RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Yorkshire (West Riding) => Topic started by: Ermintrude46 on Wednesday 11 September 24 17:48 BST (UK)
-
Hello,
My 4x great grandfather, Joseph Hindle married Margaret Chatburn by licence in Keighley in 1792 three weeks before their first child was born. From other records, Joseph was born around 1770/1771. On the marriage licence he is shown as a serving man and signs his name. The sponsor is another Joseph Hindle, shown as a husbandman, and he makes his mark.
A lot of trees on Ancestry have my Joseph as son of Joseph Hindle, weaver of Bingley and Anne Rogers (a widow) who were married at Keighley in 1761. However, this Joseph signed his name at his marriage so I'm not totally convinced...
I think Joseph Hindle, the sponsor of my Joseph, married Susan Butterfield at Bradford in 1795 (he's a husbandman and makes a mark at his marriage) and there were at least four children baptised at Keighley between then and 1802. That Joseph and my Joseph are both shown as 'of Hope (Street)' in the parish records for Keighley which is another hint of their connection.
My question is, who could be a sponsor for a marriage licence? Is Joseph the husbandman likely to be my Joseph's father remarrying late in life? Or could the two Joseph's be a similar age or would a cousin in his early 20s not be of sufficient standing to be a sponsor on a marriage licence?
Best,
Ermy
-
Hello,
My 4x great grandfather, Joseph Hindle married Margaret Chatburn by licence in Keighley in 1792 three weeks before their first child was born. From other records, Joseph was born around 1770/1771. On the marriage licence he is shown as a serving man and signs his name. The sponsor is another Joseph Hindle, shown as a husbandman, and he makes his mark.
A lot of trees on Ancestry have my Joseph as son of Joseph Hindle, weaver of Bingley and Anne Rogers (a widow) who were married at Keighley in 1761. However, this Joseph signed his name at his marriage so I'm not totally convinced...
I think Joseph Hindle, the sponsor of my Joseph, married Susan Butterfield at Bradford in 1795 (he's a husbandman and makes a mark at his marriage) and there were at least four children baptised at Keighley between then and 1802. That Joseph and my Joseph are both shown as 'of Hope (Street)' in the parish records for Keighley which is another hint of their connection.
My question is, who could be a sponsor for a marriage licence? Is Joseph the husbandman likely to be my Joseph's father remarrying late in life? Or could the two Joseph's be a similar age or would a cousin in his early 20s not be of sufficient standing to be a sponsor on a marriage licence?
Best,
Ermy
Hi Ermy
Very rare! more than just a very few marriage licences survived as public records ! so unless you have an original marriage licence document passed down through your family, then its most likely you have a Bond allegation of intent to marry official document, the sponsor was called a bondsman and could be anyone, or a related carrying the paternal family surname and could be a father or grandfather, cousin, uncle with a same name ? as the intended grooms full name
-
My question is, who could be a sponsor for a marriage licence? Is Joseph the husbandman likely to be my Joseph's father remarrying late in life? Or could the two Joseph's be a similar age or would a cousin in his early 20s not be of sufficient standing to be a sponsor on a marriage licence?
Best,
Ermy
From familysearch.com
The bond, sworn "by two sufficient witnesses", one of whom was usually the groom, his father or a friend, pledged to forfeit a large sum of money (ranging from £40 to £200), if there was any consanguinity (a relationship within the prohibited degrees) between the parties or any pre-contract to another person. The large sum of money to be forfeit was intended to underline the serious nature of the oath, and it should not be thought that the couple had these funds at their disposal. The second bondsman soon became a formality, any convenient person acting. Later the second bondsman was often completely fictitious, names like John Doe and Richard Row being used
On the whole, it's difficult to decide who the bondsman were on these allegations, unless it's specifically stated.
As you can see from this clip, they could be family, friends, or even just a made up name.
-
Thanks both, that's useful information if somewhat disappointing that I can't now make any assumptions about the relationship of my Joseph Hindle and his bondsman!
Best,
Ermy