Why a Marriage Bond? - HELP

[Alexpk]

Hi helpful rootschatters,
                                       I have recently obtained a Marriage bond and marriage allegation for one of my ancestors from 1802, having searched the internet for information on Marriage Bonds I think I understand the general purpose of the Marriage Bond - that the groom and the bondsman would forefit the bond if the groom did not marry his intended bride? ... 

On the document I have it starts by saying... Know all men by there prefents, that Edward Maskall of the Parish of Hadleigh bachelor and James Maskall of the same Parish are holden and firmly bound  to the Reverend ..... then goes on to mention the sum of £200... does this mean that the groom had to pay this to marry or is this what he would have to pay should he not marry his intended bride? 

...also could anyone simply explain but what was the allegation for?  sorry to seem a dope I'm new to all this.

Thank you  in advance.

[stanmapstone]

All a Bond was was a promise by two people, that they would pay the Church a substantial sum of money if the marriage proved invalid in the eyes of God and the law, obviously if the marriage did not take place the bond was irrelevant. A visit to the clergyman issuing the licence resulted in three documents, an allegation or affidavit, a marriage bond and the licence.
You can see examples of a Marriage Bond, Allegation, and Licence at  http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,438148.msg3016813.html#msg3016813

Stan

[geoff_43]

Hi Alexpk,

These were used instead of Banns having to be read in the church. Perhaps they could not wait the three weeks, wished to marry in a Parish neither were resident in, or in the case of some of mine just to prove they could afford one.

Geoff

[Alexpk]

Thank you Stan and Geoff , its much clearer now..Edward ( the Groom) has been listed later in life as a gentleman of Hadleigh, so it  could have been as a status thing like you say Geoff, but also thinking about it, Im wondering if the bride was already pregnant as I believe their son was born fairly soon after so that might explain not wanting to wait.   

I wonder also if anyone knows who the second name is likely to be? , the groom is Edward Maskall and the second name listed is James Maskall, having the same surname im assuming they are family, would it be most likely his father? (fingers crossed) or could it have been any family member?

Thanks again

[stanmapstone]

Hi Alexpk,

 wished to marry in a Parish neither were resident in,
Geoff

Hardwicke's Act stated that;
no Licence of Marriage shall.......... be granted  (for) any  Marriage in any other Church or Chapel, than in the Parish Church or Publick Chapel of or belonging to the Parish or Chapelry, within which the usual Place of Abode of one of the Persons to be married shall  have been for the Space of four Weeks immediately before the granting of such Licence http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1753.htm

This is written in the Allegation, see   http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,438148.msg3016813.html#msg3016813

Stan

[geoff_43]

Thanks Stan,

That's one reference book I have I won't be using again !!

Geoff

[stanmapstone]

Hi Alexpk,

These were used instead of Banns having to be read in the church. Perhaps they could not wait the three weeks,

It was actually two weeks   i.e. three Sundays, the marriage could take place immediately after the third reading of the banns. Licences were popular with certain families, especially those that did not wish to have their domestic affairs paraded  before the other parishioners on the three Sundays that the banns were read. A Licence was popular because it had the advantage of relative speed and secrecy, and facilitated a marriage in Lent when banns should not have been called. It was also favoured by those with rude surnames in order to avoid titters when the banns were read out.  The licences were valid for three months. Once the licence was issued then the marriage could take place.

Stan

[stanmapstone]

Thanks Stan,

That's one reference book I have I won't be using again !!

Geoff

Perhaps they are confusing an ordinary licence with a Special Licence. A Special Ecclesiastical Licence from the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury,  permitted a marriage to be solemnised at any time and at any place, consecrated or not. Prior to 1755 both the Vicar General and the Master of Faculties were able to grant Special Licences, but after 20 January 1755 only the latter issued them. Such a licence was expensive and uncommon.

Stan

[geoff_43]

Hi Stan,

Just read up on Hardwickes's Act in my pile of books. You are of course correct. The book I grabbed & used for this post makes no destintions between licence types.

This is interesting as I have one dated 1742 that states either of 2 named parishes. Don't wish to take Alex's post over. Can I PM you about it?

Geoff