Banns v Licence

Jan65 · 30-10-2009, 8:40 AM

I have just discovered an ancestor obtained a licence to marry on 1 January 1770 and subsequently married on 6 January following.

The couple's first child was baptised on 14 October the same year - I don't know the date of birth so it's possible that they married because she was pregnant and needed to marry quickly, but this is just supposition.

I was wondering how a licence was obtained and whether it was expensive - was marrying by banns free?

I seem to recall when I got married myself, that we paid for a licence and yet I think we also had banns read out for three weeks prior to the wedding, so I'm a bit confused over licences versus banns.

esdel · 30-10-2009, 9:32 AM

Originally Posted by Jan65

I have just discovered an ancestor obtained a licence to marry on 1 January 1770 and subsequently married on 6 January following.

The couple's first child was baptised on 14 October the same year - I don't know the date of birth so it's possible that they married because she was pregnant and needed to marry quickly, but this is just supposition.

I was wondering how a licence was obtained and whether it was expensive - was marrying by banns free?

I seem to recall when I got married myself, that we paid for a licence and yet I think we also had banns read out for three weeks prior to the wedding, so I'm a bit confused over licences versus banns.

I don't know about back then, but in the 1930s you applied to the bishop (if C of E).
The reason was if you did not want the publicity of having banns read out in church (most people went then).
It might be because of the recent death of your former wife and the tut-tutting.
It might be because you both wanted this special occasion more for yourselves than for onlookers.
Yes, you had to pay.
esdel

**Kerrywood** · 30-10-2009, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Jan65

I have just discovered an ancestor obtained a licence to marry on 1 January 1770 and subsequently married on 6 January following.

The couple's first child was baptised on 14 October the same year - I don't know the date of birth so it's possible that they married because she was pregnant and needed to marry quickly, but this is just supposition.

I was wondering how a licence was obtained and whether it was expensive - was marrying by banns free?

In 1770, the main reasons for marrying by licence would be:

* location -- spouses from two different parishes, to avoid inconvenience of banns readings in two churches
* speed -- no need to wait for 3 Sundays for banns to be read
* privacy -- not wanting banns read in front of the whole congregation
* social status -- a licence cost more than two sets of banns fees, and so had a social cachet attached.

Depending on the location/diocese, you may be able to access a copy of the allegation made when the licence was applied for. For a marriage before 1837 there's always a chance that this may contain more information than is in the marriage register.

Kerrywood

Geoffers · 30-10-2009, 1:22 PM

See the above from Kerrywood.

Originally Posted by Jan65

I was wondering how a licence was obtained and whether it was expensive

Procedure varied - but basically a licence was granted upon application to the Bishop, Archdeacon, or a deputy of one of them. If one party lived outside the diocese, then the licence was issued by an archbishop.

The bondsman entering into a surety would be liable to pay a substantial amount of money if the marriage did not proceed.

As Kerrywood mentioned, you may find additional information in an allegation such as age, occupation, an accurate record of parish of residence; name, parish and occupation of bondsman.

**Peter Goodey** · 30-10-2009, 1:28 PM

You may be interested in this explanation -

https://www.hereshistorykent.org.uk/d...and%20Licences

[ignore the bits relating specifically to Kent

]

Jan65 · 30-10-2009, 3:27 PM

Thank you everyone for your speedy and informative replies, especially the great link! I found this a very interesting subject to read about.

I think I must be lucky in the information I've found on this particular ancestor, who I believe to be my 6xg grandfather, because it gives quite a lot of detail. I obtained the information from Durham Records Online, and the details are as follows:

Marriage Bonds, Durham Diocese
Anglican
On the 1 January 1770, Thomas Sowerby, blacksmith of Bolam, Gainford, aged 27, obtained a licence in order to marry Jane Brown, who was aged 24 and from Gainford. The name of the person giving surety was James Burnop, a miller from Abbey Mills, and it was also noted that the marriage took place on 6 January at Gainford. The marriage itself also appears on Durham Records Online but does not have as many details as the bond.

I haven't, unfortunately as yet, looked at any original records for this marriage or bond; this is on my to-do list.

I was interested in the bondsman - I didn't know what that meant until Geoffers explained, so thank you for that too Geoffers - although the name doesn't mean anything to me yet. Who is the bondsman likely to be? A wealthy relative, or an official of some sort? Maybe an employer?

How would I go about finding an allegation? Kerrywood, I remember you helped me with this once before, for a London marriage, but I'm not sure if the procedure is the same given the Durham location?

Many thanks for everyone's help! Much appreciated. To say I'm over the moon finding these records is an understatment!