Hi Jackie, Sometimes I think it was just easier to marry by licence. An ancestor, John Riley of Bottesford LEI married by licence in 1790 in Nottingham. He was a miller, and his bride was from Nottingham; John got the marriage licence one day and married the next. I haven't checked yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if he went to Nottingham for market day, got the marriage licence, stayed overnight, got married the next day and brought his bride back home with him. Their first child wasn't born for a year after the marriage, so I don't think a bump was the reason, it may just have been less hassle and travelling. Also, strictly speaking if they'd married by banns in Nottingham John should have been resident there for the 3 weeks that the banns were called. As he didn't have a mill there he couldn't have worked, so he'd have lost 3 week's money and have to have paid for 3 weeks board & lodgings. Regards, Ellie > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 22:26:35 -0000 > From: "Jackie Evans" <jevans06@tiscali.co.uk> > Subject: [LEI] Marriage licences > To: <LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <000001c83469$3bca1910$b35e4b30$@co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 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)