Be warned, this is a long one. Will future generations look back on the wording of present-day marriage certificates as archaic? It was a bit of a challenge to work my way through the language of this Marriage Licence of Obligation in the 1760s that could be for a grandfather four times removed...the operating words---could be! I have been clutching at straws as my maiden surname is very rarely found in Scotland. I set my sights on York where I found a ‘ton’ by my maiden surname when I did some sleuthing years ago. The insurmountable problem is trying to establish a connection to one of them. I am back to my great-great grandfather in south-west Scotland, then a blank. There is a strong possibility, but no proof as yet, that he could have been the illegitimate son of a busy bee who ‘pollinated’ two ‘ladies in waiting’ that we know of, one of whom took him to the Court of Session, Edinburgh, to maybe legalise the child’s name or to get money out of him. If he is also the father of yet another third child out of wedlock, this could be my great-great grandfather. To find out more about the ‘pollinator’s’ father, I contacted Borthwick Institute, York, and after paying a research fee, received a copy of a Condition of Obligation to Marry, the wording and terms of which were most interesting...and archaic: ‘Know all Men by these Presents, That we XXXX of the City of York (?) and XXXX of the Same City---paintor (sic) ________are Bound and firmly Obliged to the Right Worshipful Robert Roper Doctor of Laws, Vicar General and Official Principal of the most Reverend Father in God Robert by divine Providence Lord Archbishop of York, Primate of England, and Metropolitan, lawfully Authorized, in the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds of good and lawful Money of Great Britain, to be paid to him the said Robert Roper--------------or to his Executors, Administrators, Successors and Assigns, for the Payment whereof well and truly to be made, we oblige our selves, and each of us by our selves, for the Whole, and the Full, our Heirs, Executors and Administrators, firmly by these Presents, sealed with our Seals. Given the Sixteenth ------Day of the Month of December in the year of our LORD GOD, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty two. The Condition of this Obligation is such; That if the above bounded XXXX and XXXX, Spinster now Licenced to be married together, be neither of Consanguinity or Affinity the one to the other, within the Degrees prohibited for Marriage; If also there be no other Lett, Impediment, or lawful Cause whatsoever, but that they may be lawfully married together, both by the Laws of God and this Land: Moreover, if the Persons, whose Consent is required by Law in this Behalf, be thereunto agreeing: And lastly if the said Marriage be done and solemnized in such Manner, as in the Licence to them granted is limited: Then this Obligation to be void or else to remain in full Force and Virtue. Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of (three signatures, including the prospective groom). ....Second page.... The Sixteenth---Day of December in the Year of our LORD One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty two. ON which Day appeared personally XXXX of the parish of St. Michael of Ousebridge in the City and Diocese of York (?) and, being Sworn on the Holy Evangelists, alledged and made Oath as follows, That he is of the age of twenty Seven Years and upwards, and a Widower and intends to marry XXXX of the Same parish----aged twenty Six Years, and upwards, and a Spinster------------not knowing or believing any Let or Impediment by Reason of Consanguinity, Affinity, or any other Cause whatsoever, to hinder the said intended Marriage: And he prayed a Licence to Solemnize the said Marriage in the parish church of St. Michael aforesaid, In which said parish---------- the said XXXX further made oath. that he the said XXXX----- hath had his usual abode for the space of four weeks last past. On the same Day the said XXXX was sworn before me (signature) In the presence of me (signature of Deputy Register) --- XXXX’ ------------------------------------ This Licence of Obligation was to ensure that there was no funny business going on: possible bigamy, cousins marrying first cousins (consanguinity), incest, and other complicated restrictions to do with property, etc. If one were found to be in ‘default’ a ‘fine’ of £200 would have to be forked up, which must have been a substantial amount in the mid-1700s. Apart from all else, I have learned that the groom was a yeoman, and a widower, who at the end of the day ended up being married three times, twice in York, perhaps and once in Castle Douglas, Kirkcudbrightshire. For more historical background of why such a ‘palaver’ to get married in the 1760s, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753 With it all, it still didn’t get me any closer to whether I am descended from the mid-1700s ‘lot’ from York. There’s enough information to write book, however. Maisie

Maisie, it is a legal contract and reads no differently than most modern legal contracts. Even the seemingly archaic English would be read by a modern day lawyer with easy comprehension. Just take a look at any insurance policy or warranty document that you possess. You will see the similarities. I believe that a thousand years from now, legal documents will still be using the same type of language. The difference today is that marriage is no longer considered a contract. It stopped being that with the arrival of "no-fault" divorce, as an agreement that can be broken at will with no penalties is not a contract. As for the proliferation of "out-of-wedlock" childbirth, that is mainly due to the modern assumption that the cost of raising such a child will automatically be assumed by the government without the direct impact on the local community of the past. When it's all rolled into the general taxes instead of being a direct levy on the local church or village, the peer pressure to behave is gone. Jo-Ann Croft On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Maisie Egger <[email protected]>wrote: > Will future generations look back on the wording of present-day marriage > certificates as archaic? It was a bit of a challenge to work my way > through the language of this Marriage Licence of Obligation in the 1760s > that could be for a grandfather four times removed...the operating > words---could be! > > >

Hi Maisie That is more or less a standard marriage licence as opposed to posting Banns <https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Marriage_Allegations,_Bonds_and_Licences_in_England_and_Wales> I suspect the main problem future researchers will face, is not the wording, although the political correctness may confuse, no the problem will be finding *any* marriage at all, as more seem not to bother with any form of marriage as such these days Not to mention the variety of fathers of one ladies children in some cases It will make the mid 1700's seem relatively straight forward by comparison Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 23/07/2013 19:19, Maisie Egger wrote: > Be warned, this is a long one. > > Will future generations look back on the wording of present-day > marriage certificates as archaic? It was a bit of a challenge to > work my way through the language of this Marriage Licence of > Obligation in the 1760s that could be for a grandfather four times > removed...the operating words---could be!

Maisie, I have several marriage licenses from the same period and earlier granted by the Archbishop of York. The format was popular with people of a higher social class who didn’t want all their details blurted out to the "common folk" so they were used as something of a social statement and potentially a good source of income for the church. Mark -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maisie Egger Sent: 23 July 2013 19:20 To: [email protected] Subject: [Lanark] Wording of marriage licence 1760s Be warned, this is a long one. Will future generations look back on the wording of present-day marriage certificates as archaic? It was a bit of a challenge to work my way through the language of this Marriage Licence of Obligation in the 1760s that could be for a grandfather four times removed...the operating words---could be! I have been clutching at straws as my maiden surname is very rarely found in Scotland. I set my sights on York where I found a ‘ton’ by my maiden surname when I did some sleuthing years ago. The insurmountable problem is trying to establish a connection to one of them. I am back to my great-great grandfather in south-west Scotland, then a blank. There is a strong possibility, but no proof as yet, that he could have been the illegitimate son of a busy bee who ‘pollinated’ two ‘ladies in waiting’ that we know of, one of whom took him to the Court of Session, Edinburgh, to maybe legalise the child’s name or to get money out of him. If he is also the father of yet another third child out of wedlock, this could be my great-great grandfather. To find out more about the ‘pollinator’s’ father, I contacted Borthwick Institute, York, and after paying a research fee, received a copy of a Condition of Obligation to Marry, the wording and terms of which were most interesting...and archaic: ‘Know all Men by these Presents, That we XXXX of the City of York (?) and XXXX of the Same City---paintor (sic) ________are Bound and firmly Obliged to the Right Worshipful Robert Roper Doctor of Laws, Vicar General and Official Principal of the most Reverend Father in God Robert by divine Providence Lord Archbishop of York, Primate of England, and Metropolitan, lawfully Authorized, in the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds of good and lawful Money of Great Britain, to be paid to him the said Robert Roper--------------or to his Executors, Administrators, Successors and Assigns, for the Payment whereof well and truly to be made, we oblige our selves, and each of us by our selves, for the Whole, and the Full, our Heirs, Executors and Administrators, firmly by these Presents, sealed with our Seals. Given the Sixteenth ------Day of the Month of December in the year of our LORD GOD, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty two. The Condition of this Obligation is such; That if the above bounded XXXX and XXXX, Spinster now Licenced to be married together, be neither of Consanguinity or Affinity the one to the other, within the Degrees prohibited for Marriage; If also there be no other Lett, Impediment, or lawful Cause whatsoever, but that they may be lawfully married together, both by the Laws of God and this Land: Moreover, if the Persons, whose Consent is required by Law in this Behalf, be thereunto agreeing: And lastly if the said Marriage be done and solemnized in such Manner, as in the Licence to them granted is limited: Then this Obligation to be void or else to remain in full Force and Virtue. Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of (three signatures, including the prospective groom). ....Second page.... The Sixteenth---Day of December in the Year of our LORD One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty two. ON which Day appeared personally XXXX of the parish of St. Michael of Ousebridge in the City and Diocese of York (?) and, being Sworn on the Holy Evangelists, alledged and made Oath as follows, That he is of the age of twenty Seven Years and upwards, and a Widower and intends to marry XXXX of the Same parish----aged twenty Six Years, and upwards, and a Spinster------------not knowing or believing any Let or Impediment by Reason of Consanguinity, Affinity, or any other Cause whatsoever, to hinder the said intended Marriage: And he prayed a Licence to Solemnize the said Marriage in the parish church of St. Michael aforesaid, In which said parish---------- the said XXXX further made oath. that he the said XXXX----- hath had his usual abode for the space of four weeks last past. On the same Day the said XXXX was sworn before me (signature) In the presence of me (signature of Deputy Register) --- XXXX’ ------------------------------------ This Licence of Obligation was to ensure that there was no funny business going on: possible bigamy, cousins marrying first cousins (consanguinity), incest, and other complicated restrictions to do with property, etc. If one were found to be in ‘default’ a ‘fine’ of £200 would have to be forked up, which must have been a substantial amount in the mid-1700s. Apart from all else, I have learned that the groom was a yeoman, and a widower, who at the end of the day ended up being married three times, twice in York, perhaps and once in Castle Douglas, Kirkcudbrightshire. For more historical background of why such a ‘palaver’ to get married in the 1760s, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753 With it all, it still didn’t get me any closer to whether I am descended from the mid-1700s ‘lot’ from York. There’s enough information to write book, however. Maisie ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message