Marriage by Licence

[jonwarrn]

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

[coombs]

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.

[GrahamSimons]

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.

[melba_schmelba]

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 . 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/

[coombs]

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.

[Andrew Tarr]

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 ?

[goldie61]

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.

[melba_schmelba]

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 .

[youngtug]

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.