It is my understanding that a bond was as has been described, i.e., the bondsman was more or less guaranteeing that the marriage was legal and clear. Banns referred to banns that were published for a period of about 4 Sundays in the church paper or whatever. It was free and no money had to be raised or exchanged. These marriages were usually performed by the pastor of the church. Don't carve this in stone, but that is how it was explained to me...Jo Malinda Jones wrote: > Does anyone know what typically prompted a decision to choose one way over > the other ? My family lines were predominantly Protestant where marriage > bonds were used. Just wondering if that was a factor. > > Malinda Jones > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fredric Z. Saunders [mailto:fzsaund@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 12:54 PM > To: ROWANROOTS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [RowanRoots] Banns versus Marriage Bonds > > G. Lee Hearl [glh@naxs.com] stated: > >Betty, > >My understanding is that no money was involved in posting bonds for a > >marriage license.. It was only a promise to pay in case the marriage proved > >to be illegal for some reason.. The same as bonds are made today for > >appearance in court.. The bondsman obligates himself to pay if the person > >dosen't appear in court.. > >G. Lee Hearl.. > ===================================================== > > There would be small fees involved in having the bond filled out and filed, > the same as today. It is just that the 500 pounds of the bond was not paid. > That, as you stated, was just security to guarantee there were no legal > impediments to the marriage. > > Bonds would be more expensive than banns, because of the charge in having > the bond filled out. They were also quicker, with most marriages occurring > within a few days of the bond. > > Rick Saunders > http://pweb.netcom.com/~fzsaund/0.html