My assumption was that they had been rejected on their previous applications, and hence could not afford to get married because they could not afford "their portion," whatever that was, and so that they and the relevant man had waited patiently until they could accumulate the money. I may be speculating wildly, however. Since many female domestic servants "lived in" at their place of employment AND could not continue in their employment once they were married, they may have had almost nothing in terms of household goods of their own with which to begin housekeeping, so perhaps a certain amount of money was considered essential to marriage. Happy hunting!   Diana Robinson (nee Gardner) Now in Rochester, NY, USA -----Original Message----- From: eve@varneys.org.uk [mailto:eve@varneys.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 7:35 AM To: michaelcoomber@aol.com; oxfordshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OXF] BARBER , TURNER and GRAINGER ( 1874 ) 1874;   WALLINGFORD. ARCHBISHOP'S LAUD'S CHARITY. At a meeting of the Charity Trustees, held on Wednesday the 7th inst., for the purpose of electing three poor maids to receive gifts of £14 each towards their marriage portions, the following were successful candidates:- Mary Margaret BARBER ( fifth application ) ; Emma TURNER ( fourth application ); and Harriet GRAINGER ( fourth application. ) The mind boggles. Were the applications for a grant on marriage to the same man? Were they funding the fourth or fifth choice? Had they abandoned any idea of marriage, or marriage to that person, because they lacked the cash to buy kitchen stuff? Did these modern young women not have a bottom drawer to fall back on? I think we should be told. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society