I don't want to throw us off onto a tangent, but I think "Marriage by Banns" is also worth mentioning here.   Couples could be married outside of the local or civil authorities, so to speak, by "Banns".  This was a posted and/or published intent to be married by a couple at their local church or meeting house for (usually) three consecutive weeks.  If no objection was raised by anyone in the church or community, the minister, reverend, etc. would/could marry the couple.  This "Marriage by Banns" did not require a reporting of the marriage to the courts or local govenment and thus was only recorded in the specific church records where they attended.  If the church records were somehow lost or destroyed, you'd better hope the 'Marriage by Banns' was recorded in the family bible.  Otherwise, no record of the marriage itself will be found.  Such a situation is highly frustrating in that you know the individuals were married, but you can't find a record.  More often than not, it's because it was by "banns" and an "official" record will not and cannot ever be found.   A more legal and better definition of "Marriage by Banns" can be found in "Black's Law Dicitionary, Sixth Edition":   "[Banns of Matrimony]: Public notice or proclamation of a matrimonial contract, and the intended celebration of the marriage of the parties in pursuance of such contract.  Such announcement is required by certain religions to be made in a church or chapel, during service, on three consecutive Sundays before the marriage is celebrated.  The object of [this] is to afford an opportunity for any person to interpose an objection if he knows any impediment or other just cause why the marriage should not take place."   One of the main objections that could be raised back then was a previous marriage by either the groom or bride.  Bigamy existed back then just as it does today, and I'm sure it was much more difficult to 'prove'.   Michael Sellers --- On Sat, 5/23/09, Julie <juls92627@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Julie <juls92627@yahoo.com> Subject: [VAROCKIN] Minister's Returns, To: varockin@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 1:40 PM Bonnie,   Michael, is right, there is more genealogical info on the bonds.  the returns seem to be a piece of paper that ministers write on saying/verifying that he did marry them.  Sometimes its only a scrap of paper, sometimes the front and back of a piece of paper.    what they can help you with, is letting you know possible siblings, or maybe spellings of names if they weren't clear on the bond.  The other thing, is that since Virginia's historical documents are kind of spotty, a return might have survived and not the bond or vice versa.   Since the Bonds are easier to read and usually organized, I think (am not sure and haven't researched it) some of the books on marriages are from the bonds and not the returns so you might find other relatives.   an example - I found a previously unknown Elizabeth LeHEW who married William WALTERS in 1819, and before their marriage there was a Jacob WALTERS who married a WELCH.  So since there are a lot of Elizabeth and Wm Walters, I keep an eye out for Jacob Walters too, hoping that they might have traveled with them.    If  you already know about the marriage, then you might want to rent the film at a family history center or library and see if it will give you more information on your family.  I found a daughter of my Peter LeHew's and had it confirmed, because in the bond, the bondsman was Peter Edward's brother-in-law.  Granted I haven't been able to find her after about 1790, lol - but I now know Junie/a Lehew married Daniel Maiden/Madden.    I hope that helps - If you would like to see examples of both or either, just let me know (this is for anybody) and I'll send you some   Julie --- On Sat, 5/23/09, Bonnie Schrack <bschrack1@comcast.net> wrote: From: Bonnie Schrack <bschrack1@comcast.net> Subject: [VAROCKIN] [Fwd: Re: Minister's Returns, Shenandoah Co., VA, 1825-6, #2 (2167846)] To: varockin@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 10:07 AM I think we both meant to reply to the list rather than off list, so I'm posting this here. Bonnie -------- Original Message -------- Thanks very much, Michael, this is just what I was helpfully told by Jan off list, but you've provided a few more details! This is a great list.  You'll probably be hearing a lot more from me. ;-) Bonnie Michael Sellers wrote: > I may be all wet on this, and, if so, I'm sure some nice folks will > correct me while helping you out at the same time. >  > The Marriage Bond itself will most likely contain way more > genealogical type information than the Minister Return. >  > Around 1660 or so Virginia enacted a law requiring the Marriage Bond.  > The law required that all persons wishing to be married with a > Marriage License to go to their county clerk and to give Bond with > sufficient monetary security that essentially guaranteed or promised > that there wasn't a lawful cause or reason that could prevent the > marriage.  The "bondsman" or person providing the "surety" was usually > related to the BRIDE, but it was quite possible for the bondsman to be > related to the groom. >  > Once the Bond was monetarily secured, the license was prepared by the > county clerk and was given to the Minister who would perform the > ceremony.  After performing such, the Minister would sign the > "Minister Return" stating that he had indeed married the individuals > on the license and would send that back to the clerk for recording.  > Thus, the information contained in the initial Bond would have more > genealogical information because it also included the person or > persons who would be providing the bond or surety.  The Minister > Return was simply the Minister's signature and "proof" that he had > indeed married the two individuals named on the license.  No other > individuals needed to be mentioned or named on the Minister Return. >  > Hope that helps. >  > Michael Sellers > > --- On *Sat, 5/23/09, Bonnie Schrack /<bschrack1@comcast.net>/* wrote: > > >     From: Bonnie Schrack <bschrack1@comcast.net> >     Subject: Re: [VAROCKIN] Minister's Returns, Shenandoah Co., VA, >     1825-6, #2 (2167846) >     To: varockin@rootsweb.com >     Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 9:56 AM > >     Hi Julie, > >     Thanks very much for all you're posting. > >     About Minister's Returns -- this term is new to me.  I just found out >     there's a  record of a crucial marriage of one of my ancestors in the >     Minister's Returns from Rockingham Co, and it's at HRHS.  What is >     this >     record likely to contain?   How are these different from Marriage >     Bonds?  Do they have more information, or less? > >     The abstract of the marriage of Jacob Hoover and Elizabeth >     Shoemaker has >     been included in the books by Strickler and by Vogt, and they both >     show >     Peter Hoover having signed a consent note for this marriage. >     Strickler >     has him as the father.  We need to see some original document stating >     that Peter is the father of Jacob.  This is the crucial link in the >     chain that we need to connect us with Peter Hoover, the son of >     Sebastian >     Hoover (of Pendleton Co.)  Any help will be greatly appreciated. > >     Bonnie Schrack > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VAROCKIN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message       ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VAROCKIN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message