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