Why did someone else have to be consulted before a marriage licence issued?

[Westy11]

Just curious 

I was looking for a marriage licence and have come across a few where someone else had to be consulted prior to granting a marriage licence.

An example from 1593-94 reads "Caveat not grant a marriage licence between [blank] HUDSON of Egerton, Co Kent and Elizabeth HAIE, unless Thomas Hebden  of Burwashe is consulted."

Another example "Caveat not grant a marriage licence between Launcellet LOVELES & Mary RIVERS of Hollingborne, Co. Kent unless intimation is before made  to John Saxpees Sowthover."

So what would be some reasons why another person had to be consulted, and
How would the request for consultation be arranged?

[jc26red]

Perhaps the groom was still an apprentice? Just a guess though. I haven't come across that before.

[Melbell]

Hi Westy11

I presume that this would be because someone - I guess the bride's father - was with-holding consent for the marriage to take place as one of the parties was a minor, or for some other valid objection.  The objector would create a caveat and the Church would then not be able to issue a Licence without express permission from the objector.

Just as people have the right to do these days!

I expect someone with more knowledge of medieval marriage law could clarify this, or the information might be out there online somewhere?

Melbell

[groom]

If it was the bride or bridegroom's father the name would be the same. I think it could well be that the bridegroom was an apprentice as from what I understand they weren't allowed to marry without permission.

[stanmapstone]

Statute of Artificers, An apprentice cannot marry and can't start a household. http://www.elizabethan.org/compendium/80.html
The Statute of Artificers (usually called the Statute of Apprentices) was passed in 1563 and remained on the Statute Book until 1819

Stan

[Gaie]

Hi

According to this research Thomas HEPDEN of Burwash was the co-guardian of his niece Elizabeth HAYE.

http://www.mandywillard.co.uk/surnames/hepden/john_1520.htm

KR
Gaie

[jbml]

Melbell's explanation is essentially correct.

Parents are most usually the individuals who must consent to a marriage of minors, but as has been noted others can have this right: the masters of apprentices, legal guardians, the Court of Chancery (in the case of a Ward) ...

[Westy11]

Thanks one and all. 

Fascinating especially as it applies to apprentices.

Can you imagine the furor if such a thing happened today.

Westy

[jbml]

Well, you've got to understand the context.

Most trades were carried on in the tradesman's home. Living accommodation, workshop, showroom or other trade premises were all encompassed within the same house. the apprentice paid to lodge with his master and learn the trade from him. This included being there at the beginning of the day to light the fires and prepare the workshop for use; shutting up and securing at the end of the day; and dining at the family board where the events of the day and the lessons learned would be discussed.

This is not really compatible with running off at the end of the day to attend to a wife and (probably) kids ... so unless the master consented ...

The modern day requirements for qualification as a barrister still have an element of the "legal apprenticeship" about them ... in that the would-be barrister must attend a number of formal dinners at his Inn of Court.