Hi My 3x gr. grandmother Sarah Spencer's Executors of her fathers will gave a £300 marriage settlement bond. This was stated as money in trust in case the marriage did not go well she had money for herself. I understand that the other of her inheritance would become property of her husband. 1785 Regards Mary ----- Original Message ----- From: "G W Coppock" <gwcoppock@cablelynx.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 6:41 PM Subject: [OEL] 17th Century marriage bonds > While there is traffic concerning marriage bonds, I thought I would ask > about the marriage bond of my 7Great Grandparents. > > In my caes the bride to be was the one required to post the bond. She > was named as a spinster and was 29 years old, he was 26. Is there any > significance to the bride being required to post the bond? Thanks > > GW > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

>While there is traffic concerning marriage bonds, I thought I would ask >about the marriage bond of my 7Great Grandparents. > >In my caes the bride to be was the one required to post the bond. She >was named as a spinster and was 29 years old, he was 26. Is there any >significance to the bride being required to post the bond? It suggests she had money, nhe had none, but she was willing to buy the toyboy. Maybe she needed to, and acted while he was still mailed down. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <4049B56B.000003.04052@XP-BKBHO2U9YIMM>, Elizabeth Atherton <elizabeth.atherton@tesco.net> writes > Funny you should say that - John Doe of no stated profession appears with >Israel Atherton, Gent (my man) in Cheshire - early 18th century. >.. Elizabeth Atherton The othere fictiitious person was Richard Roe, and after years when people used his name in recovery actions etc, one local Mrs Roe named her little lad Richard. It must have been a nice little earner for him - litigants would have to pay him to stay away from the court, so that when 'Richard Roe, come into Court' was called, no one would answer (thus letting the recovery proceed by default) They changed the law when he was about 29, though. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Eve: I think we all understand the purpose of having bondsmen. But that doesn't affect the point that people who pledged £200 very often didn't have it. Regardless of what they "should" have been, not all of them actually were "men of substance". Indeed, some of them didn't even exist. Best wishes Paul Prescott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Some document understanding please! > In message <004201c40309$34df1280$0cd286d9@Fred>, Paul Prescott > <paul.prescott@toranean.freeserve.co.uk> writes > >Listers: > > > >An interesting aspect of this is that almost all these bridegrooms-to-be who > >pledged £200 didn't actually have it - certainly not in ready cash, and in > >most cases not even by selling all their worldly goods. A familiarity with > >wills of the period makes this clear (and bridegrooms were much younger, and > >so poorer, than testators). £200 was just an awful lot of money. > > > >So while Eve and others are undoubtedly right in saying that the £200 was > >legally payable to the bishop if the marriage didn't go ahead, this very > >rarely happened. In practice the bond amounted to a binding promise to go > >ahead with the marriage. > > The object of having bondsmen (who were or should have been men of > substance_) was that if the bridegroom defaulted, they were liable. > Fathers or uncles who stond bond were not at all happy if the lad ducked > out - as Harrington Eustace did, twice. His father was a well to do > farmer before this event, and less well to do after - wonder why? > But the vast majority pg grooms did go through with it, since the > licence meant they could marry fast, not wait the three weeks which > allowed cooling off for banns. > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 03-03-2004

Eve: This was the point I made. Someone would only go ahead with a non-existent "John Doe" as bondsman if he fully intended to go through with the marriage, and quickly. In this case the marriage happened the next day. But it's still of interest that the bishop's clerk allowed this, because he too, presumably, understood that John Doe didn't exist. Clearly the theory and practice of providing bondsmen who "should have been men of substance" sometimes differed. Paul Prescott > >I do have one ancestor pledging along with a fictitious bondsman > I hope he was either willing to carry out his intentions, or persinally > solvent then. If you defaulted, first your goods and chattels would go, > then you would be put in prison as a bankrupt, if 'unable to meet your > obligations'. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 03-03-2004

In message <006001c40364$5b5f6d50$2ade87d9@Fred>, Paul Prescott <paul.prescott@toranean.freeserve.co.uk> writes >Listers: > >I can't answer Audrey's or Elizabeth's points, but to deepen the problem I >do have one ancestor pledging along with a fictitious bondsman I hope he was either willing to carry out his intentions, or persinally solvent then. If you defaulted, first your goods and chattels would go, then you would be put in prison as a bankrupt, if 'unable to meet your obligations'. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <004201c40309$34df1280$0cd286d9@Fred>, Paul Prescott <paul.prescott@toranean.freeserve.co.uk> writes >Listers: > >An interesting aspect of this is that almost all these bridegrooms-to-be who >pledged £200 didn't actually have it - certainly not in ready cash, and in >most cases not even by selling all their worldly goods. A familiarity with >wills of the period makes this clear (and bridegrooms were much younger, and >so poorer, than testators). £200 was just an awful lot of money. > >So while Eve and others are undoubtedly right in saying that the £200 was >legally payable to the bishop if the marriage didn't go ahead, this very >rarely happened. In practice the bond amounted to a binding promise to go >ahead with the marriage. The object of having bondsmen (who were or should have been men of substance_) was that if the bridegroom defaulted, they were liable. Fathers or uncles who stond bond were not at all happy if the lad ducked out - as Harrington Eustace did, twice. His father was a well to do farmer before this event, and less well to do after - wonder why? But the vast majority pg grooms did go through with it, since the licence meant they could marry fast, not wait the three weeks which allowed cooling off for banns. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In July 1827 James LOVEGROVE married Hester BAUGHEN in Bushey, Herts. On Christmas Day 1825 (!) their daughter had been baptised in Aylesbury, Bucks: Elizabeth Lovegrove BOFFIN. By the way, I have frequently seen "dafter" for daughter in 17th century Berkshire wills. I can only presume this is how it was pronounced, i.e. with an intrusive "F" after a long vowel. Historically oif course the "gh" was a guttural consonant similar to the "ch" in Scottish "loch" cf. the Dutch word for daughter: "dochter". SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jenny Joyce" <Jenny.Joyce@Sun.COM> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 04 March 2004 00:19 Subject: Re: [OEL] Was there an abreviation of "ugh" > I have also seen daughter written "dafter" and I assumed it to be a > phonetic spelling, indicating that the pronunication of the word by the > writer was not the same as our modern one. English is such a weird > language with a mish-mash of pronunications - just look at plough and > rough - with no rules as to which local dialect version won out and > became the "standard" > > Eve McLaughlin wrote: > > > > > > >I am trying to get it right. When transcribing parish registers for 1500/1600s I > > >have come across the word "daughter" looking like the word "dafter". > > That is so - quite common. You might think that some people were being a > > mite too clever, assuming a pronunciation from reading, because other > > aught words were pronounced f. (draught for one and Woughton in Bucks is > > pronounced Wuffton (though nearby Loughton is pronounced Low (like cow) > > ton) But this does seem a little far fetched. The name must simply have > > been pronounced 'aft' at one time, since the surname Dafter occurs. > > Strange, isn't it? The sort of similar sound 'dahter or darter' is also > > found in speech. > > > > -- > > Eve McLaughlin > > > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > > To contact the list administrator: > > OLD-ENGLISH-admin@rootsweb.com > > ______________________________

While there is traffic concerning marriage bonds, I thought I would ask about the marriage bond of my 7Great Grandparents. In my caes the bride to be was the one required to post the bond. She was named as a spinster and was 29 years old, he was 26. Is there any significance to the bride being required to post the bond? Thanks GW

Elizabeth: "John Doe" as a term for an unknown or unspecified person seems to have died out in modern British usage but still appears to be a term used in the USA (I knew that watching all those episodes of LA Law would pay off eventually!). One of the many ways in which modern US English can be more faithful to the original than is modern British English Best wishes Paul Prescott Scotland ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Atherton" <elizabeth.atherton@tesco.net> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Marriage bonds & John Doe > Funny you should say that - John Doe of no stated profession appears with > Israel Atherton, Gent (my man) in Cheshire - early 18th century. > .. Elizabeth Atherton > > > Listers: > > I can't answer Audrey's or Elizabeth's points, but to deepen the problem I > do have one ancestor pledging along with a fictitious bondsman - that is, > unless there really was a John Doe of no stated profession around in > Worcester in the 17th century. > > Best wishes > > Paul Prescott > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 03-03-2004

Funny you should say that - John Doe of no stated profession appears with Israel Atherton, Gent (my man) in Cheshire - early 18th century. .. Elizabeth Atherton Listers: I can't answer Audrey's or Elizabeth's points, but to deepen the problem I do have one ancestor pledging along with a fictitious bondsman - that is, unless there really was a John Doe of no stated profession around in Worcester in the 17th century. Best wishes Paul Prescott

Good Morning - As a small follow-up to our discussion recently regarding transport, I have just come across the following at Somerset Record Office, copied from a much fuller account on Somerset Travel through the ages: - "Over longer distances the pack-horses travelled in single file teams, and the lanes they used were gradually, over the centuries, worn into deep 'hollowways', especially in hilly districts or where the ground was sandy or soft." If we remember we talked about the tracks left in lanes and how they were caused? If anyone would like a copy of the whole document I will copy and send it to you - it really is quite enlightening. Kind Regards to all - June & Roy http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm

Listers: I can't answer Audrey's or Elizabeth's points, but to deepen the problem I do have one ancestor pledging along with a fictitious bondsman - that is, unless there really was a John Doe of no stated profession around in Worcester in the 17th century. Best wishes Paul Prescott ----- Original Message ----- From: "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Marriage bonds > Anyone know how breach of promise actions fitted into this? > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Elizabeth Atherton" <elizabeth.atherton@tesco.net> > To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:19 AM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Marriage bonds > > > > Between 1711 & 1715, one of my ancestors -an attorney - acted as bondsman > > for several marriage bonds in the Congleton area of Cheshire. This makes > me > > wonder if the bonds were a bit like present day house mortgages - an offer > > is made, but most people certainly don't have the full purchase price. > > > > Best wishes ... Elizabeth Atherton > > > > > > An interesting aspect of this is that almost all these bridegrooms-to-be > who > > pledged £200 didn't actually have it - certainly not in ready cash, and in > > most cases not even by selling all their worldly goods. A familiarity with > > wills of the period makes this clear (and bridegrooms were much younger, > and > > so poorer, than testators). £200 was just an awful lot of money. > > > > So while Eve and others are undoubtedly right in saying that the £200 was > > legally payable to the bishop if the marriage didn't go ahead, this very > > rarely happened. In practice the bond amounted to a binding promise to go > > ahead with the marriage. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Paul Prescott > > > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > OLD-ENGLISH-admin@rootsweb.com > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 03-03-2004

Anyone know how breach of promise actions fitted into this? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Atherton" <elizabeth.atherton@tesco.net> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:19 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Marriage bonds > Between 1711 & 1715, one of my ancestors -an attorney - acted as bondsman > for several marriage bonds in the Congleton area of Cheshire. This makes me > wonder if the bonds were a bit like present day house mortgages - an offer > is made, but most people certainly don't have the full purchase price. > > Best wishes ... Elizabeth Atherton > > > An interesting aspect of this is that almost all these bridegrooms-to-be who > pledged £200 didn't actually have it - certainly not in ready cash, and in > most cases not even by selling all their worldly goods. A familiarity with > wills of the period makes this clear (and bridegrooms were much younger, and > so poorer, than testators). £200 was just an awful lot of money. > > So while Eve and others are undoubtedly right in saying that the £200 was > legally payable to the bishop if the marriage didn't go ahead, this very > rarely happened. In practice the bond amounted to a binding promise to go > ahead with the marriage. > > Best wishes > > Paul Prescott > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > >

Between 1711 & 1715, one of my ancestors -an attorney - acted as bondsman for several marriage bonds in the Congleton area of Cheshire. This makes me wonder if the bonds were a bit like present day house mortgages - an offer is made, but most people certainly don't have the full purchase price. Best wishes ... Elizabeth Atherton An interesting aspect of this is that almost all these bridegrooms-to-be who pledged £200 didn't actually have it - certainly not in ready cash, and in most cases not even by selling all their worldly goods. A familiarity with wills of the period makes this clear (and bridegrooms were much younger, and so poorer, than testators). £200 was just an awful lot of money. So while Eve and others are undoubtedly right in saying that the £200 was legally payable to the bishop if the marriage didn't go ahead, this very rarely happened. In practice the bond amounted to a binding promise to go ahead with the marriage. Best wishes Paul Prescott

Thanks again, Eve. Some of this I think I knew but goodness me, did some get away with near murder! Trying to sort out my almost certainly nonmarrying forebears is very difficult. I think it must have been a family tradition until the 20th century was under way, and they talk about the correctness of the Victorians. All I can say is that is most decidedly rubbish. But it does make it all very interesting, doesn't it? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Some document understanding please! > In message <002201c402a1$50f8f660$47ccfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" > <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes > >Thank you very much Eve. Just what I needed to fill in my knowledge gap in > >this particular direction. Having already read messages mentioning > >Hardwick's marriage act, I now know about that one too and could look at > >this act, possibly, or writing upon it. I suppose it was there to counteract > >the marriage 'shops'. How long did the effect of this act last? > Until July 1837, everyone (except Quakers and Jews) had to marry in the > Church oif England, in theory in their own parish, in practice anywhere > which would rake the money.In 1837 it became possible > 1. for anyone to choose instead a register office, and > 2. for nonconformists to marry in their own chapel, or at least > denomination, but only if the pastor had registered it for marriages. > Both parties had to be (Baptists/Independents/whatever) no mixed > ,marriages allowed. > > Does it > >still pertain in any respect? > If you want a church marriage, in theory you or one of you should belong > to that parish and have been baptised CofE. Most clergy seem glad of the > trade, but you do get men of principle. > >What effect would it have upon 19th and early > >20th century and couples who > >lived together in an apparently marital union that lasted for life but were > >never officially married? > No prob unless sarky neighbours found out and chose to mock > > Presumably it would not permit either to have any > >claim on the other's estate > > That is the real difficulty. The person with money would have to specify > ' my wife or reputed wife Emma or, Emma Bloggs now residing with me' > > She could claim absolutely nothing if he died intesttae > >. What would be the responsibility for any > >children born of these unions, particularly when it came to supporting > >infants? > If the mother was wise or cynical, she either got a substantial sum > settled on her or the children at once, or she went to law to get formal > maintenance. Men had a nasty habit of dumping such ladies and offspring > when she neared 40. (Ore 1834, the parish handled the case, post 1834, > the Guardians might bring pressure, but basically it was up to the > woman.) Best to catch the man while he was still in touch or in fairly > responsive mode. > > > >Sorry to put so many questions to you. Perhaps a pointer to a good book > >would be more appropriate? > Annals of the Poor: Illegitimacy McL guides > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

Listers: An interesting aspect of this is that almost all these bridegrooms-to-be who pledged £200 didn't actually have it - certainly not in ready cash, and in most cases not even by selling all their worldly goods. A familiarity with wills of the period makes this clear (and bridegrooms were much younger, and so poorer, than testators). £200 was just an awful lot of money. So while Eve and others are undoubtedly right in saying that the £200 was legally payable to the bishop if the marriage didn't go ahead, this very rarely happened. In practice the bond amounted to a binding promise to go ahead with the marriage. Best wishes Paul Prescott > > > perhaps the £200 from > > >the groom would be forfeit to the father who, after all, would be making > the > > >marriage settlement for his daughter. Equally, if the bride's family > didn't > > >come up to scratch, the other £200 from the father may be forfeit to the > > >prospective groom. > > no, mever - the money would be forfeit to the Bishop, assuming anything > > went wrong. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 03-03-2004

In message <002201c402a1$50f8f660$47ccfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >Thank you very much Eve. Just what I needed to fill in my knowledge gap in >this particular direction. Having already read messages mentioning >Hardwick's marriage act, I now know about that one too and could look at >this act, possibly, or writing upon it. I suppose it was there to counteract >the marriage 'shops'. How long did the effect of this act last? Until July 1837, everyone (except Quakers and Jews) had to marry in the Church oif England, in theory in their own parish, in practice anywhere which would rake the money.In 1837 it became possible 1. for anyone to choose instead a register office, and 2. for nonconformists to marry in their own chapel, or at least denomination, but only if the pastor had registered it for marriages. Both parties had to be (Baptists/Independents/whatever) no mixed ,marriages allowed. > Does it >still pertain in any respect? If you want a church marriage, in theory you or one of you should belong to that parish and have been baptised CofE. Most clergy seem glad of the trade, but you do get men of principle. >What effect would it have upon 19th and early >20th century and couples who >lived together in an apparently marital union that lasted for life but were >never officially married? No prob unless sarky neighbours found out and chose to mock > Presumably it would not permit either to have any >claim on the other's estate That is the real difficulty. The person with money would have to specify ' my wife or reputed wife Emma or, Emma Bloggs now residing with me' She could claim absolutely nothing if he died intesttae >. What would be the responsibility for any >children born of these unions, particularly when it came to supporting >infants? If the mother was wise or cynical, she either got a substantial sum settled on her or the children at once, or she went to law to get formal maintenance. Men had a nasty habit of dumping such ladies and offspring when she neared 40. (Ore 1834, the parish handled the case, post 1834, the Guardians might bring pressure, but basically it was up to the woman.) Best to catch the man while he was still in touch or in fairly responsive mode. > >Sorry to put so many questions to you. Perhaps a pointer to a good book >would be more appropriate? Annals of the Poor: Illegitimacy McL guides -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Thank you very much Eve. Just what I needed to fill in my knowledge gap in this particular direction. Having already read messages mentioning Hardwick's marriage act, I now know about that one too and could look at this act, possibly, or writing upon it. I suppose it was there to counteract the marriage 'shops'. How long did the effect of this act last? Does it still pertain in any respect? What effect would it have upon 19th and early 20th century and couples who lived together in an apparently marital union that lasted for life but were never officially married? Presumably it would not permit either to have any claim on the other's estate. What would be the responsibility for any children born of these unions, particularly when it came to supporting infants? Sorry to put so many questions to you. Perhaps a pointer to a good book would be more appropriate? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Some document understanding please! > In message <004e01c40135$d137b540$34e8fc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" > <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes > >My reading of it is this, although I have to say that I have no experience > >of marriage bonds. > > > >Any money mentioned in a bond has generally, in probate terms (don't know > >about marriage though), a penal element. It is usually, in probate, twice > >the value of the estate and is set so high as to be a charge on the > >administrators if they don't carry out their duties as they should. Can I > >guess that this cash also carries a penalty, conditional on the marriage > >taking place? Is this right? > The penalty money for a licence is only payable if the information is > false to an extent which prevents or voids the marriage (for instance, > saying you were 25 when you were 16 would be immaterial. Saying you > were a bacheklor when you had a living wife would void the marriage and > bring the penalty clauise into play.) > > > >25th March, in the callendar used at that time, was New Year's Day. > The significance of the date, 25 March 1754, is that the Hardwicke Act > came into force, with tighter rules for marrying. > > > perhaps the £200 from > >the groom would be forfeit to the father who, after all, would be making the > >marriage settlement for his daughter. Equally, if the bride's family didn't > >come up to scratch, the other £200 from the father may be forfeit to the > >prospective groom. > no, mever - the money would be forfeit to the Bishop, assuming anything > went wrong. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > THREADED archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

In message <004e01c40135$d137b540$34e8fc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >My reading of it is this, although I have to say that I have no experience >of marriage bonds. > >Any money mentioned in a bond has generally, in probate terms (don't know >about marriage though), a penal element. It is usually, in probate, twice >the value of the estate and is set so high as to be a charge on the >administrators if they don't carry out their duties as they should. Can I >guess that this cash also carries a penalty, conditional on the marriage >taking place? Is this right? The penalty money for a licence is only payable if the information is false to an extent which prevents or voids the marriage (for instance, saying you were 25 when you were 16 would be immaterial. Saying you were a bacheklor when you had a living wife would void the marriage and bring the penalty clauise into play.) > >25th March, in the callendar used at that time, was New Year's Day. The significance of the date, 25 March 1754, is that the Hardwicke Act came into force, with tighter rules for marrying. > perhaps the £200 from >the groom would be forfeit to the father who, after all, would be making the >marriage settlement for his daughter. Equally, if the bride's family didn't >come up to scratch, the other £200 from the father may be forfeit to the >prospective groom. no, mever - the money would be forfeit to the Bishop, assuming anything went wrong. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society