RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: BumbleB on Sunday 04 August 24 12:15 BST (UK)
-
In helping a fellow RC member I found a marriage in 1795 by Licence. Not something I've come across before - the licence was granted on the day of the marriage by the Rector who conducted the ceremony - my previous searchings have normally found the Bond and Allegation issued some time prior to the marriage ceremony date.
Being nosey I have looked at other entries in this same marriage register and found that it was fairly common for the licence to be issued on the actual day of the marriage by the Rector.
Any thoughts, anyone?
-
From a very useful page on Familysearch wiki, adapted from Anthony Camp's article 'The history and value of genealogical records: marriage by license' in Practical Family History (UK), no. 53 (May 2002) pages 34-36:
https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Marriage_Allegations,_Bonds_and_Licences_in_England_and_Wales#License_Procedure
"Because of its general authority one occasionally finds that a license has been accepted in a place not specified in the document. Many licenses were issued by local clergymen acting as surrogates and before 1754 many of the marriages they authorised took place in their own churches and not in the churches specified. Elsewhere, the license was frequently applied for on the day before the marriage, but in these cases it is often found to have been issued on the same day. "
-
Many thanks for that information.
-
Many thanks for that information.
You're welcome, I am not quite sure what it means though ::). Perhaps that the vicar acted as surrogate for the Bishop? Since cash was involved one wonders if some vicars perhaps acted above their intended authority and made money selling licenses :o?
-
Appointing surrogates regularly reported in newspapers - examples from 1790s
-
Very many thanks. It just proves that you can learn something new every day. ;D
-
Hmm, I am not 100% sure this is the same as the example that BumbleB first mentioned. It appears all marriage licenses, and the bonds, allegations etc. were signed before a surrogate, rarely if ever in front of the actual Bishop or Archbishop. So surrogates were just members of the clergy who probably worked at the specific 'HQ' of the local Diocese, Archdeaconry etc. who people (usually the groom) came before to get a marriage license:
"Allegations and bond
To obtain a marriage licence in Hampshire, one of the parties (usually the groom) would appear before the Bishop’s official (surrogate) and make a declaration. They would provide information about the couple and confirm there were no impediments to the marriage taking place. If one party was a minor (under 21) a parent or guardian would also appear to give their consent. Until 1823 a bond was also required, signed by kinsmen who bound themselves to pay a large sum of money if the marriage were later found to be unlawful."
https://www.hants.gov.uk/librariesandarchives/archives/popular-records/marriages-by-license
-
Yes, m-s, that is how I have always understood marriage by licence, which is why I was surprised with the parish record entry/ies I found where the events took place on the same day.
-
I found that some couples who were recorded as of All Saints & Holy Trinity in Dorchester respectively then married in the parish of Bradford Peverell, since that was where the vicar (in charge of both parishes) actually resided. This was 18th century. Perhaps this may be why the licence was applied for on the same day that the marriage took place, to save a double journey to church. The vicar obviously was not inclined to travel into Dorchester.
Nell
-
Someone once claimed on RC to have found a marriage licence from 1791 (as given to the couple, not the bond/allegation thingies)
We got an actual, real marriage licence tucked into the Mountfield register though! David Shanks and Mary Burgess. How cool!
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/62126/images/62049_314054000109_3568-00056
I guess it will also be on FamilySearch
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-X9XQ-MM
-
Hmm, I am not 100% sure this is the same as the example that BumbleB first mentioned. It appears all marriage licenses, and the bonds, allegations etc. were signed before a surrogate, rarely if ever in front of the actual Bishop or Archbishop. So surrogates were just members of the clergy who probably worked at the specific 'HQ' of the local Diocese, Archdeaconry etc. who people (usually the groom) came before to get a marriage license:
"Allegations and bond
To obtain a marriage licence in Hampshire, one of the parties (usually the groom) would appear before the Bishop’s official (surrogate) and make a declaration. They would provide information about the couple and confirm there were no impediments to the marriage taking place. If one party was a minor (under 21) a parent or guardian would also appear to give their consent. Until 1823 a bond was also required, signed by kinsmen who bound themselves to pay a large sum of money if the marriage were later found to be unlawful."
https://www.hants.gov.uk/librariesandarchives/archives/popular-records/marriages-by-license
Hence why it is always good to trace the bondsman or woman if they had a different surname to the spouse/s. Although many of them were not always kinsmen but friends, or a local pillar of the community.
I have found a few marriages where the license was issued on the same day of marriage.
-
Working on the SoG Great Card Index I see a lot of licences dated either the same day or the previous day of the marriage. Much more common than a bigger lapse of time.
-
Someone once claimed on RC to have found a marriage licence from 1791 (as given to the couple, not the bond/allegation thingies)
We got an actual, real marriage licence tucked into the Mountfield register though! David Shanks and Mary Burgess. How cool!
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/62126/images/62049_314054000109_3568-00056
I guess it will also be on FamilySearch
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-X9XQ-MM
I think I might have seen this :D. Ancestry has the Crisp's Marriage Licence collection 1713-1892, which is a collection of some of the actual licences as opposed to bonds or allegations, for the Vicar General and Faculty Office. Presumably in most cases these were just thrown away.
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/1768/
-
Many reasons why a license was applied for, from a shotgun wedding or knobstick wedding to not wanting the calling of banns. You have to wonder how many lied about their ages and said they was 21 and over when they were still under 21. No one had to show proof of age back then.
-
I seem to remember reading somewhere that marrying by licence was 'cheaper' - presumably than by banns. Did banns involve a cost, greater than that of a licence, or did a licence simply not involve a delay of three weeks ?
-
I was always under the impression it cost more to apply for a licence.
I also believe there was a bit of 'snob' value attached to getting a licence rather than just wait for the Banns to be read - for one thing, the groom, or a friend, had to be prepared to find a considerable amount of money to stump up for the bond, should it be necessary.
Quote from familysearch page:
'A marriage by license therefore became a standard symbol of social status'.
In 1597 the recommended fee for a license was ten shillings, but Richard Grey, writing in 1730, says that a fee of five shillings was then normal. At the end of the 19th century the fees, including ten shillings' tax, varied from about £2 to £3.
-
I seem to remember reading somewhere that marrying by licence was 'cheaper' - presumably than by banns. Did banns involve a cost, greater than that of a licence, or did a licence simply not involve a delay of three weeks ?
I am pretty sure that is not correct, it's the other way around. It is faster not cheaper :D.
-
A lot of marriages by licence were paid for by the parish. Marriage enforced to save future cost of a illegitimate child having to be supported by the parish.
-
A lot of marriages by licence were paid for by the parish. Marriage enforced to save future cost of a illegitimate child having to be supported by the parish.
That possibly accounts for those licences issued by the Curate/Vicar. :D
-
We were married by Common Licence (as opposed to special Licence) in 1982. This was done because my husband was not living in the parish he had been christened in; andwasn;t a regulas worshipper at the church where he lived. So the Rector explained it was easier than calling the banns in both parishes.
Nesta
-
I think I might have seen this :D. Ancestry has the Crisp's Marriage Licence collection 1713-1892, which is a collection of some of the actual licences as opposed to bonds or allegations, for the Vicar General and Faculty Office. Presumably in most cases these were just thrown away.
Hi there
Thanks for pointing that out, great stuff. I'd never noticed that collection on ancestry before. It's called Crisp's Marriage Licence Index, perhaps the title is a bit misleading!
I still like my Sussex one better though ;D
-
I think I might have seen this :D. Ancestry has the Crisp's Marriage Licence collection 1713-1892, which is a collection of some of the actual licences as opposed to bonds or allegations, for the Vicar General and Faculty Office. Presumably in most cases these were just thrown away.
Hi there
Thanks for pointing that out, great stuff. I'd never noticed that collection on ancestry before. It's called Crisp's Marriage Licence Index, perhaps the title is a bit misleading!
I still like my Sussex one better though ;D
It took a while for it to dawn on me what they were too :D! I wondered if parish clerks made a side hustle in asking people if they wanted their licences, if not could they have them, or just fishing them out of bins (did they have 'bins' hmmm ::)), then selling them on to dealers, booksellers perhaps :).
-
Marriage license bonds and allegations can be the closest thing we get to "marriage certificate" type records before July 1837, as often the father/mother/guardian or another relative signed the bond. The adding of 2 witnesses to marriages in the actual registers from 1754 onwards is very helpful for the 1754-1837 marriage records as many were relatives. Although many were just friends, neighbours, colleagues or church officials. Mid 1700s is when in many cases, getting back before then is when the paper trail starts to dry up.
-
The adding of 2 witnesses to marriages in the actual registers from 1754 onwards is very helpful for the 1754-1837 marriage records as many were relatives. Although many were just friends, neighbours, colleagues or church officials.
From the SoG's Great Card Index project, I have spotted some definite 'church officials' in the records - one Stephen Ogle was witness to loads of marriages at Rotherhithe, for example - I would guess that I've seen more than 100 of them!