From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:54:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 00:13:12, Ian Goddard    
   >wrote:   
   >>On 22/06/2020 23:12, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >>> I'm trying to trace a Mary Smith!   
   >>>  Yes, about as impossible as it could be. My 5th Great Grandmother.   
   >>>  Married at St. Oswalds, Cheshire (I think it's actually in Backford,   
   >>>3.7  miles north of Chester), 1767-June-1, to George Mason; I have the   
   >>>scan  of the marriage register entry. Both were of the/this parish.   
   >>>Witnesses  Tho.s Smith and Samuel Mason. By Licence.   
   >>>  I have also found in "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and   
   >>>allegations  1606-1905" a couple of documents (handwritten bits   
   >>>, rest printed  form):   
   >>>  "... we >>Yeoman  and Thomas Smith of the City of Chester Carrier> are ... bound   
   >>>... in  the Sum of  Pounds   
   >>> ...   
   >>> the above bounden  now licenced   
   >>>to  be married together ..."   
   >>>  1. Is Thomas Smith going to be Mary's father?   
   >>> 2. Isn't a hundred pounds a vast amount in 1767 (King George III)?   
   >>>  The other, similar, document (1767-6-1):   
   >>>  "... appeared personally >>of  Eastham and County and Diocese of Chester Yeoman> ... alledged and   
   >>>made  Oath as follows, That he is of the Age of  Years   
   >>>and  upwards, and a  and intends to marry >>parish  of Saint Oswald in the City and Diocese of Chester> aged   
   >>>  Years and upwards, and a  ... and he prayed a   
   >>>Licence to  solemnise the said Marriage ..."   
   >>>  3. "Years and upwards" puzzles me, as a specific number (25 and 21)   
   >>>is  handwritten in; are these likely to be their actual ages?   
   >>> 4. As she's 21 (or "upwards"?), why does her father (if Thomas _is_   
   >>>her  father) need to be involved?   
   >>> 5. Was it normal for a Licence to be "prayed" (I assume that means   
   >>>applied for) the same day as the actual wedding?   
   >>>  I'm new to marriage "bonds and allegations". Is it sort of a   
   >>>(monetary)  deposit of good faith, that the couple are not related or   
   >>>that there is  otherwise nothing that could impede the marriage? Was   
   >>>the money actually  paid, and then refunded at some later date, or   
   >>>just an obligation to pay  it accepted (which obligation became void   
   >>>at some later date)?   
   >>   
   >>I haven't had to deal with many.  The immediate purpose of the licence   
   >>was to avoid the alternative of banns.   
   >   
   >6. Did the obtaining of a licence always involve one of these "bonds"?   
   >(Of a hundred pounds, which sounds like a huge amount: >17k in today's   
   >terms.)   
   >   
   >>  Why banns were being avoided was a different matter.  It might have   
   >>been to avoid possible objections from parents but I have an example of   
   >>a couple in 1684 aged 60 and 54. In that case it may well have been   
   >>that an elderly couple preferred discretion.  On the whole I think you   
   >>need to know a bit more about the couple to work out motives - if you   
   >>can even do so.   
   >   
   >Unlikely, I fear.   
   >>   
   >>The "and upwards" bit seems to be legalese not confined to marriage   
   >>bonds.  I'd hazard a guess that it covers the situation when someone   
   >>wanting to throw a spanner in the works or just to pedantic says "she's   
   >>not 21, she's 21 and 2 months and 5 days".   
   >   
   >That makes sense (-:! Certainly, FindMyPast's transcribers have taken it   
   >as meaning the base age given.   
   >>   
   >>Having said all that I still wouldn't trust the 21 and upwards.  In   
   >   
   >Indeed. Especially with it being applied for on the same day as the   
   >wedding.   
   >   
   >Though with the appearance of a male Smith in the documents, which I at   
   >the moment can only assume is her father, this case may be OK.   
   >   
   >>another case the groom (in fact a descendant of the groom of the couple   
   >>I just mentioned) also married by licence stating that he was 21 when   
   >>he was under-age.  In that case the bride was a good bit older and I   
   >>think they were may have anticipated objections from his parents; at   
   >>least one of the witnesses was a cousin.  They had some odd spellings   
   >>of names which might have been innocent error or may have been an   
   >>attempt to cover tracks.  I might even distrust "Smith" as the name.   
   >   
   >Indeed!   
   >>   
   >>Ian   
   >   
   >A couple more questions (added to 6. above):   
   >   
   >7. I've got another marriage in the same area and era, and again there   
   >seem to be two similar but not identical documents. Any idea why (there   
   >are the two)?   
   >   
   >8. One of the documents (for each marriage), in the pre-printed section,   
   >has "... not knowing or believing any lawful Let, or Impediment, by   
   >reason of any Praecontract, entered into before the Twenty-fifth Day of   
   >March, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four, ... to hinder the said   
   >intended Marriage: ..."; this seems odd, as the document is dated later   
   >than that (it has pre-printed "One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty"   
   >[with "Five" written thereafter] at the top). What happened on 1754-3-25   
   >that made whether things were "entered into" before or after then   
   >important?   
   >   
   Anything after that date would be on the current calendar with the   
   year being unambiguous. An ambiguous (was it new or old style ?) date   
   before that could cause uncertainty where any limitation period was   
   involved.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)