.

[iluleah]

As 21 was full age, those below that age were minors so unable to be held legally responsible and a 'responsible' adult would have to also sign for them.... however if a fee/bond was paid/held I wonder if the 'legal' part mattered

[youngtug]

It was only a promise to pay a sum of money, no money was deposited.

[iluleah]

It was only a promise to pay a sum of money, no money was deposited.

Not always. I do have one where it is clear money was 'deposited', held and repaid

[youngtug]

Didn't think that was a requisite.

[hookleg]

What I have read on other websites:- Marriage Bond — a monetary pledge or guarantee given to the court by the intended groom and a bondsman to affirm that there was no moral or legal reason why the couple could not be married, and also that the groom would not change his mind. If either party declined to go through with the union, or of one of the parties was found to be ineligible—for example, already married, too closely related to the other party, or underage without parental approval—the bond money was generally forfeit.
The bondsman, or surety, was often a brother or uncle to the bride, although he could also be a relative of the groom, or even a neighbour of friend of either of the two parties.
 • Marriage bonds and allegations only exist for couples who applied to marry by licence. They do not exist for couples who married by banns.
 • The marriage allegation was the document in which the couple alleged (or frequently just the groom alleged on behalf of both of them) that there were no impediments to the marriage.
 • The marriage bond set a financial penalty on the groom and his bondsman (usually a close friend or relative) in the case the allegation should prove to be false.
 • The existence of a marriage bond / allegation merely shows that a marriage licence was applied for. It does not prove that the couple ever married.
 • Canon law (Church Law) stipulated that the marriage bond should state where the marriage should take place; sometimes a choice of two parishes is given. There are, however, occasions where couples seem to have disregarded this and married somewhere else entirely.

[familydar]

Sometimes sight of the bond can clear things up, either by signature comparison or occupation.

Jane :-)