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.

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

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/ > >

>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