To Judith, Eve, Guy, Norman and others, thankyou for answering my question, on a date that I requested, which turned out to be Hardwicke, I really thought I had struck Gold, but never mind, obviously my history is no so good. Thanks for your kind help, Jan Robb....N.Z.

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

So nothing much changes. People still have several different jobs in order to make ends meet. What they put on their tax forms is something that must give them a headache. This must also have been the case in the 19th century when stating their occupations to the census takers or any other official document. One thing that does occur today and must have equally been the case then is changing one's job and complete occupational direction. Back at the beginning of the police force in London, my 3 x great grandfather gave his occupation on his son and daughter's baptismal entry as mariner when, in fact, he had been a policeman for more than a year. This was very confusing until I looked into the origins of the early police force and found that the few policemen that were around suffered threats to their own and their families' lives, personal assault and all sorts. I should imagine that he and his wife took a joint decision to conceal his true occupation. By the time the last child was born and registered in the civil registry, the police force was regarded in a better light and he probably felt sufficiently confident to declare his true occupation of police constable as this is what appears. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sally Welker" <sally@allidaho.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 7:23 AM Subject: [OEL] Combined Occupation > My 3xGGranddad was listed on the 1861 Walsall Census as tailor and letter carrier...on his death certificate a few years later his occupation was given as hair dresser!? His son (my 2xGGranddad) was the informant...Still puzzled... > Sally in USA > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Dear Jan I'd like to thank you too for giving the knowledgeable members of the list a chance to enlighten me too. Audrey (not Norman) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Robb" <kwrobb@ispnz.co.nz> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 7:04 AM Subject: [OEL] A Big Thanks!! > To Judith, Eve, Guy, Norman and others, thankyou for answering my question, on a date that I requested, which turned out to be Hardwicke, I really thought I had struck Gold, but never mind, obviously my history is no so good. > > Thanks for your kind help, > Jan Robb....N.Z. > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Hi again, Perhaps I did not make things that clear on my request, but William Robbs second marriage took place by licence 6th January 1762 the application was in January 1762 and the bond also. The date of 25th March 1754 with any precontract which would affect things in 1762 made me wonder if this was the date of his first marriage. He had not lived in that area for long, and is supposed to have come from Scotland where his first marriage could have taken place there beforehand, or in England if he came as a lad. Thanks for any help, Jan Robb.

And perhaps a new twist on "brown baker"! On Thursday, March 04, 2004 5:47 AM, Roy [SMTP:roy.cox@btinternet.com] wrote: > Didn't have far to go for his fuel! > > > Kind Regards > > June & Roy > http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sandra Lovegrove [mailto:sandra@lovegrove.org.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:28 PM > To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [OEL] unusual combined occupation > > How about this for an unusual combined occupation: "baker and coal dealer" > (Orston, Notts. 1891).. > > SANDRA LOVEGROVE >

In message <001401c4014a$0bc9d1c0$1f677cca@oemcomputer>, Ken Robb <kwrobb@ispnz.co.nz> writes >Hi again, > Perhaps I did not make things that clear on my request, but William >Robbs second marriage took place by licence 6th January 1762 the application was >in January 1762 and the bond also. > >The date of 25th March 1754 with any precontract which would affect things in >1762 made me wonder if this was the date of his first marriage. no, date of the Hardwick Act. If he had already contracted a valid first marriage, then nothing which happened before 1754 could invalidate a second marriage in 1762. Nut the rules were different pre 1754. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <070801c4014d$bf6fc7e0$0ca1bd50@lovegrove>, Sandra Lovegrove <sandra@lovegrove.org.uk> writes >How about this for an unusual combined occupation: "baker and coal dealer" no problem/ if the batch turns out well, they sell it as bread or cakes/ If it burns, they sell it as coal. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

>Can you first tell me why was 200 pounds would be involved in this Bond? A notional figure for a Bishop's licence -only payable if the couple defaulted on marrying or they were not free to marry. > >My other question relates to this - there is a particular date mentioned in BOTH >documents, that could have an impediment, if there was a pre contract - the >Application states, > >"The condition of this obligation is such that if hereafter there shall not >appear any lawfull Sett or Impediment by reason of any pre-contract entered into >before the twenty fifth day of March, one thousand, seven hundred and fifty >four, Consanguity, Affinity, or any other lawful ....... whatever, but that the >above William Robb and Sarah Cleaton of the Parish of Houghton, Spinster may >lawfully solemnise marriage together".......and so it continues. > >Is it possible the twice mentioned date of 25th March 1754 This was the date when the Hardwicke Act 'for the better prevention of clancestine marriage' came into operation, tightening up the rules. Before then, it was easier to contract a slightly dodgy marriage in the Fleet or before any clergyman, not (as after) a beneficed parish clergyman, in a licensed church. And also, before 1754, a betrothal before other persons counted as a bar to marriage to another, unless the first lady released the man from the contract. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

My 3xGGranddad was listed on the 1861 Walsall Census as tailor and letter carrier...on his death certificate a few years later his occupation was given as hair dresser!? His son (my 2xGGranddad) was the informant...Still puzzled... Sally in USA

Greetings Listers from New Zealand, I received some wonderful help from you last year and now am back again with another request. I have a William Robb/Robe who married in Houghton, Huntingdonshire in 1762. It was his second marriage. Because his wife to be was only nineteen years of age, he had to sign a bond including 200 pounds alongside his future father in law, and before that make an Application to marry. Can you first tell me why was 200 pounds would be involved in this Bond? My other question relates to this - there is a particular date mentioned in BOTH documents, that could have an impediment, if there was a pre contract - the Application states, "The condition of this obligation is such that if hereafter there shall not appear any lawfull Sett or Impediment by reason of any pre-contract entered into before the twenty fifth day of March, one thousand, seven hundred and fifty four, Consanguity, Affinity, or any other lawful ....... whatever, but that the above William Robb and Sarah Cleaton of the Parish of Houghton, Spinster may lawfully solemnise marriage together".......and so it continues. Is it possible the twice mentioned date of 25th March 1754 is his first marriage please. Thanking you in anticipation, Jan Robb.......Central Otago......Lord of the Rings country.

Another coal dealer married a greengrocer's daughter in the 1960s. She was still a greengrocer after marriage and he was still a coal merchant so you could almost say that their combined occupations were coal dealer and greengrocer. Do you think that your coal dealer's wife may have been a baker? Yet another contemporary combined occupation is garage mechanic and milk delivery person - husband garage mechanic, wife milk deliverer. Husband sometimes helped collect the money from milk customers. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra Lovegrove" <sandra@lovegrove.org.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:27 PM Subject: [OEL] unusual combined occupation > How about this for an unusual combined occupation: "baker and coal dealer" > (Orston, Notts. 1891).. > > SANDRA LOVEGROVE > > Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. > Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Yes of course it is that'll teach to reply when I am rushing out. Cheers Guy Polly Rubery wrote: > Whilst Guy is quite correct in his explanation of what this document is, and > the reason for the £200 bond, he is mistaken in saying: > > >>>The date (25 March 1754) would be the date the licence was granted i.e. > > the date from which the couple could marry.<< > > The date has nothing to do with this couple - it was the date when > Hardwicke's Marriage Act came into force, the law under which the > documentation was issued and enforced. And before that date a pre-contract > was equally binding as an actual marriage ceremony, although not afterwards, > so hence the meaning of the term quoted. > > In fact a licence was normally only valid for a specific date, given on it, > as it seems that you have, or a fairly short term afterwards (also > specified). > HTH > Polly > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > -- Wakefield, England http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts not promises! I use CDs produced by Archive CD Books to assist fellow researchers http://www.archivecdbooks.org http://www.framland.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Worldwide Cemetery Links, Monumental Inscriptions, War Graves, etc.

Hi Audrey Yes you are correct in that the money mentioned is a "penal element". However the person who gets the money if an impediment to the marriage is discovered is not the other party signing the bond, but the person issuing the licence - it will say who on the bond. All the people signing the bond are liable to forfeit it, so hopefully preventing the groom marrying the bride bigamously (say) and disappearing into thin air! If he does the others would have to cough up. Thus they made sure all was above board before signing, which of course was the whole point of the excercise. Polly

Didn't have far to go for his fuel! Kind Regards June & Roy http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Sandra Lovegrove [mailto:sandra@lovegrove.org.uk] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:28 PM To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] unusual combined occupation How about this for an unusual combined occupation: "baker and coal dealer" (Orston, Notts. 1891).. SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

How about this for an unusual combined occupation: "baker and coal dealer" (Orston, Notts. 1891).. SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk

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? 25th March, in the callendar used at that time, was New Year's Day. This may have a bearing on the conditions of possible impediment to the marriage taking place and would perhaps be a cut-off point for looking for, for instance, consanguinity. As this condition included in-laws as well as blood relatives, you can see that there may have had to be some research carried out to decide. It could be that if any of these impediments were to render the marriage impossible to carry out, according to contract, then 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. I don't think the previous marriage had a great deal to do with it except in the question of possible consanguinity. If it were found that any of the groom's relatives, including those by marriage, had shared blood with any of the bride's, then the marriage would be null and void. Can someone who is more conversant with this subject put in their pennyworth as I would love to know if I am right in any way about the above. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Robb" <kwrobb@ispnz.co.nz> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:20 AM Subject: [OEL] Some document understanding please! > Greetings Listers from New Zealand, > I received some wonderful help from you last year and now am back again with another request. > > I have a William Robb/Robe who married in Houghton, Huntingdonshire in 1762. It was his second marriage. > > Because his wife to be was only nineteen years of age, he had to sign a bond including 200 pounds alongside his future father in law, and before that make an Application to marry. > > Can you first tell me why was 200 pounds would be involved in this Bond? > > My other question relates to this - there is a particular date mentioned in BOTH documents, that could have an impediment, if there was a pre contract - the Application states, > > "The condition of this obligation is such that if hereafter there shall not appear any lawfull Sett or Impediment by reason of any pre-contract entered into before the twenty fifth day of March, one thousand, seven hundred and fifty four, Consanguity, Affinity, or any other lawful ....... whatever, but that the above William Robb and Sarah Cleaton of the Parish of Houghton, Spinster may lawfully solemnise marriage together".......and so it continues. > > Is it possible the twice mentioned date of 25th March 1754 is his first marriage please. > > Thanking you in anticipation, > Jan Robb.......Central Otago......Lord of the Rings country. > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Whilst Guy is quite correct in his explanation of what this document is, and the reason for the £200 bond, he is mistaken in saying: >>The date (25 March 1754) would be the date the licence was granted i.e. the date from which the couple could marry.<< The date has nothing to do with this couple - it was the date when Hardwicke's Marriage Act came into force, the law under which the documentation was issued and enforced. And before that date a pre-contract was equally binding as an actual marriage ceremony, although not afterwards, so hence the meaning of the term quoted. In fact a licence was normally only valid for a specific date, given on it, as it seems that you have, or a fairly short term afterwards (also specified). HTH Polly

This is a one-time post, NOT TO BE REPLIED TO. Discussion of computer viruses/worms is off topic here, but there are several sneaky ones out just in the past week and I wouldn't anyone caught off guard. First of all, there's no need to unsubscribe. You are not going to get a virus/worm from RootsWeb's lists; RootsWeb strips all attachments, doesn't permit HTML and limits the size of messages in order to prevent this. These recent worms pretend to be from your internet service provider or system administrator (so they look authentic) saying your account will be closed in a few days, temporarily suspended, etc., and referring you to an attached .zip file for more information. Don't open it, but delete immediately. It contains a self-executing, self-propagating worm. Please be sure your virus protection is up to date -- don't rely on automatic updates, but go to your program now and download the latest definitions. I've updated mine twice just this morning. If you need to respond, please contact me rather than posting to the list. You can get more information from your virus program's website. If have questions, you can subscribe with this link and ask: VIRUS-DISCUSSION-L-request@rootsweb.com Judith Werner Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH-L http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Some confusion here I think, what you have seems to be an ordinary marriage bond of a type required before a couple could marry by licence. Due to them marrying by licence they bypass the normal checking process that a marriage by banns allows, therefore, a form of insurance (the bond) is called for. The money (£200) was a punitive sum to ensure there were no legal impediments to the marriage, it would not be paid if the marriage was legal and above board. It did not relate to the financial standing of the couple or their ability to pay, should the need arise. The date (25 March 1754) would be the date the licence was granted i.e. the date from which the couple could marry. Ken Robb wrote: > Greetings Listers from New Zealand, > I received some wonderful help from you last year and now am back again with another request. > > I have a William Robb/Robe who married in Houghton, Huntingdonshire in 1762. It was his second marriage. > > Because his wife to be was only nineteen years of age, he had to sign a bond including 200 pounds alongside his future father in law, and before that make an Application to marry. > > Can you first tell me why was 200 pounds would be involved in this Bond? > > My other question relates to this - there is a particular date mentioned in BOTH documents, that could have an impediment, if there was a pre contract - the Application states, > > "The condition of this obligation is such that if hereafter there shall not appear any lawfull Sett or Impediment by reason of any pre-contract entered into before the twenty fifth day of March, one thousand, seven hundred and fifty four, Consanguity, Affinity, or any other lawful ....... whatever, but that the above William Robb and Sarah Cleaton of the Parish of Houghton, Spinster may lawfully solemnise marriage together".......and so it continues. > > Is it possible the twice mentioned date of 25th March 1754 is his first marriage please. > > Thanking you in anticipation, > Jan Robb.......Central Otago......Lord of the Rings country. > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > -- Wakefield, England http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts not promises! Archive CD Books have helped my research http://www.archivecdbooks.org http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~framland/CHURCH/church.htm Churches & MIs. in the Wakefield Area