Marriage by common licence could be for any of several reasons. Marriages were required to take place where at least one of the couple had permanent residence. This might not have been possible if the couple were away from home. If the couple lived in different dioceses a special licence may have been necessary from the archbishop. The couple might wish to marry quickly because of pregnancy or because the groom was due to go abroad with the army. Some just wanted to avoid the publicity of banns or simply because they could afford it and regarded it as a status symbol. The granting of a licence would have cost considerably more than banns. The granting was subject to an allegation and bond being provided involving ones family or friends and legal costs. Tony. -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jackie Evans Sent: 01 December 2007 22:27 To: LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS@rootsweb.com Subject: [LEI] Marriage licences Hello Everybody In the 18C how much more expensive was it to be married by licence than by banns? Or was it not more expensive? I've assumed that licences were preferred by (a) the well to do (who didn't want the common herd to know of their business) or (b) non-conformists (who wouldn't normally attend church) or (c) where expediency was required (eg an imminent confinement). Why would an illiterate husbandman (a smallholder I believe) who doesn't fall into any of the above categories choose to be married by licence? Regards Jackie (South Wales) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message