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