A couple of words in a marriage Licence allegation

[goldie61]

A couple of words here I can't quite make out:

……….that Thomas Harpur intends to marry
Margaret Elde, that she is no ?
is of age, & has no  ? & there
fore prayd a Licence for the ,,,,,,,,,,,

I’m reading it as ‘no Heiress’ which would be quite strange.   

Many thanks

[Wiggy]

It does seem strange, but that is also what I see.   I wonder if it is proving that her groom is not a fortune hunter!     Sounds a bit way off doesn't it.   Hope I am not talking through my hat.

Does the next bit say she has no property?   Or prospects - seems very odd.   Will look forward to reading what the experts say.   

[goldie61]

Yes I wondered if the next bit was that she had no prospects too!

Unfortunately the licence is applied for by what looks like two friends of the groom, Thomas Harpur, so there is no more information about him at all. 

[Wiggy]

Here's hoping Horselydown or Bookbox come by - They are much better at deciphering than I am.  Or Arthur

[Galium]

"...&  alleged" that Thomas ....

"...prayed a licence for the solemn [isation]....."

[stanmapstone]

What is the date of the allegation?

Stan

[stanmapstone]

It is not the normal wording for an allegation, but it could be something to do with the fact that propertied women could retain control of their property on marriage, by means of a legal settlement. Before 1870, any money made by a woman either through a wage, from investment, by gift, or through inheritance automatically became the property of her husband once she was married. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women's_Property_Act_1870

Stan

[arthurk]

It's not something I've seen before, but I agree it looks like "no heiress" and "has no property". However, I don't know why this should be mentioned.

Wild guesses (contradictory) are (a) since the bride is poor, no-one can object on the grounds that the groom is marrying her for her money; (b) since the bride is poor, there could be objections from his family in particular that she is marrying him for his money. Or was it simply laying out the facts as known at the time, so that no-one can complain later that there had been some kind of deception?

The bottom line is that apart from interpreting the handwriting, I don't know.

Arthur

[Wiggy]

It is not the normal wording for an allegation, but it could be something to do with the fact that propertied women could retain control of their property on marriage, by means of a legal settlement. Before 1870, any money made by a woman either through a wage, from investment, by gift, or through inheritance automatically became the property of her husband once she was married. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women's_Property_Act_1870

Stan

That is interesting Stan - must remember that for future reference.