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

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 <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

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