On Feb 10, 8:55 am, geral...@earthlink.net wrote: > I have a question about early 19th century American marriage bonds. > People on the Internet cite bonds as equivalent to a marriage > certificate, in the sense that they assume the marriage actually did > take place and on the date of the bond.  However, if I understand > correctly, a bond is no proof that a marriage did take place or that > if it did, that it took place on that day.  Could somebody please > explain bonds to me clearly? > > Aside from being a general question (having noted many places where > marriage dates are being justified by bonds rather than certificates), > I have a specific instance that is bothering me.  On this bond the > sponsor was the bride's father, and the index notes that the groom-to- > be never signed the bond personally.  There is absolutely no trace of > the groom after that day.  I'm wondering if perhaps he had gotten the > girl pregnant, the father made him promise to marry her, and he > skipped town prior to the wedding.  Is that a feasible scenario in > light of whatever a marriage bond is supposed to signify? > > Thank you!!! You are certainly correct in that a bond doesn't mean that a marriage ever took place or that the date of the bond and the marriage are the same. I've seen an instance of a bond for the same guy to two different girls on consecutive days. This also applies to marriage licenses in more recent times . Just because a couple went and got a license doesn't mean they actually got married. And the date of the marriage might be a week after the date of the license. The meaning and purpose of the bond undoubtedly had some fine nuances that varied with time and place but generally it was to insure that there were no legal impediments to the marriage, ie, they didn't want some Lothario riding into town and marrying some Sweet Young Thing while he had wives in all the neighboring states. Keep in mind that there was no standard identification or easy way to check up on somebody's bonafides. Even all this was not to protect the SYT's virtue, but rather it was so the county/state wouldn't have to support a bunch of illegitimate kids. As far as I know, a bond was never to insure that a marriage actually took place. --