Why did some people need to pay a bond in the 1700s in order to get married?

score:21

Accepted answer

Very interesting. I found this explanation on geneology.about.com:

In earlier times, a marriage bond was given to the court by the intended groom prior to his marriage. It affirmed that there was no moral or legal reason why the couple could not be married and it also affirmed that the groom would not change his mind. If he did, and did not marry the intended bride, he would forfeit the bond. The bondsman, or surety, was often a brother or uncle to the bride, not necessarily a parent. The bondsman could also be related to the groom, or even be a neighbor or friend, but those situations occurred less often.

There was also this longer bit I found by Richard A. Pence that goes into the history better:

A bit of history may help us to understand the nature of the marriage bond. In early colonial America, "marriage banns" were usually the formal process leading up to the wedding. Notice of the impending marriage was read from the church pulpit or posted at the church door over a set period of time. The purpose of this was to allow those who knew the bride and groom to object if there was a legal reason why the marriage should not take place ("speak now or forever hold your peace").

There were three principal legal barriers: either or both were not yet of legal age, either or both were already married, or the bride and groom were too closely related to marry under the laws of the jurisdiction.

As America gradually became more of a frontier nation, often either the bride or the groom would not be well known in the community. To overcome this, the marriage bond soon replace the banns.

The groom and a suitable bondsman ("surety") would pledge an amount (usually specified by law) to an official (often the governor of the colony or state) as a guarantee that there were no legal impediments to the forthcoming marriage. The bond was "conditional" -- that is, the pledged amount would be forfeited only if there proved to be a legal reason the couple should not marry. If no such legal barrier existed, the bond would be null and void, even if the wedding failed to take place for some other reason. In many jurisdictions the bond remained in force for a year or two after the marriage and apparently would have been forfeited if any illegality came to light during that time.

Use of the marriage bond began to fade in the middle to late 1800s and by the close of the century most jurisdiction relied on "sworn" statements made in the application for the marriage license to guard against illegal marriages.

The thing I find interesting about this is the implication that bonds were used when records about things weren't all computerized and networked, and the people in question weren't well-known enough in the community for the legality of the marraige to be "crowd-sourced" to the community at large.

This bit of crowd-sourcing lives on in our traditional marriage cerimonies, in that the minisiter usually asks "Before we proceed, if anyone here knows any reason why these two should not be married, speak now or forever hold your peace.", and then pauses waiting for a response from the crowd.

What this implies about your particular ancestor in London is either that either he and/or the bride were not well-known in their area, or that perhaps in a huge city like London nobody could be well-known enough for a bann to be effective.

Upvote:-1

Upvote:2

One point that I don't think is clear from the other answers is that your ancestor did not pay a bond of £200. The £200 was not paid unless the terms of the bond were breached. Practically speaking, this meant that the £200 would only be due if there was some legal impediment to the marriage that was not disclosed, and subsequently discovered.

The cost of the marriage license would have been no more than a couple of pounds. Even so this was cost prohibitive to many people in the eighteenth century. The vast majority of people in England married (and marry) in the Church of England after publication of banns. A bond was only required if a couple were to marry by license. A license was more expensive, therefore it was obtained either simply as a symbol of status, for expediency (not having to wait three weeks for banns), or for privacy (no public reading of banns). Since with marriages by license there was no designated public opportunity to object to a marriage, the groom and bondsmen were bound to a sum of money stating that there was no legal impediment to the marriage. In the rare instances that, for example, one party was already married – and caught – the bond would have to be paid.

Bonds were a common legal device. The other type of bond commonly encountered by a genealogist is a probate bond. With this type of bond, the bondsmen are similarly bound to a sum of money to administer the estate of the deceased in accordance with their wishes (if they made a will) or as law dictates (if they died intestate). The bond is an assurance that the executor or administrator will carry out his or her duties honestly.

Upvote:12

After getting clues from the accepted answer above and found this other article. It maybe be useful to someone in the future

MARRIAGE BONDS AND ALLEGATIONS - POINTS TO REMEMBER

• Marriage bonds and allegations only exist for couples who applied to marry by licence. They do not exist for couples who married by banns.

• The marriage allegation was the document in which the couple alleged (or frequently just the groom alleged on behalf of both of them) that there were no impediments to the marriage.

• The marriage bond set a financial penalty on the groom and his bondsman (usually a close friend or relative) in the case the allegation should prove to be false.

• After 1823 marriage bonds were no longer made. Only the allegations were made after this date.

• The sum named on the bond was not the price of the marriage licence. It was the penalty sum, and was set deliberately high to deter irregular marriages.

• The existence of a marriage bond / allegation merely shows that a marriage licence was applied for. It does not prove that the couple ever married.

• Canon law stipulated that the marriage bond should state where the marriage should take place; sometimes a choice of two parishes in given. There are, however, occasions where couples seem to have disregarded this and marriage somewhere else entirely.

• The ages given on marriage bonds and allegations should be treated with caution. If a person is said to be 23 then it is likely that he was actually (to the best of his or her knowledge) 23. If the bond or allegation states that he is 21 or above then this is only stating that the person had reached the age of majority. It is possible that he was 21, equally that he was 51.

• If one of the parties was a minor (under 21) then parental permission was needed for the marriage. Sometimes a marriage bond or allegation is annotated by a parent to the effect that they grant permission.

• Until 1733 Latin was the official language of legal documents. Until this date the first part of a marriage bond will be in Latin. The second part will be in English.

More post

Search Posts

Related post