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

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

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