Author Topic: Is this some sort of Dowry? Wigston Magna Marriage 1772  (Read 935 times)

Offline coltman

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Is this some sort of Dowry? Wigston Magna Marriage 1772
« on: Saturday 15 January 22 17:12 GMT (UK) »
Hello,

Big ask this one please. I downloaded a scan of the original Parish Register for the marriage of John Coltman and Elizabeth Abbot 17th Oct 1772. There was a 2nd seperate document available (findmypast) which I've posted below.

I can read a lot of and dont need a transcribe, but am unsure what it means. 1st paragraph appears to be some sort of contract (dowry?) between the groom John Coltman and his future mother-in-law Patience Abbot, dated 1 day before the marriage, (16 Oct 1772).  It does say in the 2nd paragraph 'pre contract' and a 2nd date of 25 March 1774. I don't understand what it is with all the archaic legal jargon. Also, nowhere in the document does it quote the marriage date of 17 Oct 1772. Can anyone help with this please? Thanks.

Regards,

Andrew

I now think it is Patient (male)and not Patience.
Patient Abbot & Eliz. Green 2 May 1745

Phillimore's Marriages - Wigston Magna 1567 to 1837
Grt: Coltman, Peach, Kirk, Storey, Lattimer, Thorpe, Foers, and Sayles... May The Foers Be With You
x2: Neale, Smith, Cole, Bursnell, Swann, Stanley, Bellamy, and Greaves.
x3: Goodwin, Spencer, Jackson, Bingham, Laughton, Parkin, Pepper, Bell, Elliott, Cater, Morton, and Oates.
Five surname are edible items :)
Census Transcriptions are Crown Copyright from National Archives at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Galium

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,142
    • View Profile
Re: Is this some sort of Dowry? Wigston Magna Marriage 1772
« Reply #1 on: Saturday 15 January 22 17:50 GMT (UK) »
That looks like a marriage bond.  The marriage was by licence?  So John Coltman together with his bondsman, in applying for the licence had to swear to knowing of no impediment to the marriage, on pain of paying a fine of £200. 
The bondsman is almost always a man -usually a relative of the bride or groom -but in this case it is a woman, Patience Abbott.*sorry, just noticed your amendment
There is no date set for the marriage to take place when the licence is applied for, as it can be any day within a reasonable time from the licence being issued.  I have found that it is usually within a day or two, but it can be later.
UK Census info. Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline BumbleB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,742
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this some sort of Dowry? Wigston Magna Marriage 1772
« Reply #2 on: Saturday 15 January 22 17:57 GMT (UK) »
I'll agree with Galium - date of marriage appears to be 17 October 1772 (by Licence).  A marriage by licence is a substitute for a marriage by Banns - for whatever reason the participants did not wish to wait 3 weeks (Banns) before the marriage took place.
Transcriptions and NBI are merely finding aids.  They are NOT a substitute for original record entries.
Remember - "They'll be found when they want to be found" !!!
If you don't ask the question, you won't get an answer.
He/she who never made a mistake, never made anything.
Archbell - anywhere, any date
Kendall - WRY
Milner - WRY
Appleyard - WRY

Offline coltman

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: Is this some sort of Dowry? Wigston Magna Marriage 1772
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 15 January 22 19:24 GMT (UK) »
Thank you very much for the information Galium.  Yes it was by licence.  That's a lot of money in 1772.  I thought it was a transcribe error, Patient for Patience but have found 2 males with the forenames Patient and Patience and have downloaded PR for 'Elizabeth daughter of Patient Abbott bapt 27 May 1751'.

Regards, Andrew

Grt: Coltman, Peach, Kirk, Storey, Lattimer, Thorpe, Foers, and Sayles... May The Foers Be With You
x2: Neale, Smith, Cole, Bursnell, Swann, Stanley, Bellamy, and Greaves.
x3: Goodwin, Spencer, Jackson, Bingham, Laughton, Parkin, Pepper, Bell, Elliott, Cater, Morton, and Oates.
Five surname are edible items :)
Census Transcriptions are Crown Copyright from National Archives at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Offline coltman

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: Is this some sort of Dowry? Wigston Magna Marriage 1772
« Reply #4 on: Saturday 15 January 22 19:28 GMT (UK) »
Thank you BumbleB.

Regards, Andrew
Grt: Coltman, Peach, Kirk, Storey, Lattimer, Thorpe, Foers, and Sayles... May The Foers Be With You
x2: Neale, Smith, Cole, Bursnell, Swann, Stanley, Bellamy, and Greaves.
x3: Goodwin, Spencer, Jackson, Bingham, Laughton, Parkin, Pepper, Bell, Elliott, Cater, Morton, and Oates.
Five surname are edible items :)
Census Transcriptions are Crown Copyright from National Archives at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline spendlove

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,289
  • I've not edited my PROFILE yet
    • View Profile
Re: Is this some sort of Dowry? Wigston Magna Marriage 1772
« Reply #5 on: Sunday 16 January 22 18:13 GMT (UK) »
Hi,

Re the marriage bond, not sure if you have seen this but there is a second page of info.

Dated 16th October 1772, giving ages both being 21 and that both have been resident in Great Wigston for 2 years.

Spendlove
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Spendlove, Strutt in London & Middlesex.

Offline coltman

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: Is this some sort of Dowry? Wigston Magna Marriage 1772
« Reply #6 on: Sunday 16 January 22 18:28 GMT (UK) »
Hello spendlove. No I wasn't aware there was a 2nd page so thank you for that information. I've been buying them separately from findmypast and it was a single page. I did wonder if there was some sort of header page as the document isn't dated at the top. Regards, Andrew
Grt: Coltman, Peach, Kirk, Storey, Lattimer, Thorpe, Foers, and Sayles... May The Foers Be With You
x2: Neale, Smith, Cole, Bursnell, Swann, Stanley, Bellamy, and Greaves.
x3: Goodwin, Spencer, Jackson, Bingham, Laughton, Parkin, Pepper, Bell, Elliott, Cater, Morton, and Oates.
Five surname are edible items :)
Census Transcriptions are Crown Copyright from National Archives at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline coltman

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: Is this some sort of Dowry? Wigston Magna Marriage 1772
« Reply #7 on: Sunday 16 January 22 18:48 GMT (UK) »
Patient Abbot is definitely a Male in this instance, marries Eliz. Green 2 May 1745. Death in Jan 1780 doesn't state sex and then to confuse further I have a will header dated 1780 for J Abbot Patient of Great Wigston.  Hahaha.
Grt: Coltman, Peach, Kirk, Storey, Lattimer, Thorpe, Foers, and Sayles... May The Foers Be With You
x2: Neale, Smith, Cole, Bursnell, Swann, Stanley, Bellamy, and Greaves.
x3: Goodwin, Spencer, Jackson, Bingham, Laughton, Parkin, Pepper, Bell, Elliott, Cater, Morton, and Oates.
Five surname are edible items :)
Census Transcriptions are Crown Copyright from National Archives at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,226
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this some sort of Dowry? Wigston Magna Marriage 1772
« Reply #8 on: Monday 17 January 22 19:54 GMT (UK) »
As father of bride had first name Patient, might the Abbot family have been Non-conformist? That may have been a reason for marrying by licence instead of banns. If they didn't attend the Anglican church they may not have wanted banns, which were usually read out at Sunday services. One of my Catholic lines, yeoman farmers, innkeepers or business owners, generally married by licence around this time as they didn't attend the parish church on Sundays. Some of their Catholic friends & neighbours also married by licence. My Catholic lines in an adjacent parish, ag. labs., married by banns as they wouldn't have had a few shillings spare for a marriage licence.


 That's a lot of money in 1772.  I thought it was a transcribe error,

   

The sum of £200 was payable only if it turned out that what they'd sworn to was false. The bondsman was
 the guarantor for the £200, like someone who stands bail for an accused person. The £200 may not even have existed. All being well, the only money which the bridegroom had to pay was the cost of the licence, a few shillings. 
There are examples of marriage licences online with explanations. They may include typical fees for licences. 
Cowban