On 2012/01/09 16:35, David Tennant wrote: > Looking at the Marriage Bond images on the LDS site, I note that all of > them (at least those at which I have looked) have another person and his > occupation listed in addition to the person who is to be married. > What is the reason for this? I think the answer will be found in the fine detail of Hardwicke's 1753 Marriage Act, and take the form of some kind of sworn witness. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

Mike and Ruth. Thanks for your inputs. I've taken Mike's suggestion and done a bit of looking around and have come up with this: "The bond, sworn "by two sufficient witnesses", one of whom was usually the groom, his father or a friend, pledged to forfeit a large sum of money (ranging from £40 to £200), if there was any consanguinity (a relationship within the prohibited degrees) between the parties or any pre-contract to another person. The large sum of money to be forfeit was intended to underline the serious nature of the oath, and it should not be thought that the couple had these funds at their disposal. The second bondsman soon became a formality, any convenient person acting. Later the second bondsman was often completely fictitious, names like John Doe and Richard Row being used" So the 2nd person might or might not have connections to the potential groom. I was hoping that , in my instance, researching the 2nd person could possible shed some light on my ancestor but maybe not. He may have been just a "convenient person" In this case, if indeed he came from Poringland, as stated on the Bond, then he may well have connections to the Bride's family, Gillingwater, who had connections to that village. Dave On 09/01/2012 9:57 AM, Mike Fry wrote: > On 2012/01/09 16:35, David Tennant wrote: > >> Looking at the Marriage Bond images on the LDS site, I note that all of >> them (at least those at which I have looked) have another person and his >> occupation listed in addition to the person who is to be married. >> What is the reason for this? > I think the answer will be found in the fine detail of Hardwicke's 1753 Marriage > Act, and take the form of some kind of sworn witness. >