Somehow, the first portion of my message 'evaporated'....am resending.... Bob Carter, You bring up an interesting subject. The Baan, or Banns, is an oft-forgotten custom. There are many versions in the old countries, but as practiced here in America, I was able to find the following general description: Banns A Very Colonial Marriage Procedure In order to be married outside of the civil authorities, a couple could publish banns, or intent to be married, at there local church or meeting house for three consecutive weeks, or meetings. If there were no objection to the marriage, the clergyman would marry the couple. This marriage by banns required no reporting to civil authorities, therefore it was recorded only in the church records and perhaps the family Bible. Unfortunately, many church records have been lost, leaving many a genealogist searching for the old elusive family Bible. The main objection to the marriage that could be raised was the question of an earlier marriage by either the man or the woman. Bigamy existed then, just as it does today. A more legal definition of Banns of matrimony from Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: Public notice or proclamation of a matrimonial contract, and the intended celebration of the marriage of the parties in pursuance of such contract. Such announcement is required by certain religions to be made in a church or chapel, during service, on three consecutive Sundays before the marriage is celebrated. The object of is to afford an opportunity for any person to interpose an objection if he knows any impediment or other just cause why the marriage should not take place. Marriage Bonds and Licenses In 1660-61 the [Virginia] law requiring a bond was first enacted. Because of a scarcity of ministers, the colony required that all persons wishing to be married by license must go to the county court clerk and give bond with sufficient security (usually $150 by the 19th century) that there was no lawful cause to prevent the marriage. The license was then prepared by the clerk and presented to the minister who would perform the ceremony. From the introduction to the published Frederick Co., VA Marriage Bonds, by John Vogt & T. William Kethley, Jr., Iberian Publishing Company. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The bondsman or surety was to be able and knowne. Often, this person was a brother or uncle to the bride, not necessarily a parent. The rich and established uncle was an excellent candidate for bondsman. The bondsman could be related to the groom, but from what we have seen, that situation would occur less often. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Tennessee, three documents were created at the time of a marriage. The first was the marriage bond. The second was the license, wherein the court authorized the marriage, and the official signed the back to show that it had been performed. The ledger where the clerk copied some information from these two sources is known as the official marriage record, and is often the only surviving part of the record. ____________________________________________ Co-habitation Bonds. At the end of the civil war the Southern states had to make certain concessions in order to become part of the United States again. One concession NC did was to publish lists of former slaves who had married during slavery and still wanted to be considered husband and wife in 1866 along with their former (most recent) master. I'm not sure what other states, if any, had these lists. _______________________________________________ I'm sure other listers may have other opinions to add. r/Steven > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "Bob Carter" <gravehunter@triad.rr.com> > > Hi Steven, > > > > The old marriage bonds didn't include ages so there is no way of telling. > > Seems like it was about 1868 when they started providing marriage > > certificates that listed the ages of the bride and groom and also their > > parents names and where they lived. I've got my marriage index files for > > Surry in a box so when I find them I'll look it up. > > > > Also, in the early days they also had couples married by a Baan, which was a > > religious ceremony and not codified in a document. I'm not up on the > > history of them, but seems like they were pronouncements in a church for 3 > > Sundays and if no one objected to it after that, then the couple was > > considered married. > > > > Then, there were the co-habitation bonds that were in existence too. > > Another story there. :-) > > > > Bob Carter > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <johnnylumen@comcast.net> > > To: <ncsurry-l@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:32 PM > > Subject: [NCSURRY] Old Marriage Bonds/Records > > > > > > > Need lookup, please, for old 1804 - 1810 marriage bonds/records: > > > > > > Marmaduke D. MITCHELL [aka M.D. Mitchell] m. Mary Bradley TUPPLE(?) > > > > > > Marmaduke would have been about 23 yrs in 1805. Mary would have been about > > > 18 yrs in 1805. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > r/Steven Mitchell > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > > NCSURRY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > NCSURRY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > > the subject and the body of the message >