marriage bonds?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

I'm trying to trace a Mary Smith!

Yes, about as impossible as it could be. My 5th Great Grandmother.

Married at St. Oswalds, Cheshire (I think it's actually in Backford, 3.7
miles north of Chester), 1767-June-1, to George Mason; I have the scan
of the marriage register entry. Both were of the/this parish. Witnesses
Tho.s Smith and Samuel Mason. By Licence.

I have also found in "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and allegations
1606-1905" a couple of documents (handwritten bits <thus>, rest printed
form):

"... we <George Mason of Great Sutton in the County of Chester Yeoman
and Thomas Smith of the City of Chester Carrier> are ... bound ... in
the Sum of <one hundred> Pounds
...
the above bounden <George Mason and Mary Smith Spinster> now licenced to
be married together ..."

1. Is Thomas Smith going to be Mary's father?
2. Isn't a hundred pounds a vast amount in 1767 (King George III)?

The other, similar, document (1767-6-1):

"... appeared personally <George Mason of Great Sutton in the Parish of
Eastham and County and Diocese of Chester Yeoman> ... alledged and made
Oath as follows, That he is of the Age of <twenty five> Years and
upwards, and a <Bachelor> and intends to marry <Mary Smith of the parish
of Saint Oswald in the City and Diocese of Chester> aged <twentyone>
Years and upwards, and a <Spinster> ... and he prayed a Licence to
solemnise the said Marriage ..."

3. "Years and upwards" puzzles me, as a specific number (25 and 21) is
handwritten in; are these likely to be their actual ages?
4. As she's 21 (or "upwards"?), why does her father (if Thomas _is_ her
father) need to be involved?
5. Was it normal for a Licence to be "prayed" (I assume that means
applied for) the same day as the actual wedding?

I'm new to marriage "bonds and allegations". Is it sort of a (monetary)
deposit of good faith, that the couple are not related or that there is
otherwise nothing that could impede the marriage? Was the money actually
paid, and then refunded at some later date, or just an obligation to pay
it accepted (which obligation became void at some later date)?

[Ian Goddard]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'm trying to trace a Mary Smith!
Yes, about as impossible as it could be. My 5th Great Grandmother.
Married at St. Oswalds, Cheshire (I think it's actually in Backford, 3.7
miles north of Chester), 1767-June-1, to George Mason; I have the scan
of the marriage register entry. Both were of the/this parish. Witnesses
Tho.s Smith and Samuel Mason. By Licence.
I have also found in "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and allegations
1606-1905" a couple of documents (handwritten bits <thus>, rest printed
"... we <George Mason of Great Sutton in the County of Chester Yeoman
and Thomas Smith of the City of Chester Carrier> are ... bound ... in
the Sum of <one hundred> Pounds
...
the above bounden <George Mason and Mary Smith Spinster> now licenced to
be married together ..."
1. Is Thomas Smith going to be Mary's father?
2. Isn't a hundred pounds a vast amount in 1767 (King George III)?
"... appeared personally <George Mason of Great Sutton in the Parish of
Eastham and County and Diocese of Chester Yeoman> ... alledged and made
Oath as follows, That he is of the Age of <twenty five> Years and
upwards, and a <Bachelor> and intends to marry <Mary Smith of the parish
of Saint Oswald in the City and Diocese of Chester> aged <twentyone>
Years and upwards, and a <Spinster> ... and he prayed a Licence to
solemnise the said Marriage ..."
3. "Years and upwards" puzzles me, as a specific number (25 and 21) is
handwritten in; are these likely to be their actual ages?
4. As she's 21 (or "upwards"?), why does her father (if Thomas _is_ her
father) need to be involved?
5. Was it normal for a Licence to be "prayed" (I assume that means
applied for) the same day as the actual wedding?
I'm new to marriage "bonds and allegations". Is it sort of a (monetary)
deposit of good faith, that the couple are not related or that there is
otherwise nothing that could impede the marriage? Was the money actually
paid, and then refunded at some later date, or just an obligation to pay
it accepted (which obligation became void at some later date)?

I haven't had to deal with many. The immediate purpose of the licence
was to avoid the alternative of banns. Why banns were being avoided was
a different matter. It might have been to avoid possible objections
from parents but I have an example of a couple in 1684 aged 60 and 54.
In that case it may well have been that an elderly couple preferred
discretion. On the whole I think you need to know a bit more about the
couple to work out motives - if you can even do so.

The "and upwards" bit seems to be legalese not confined to marriage
bonds. I'd hazard a guess that it covers the situation when someone
wanting to throw a spanner in the works or just to pedantic says "she's
not 21, she's 21 and 2 months and 5 days".

Having said all that I still wouldn't trust the 21 and upwards. In
another case the groom (in fact a descendant of the groom of the couple
I just mentioned) also married by licence stating that he was 21 when he
was under-age. In that case the bride was a good bit older and I think
they were may have anticipated objections from his parents; at least one
of the witnesses was a cousin. They had some odd spellings of names
which might have been innocent error or may have been an attempt to
cover tracks. I might even distrust "Smith" as the name.

Ian

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Ian Goddard

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'm trying to trace a Mary Smith!
Yes, about as impossible as it could be. My 5th Great Grandmother.
Married at St. Oswalds, Cheshire (I think it's actually in Backford,
3.7 miles north of Chester), 1767-June-1, to George Mason; I have the
scan of the marriage register entry. Both were of the/this parish.
Witnesses Tho.s Smith and Samuel Mason. By Licence.
I have also found in "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and
allegations 1606-1905" a couple of documents (handwritten bits
"... we <George Mason of Great Sutton in the County of Chester
Yeoman and Thomas Smith of the City of Chester Carrier> are ... bound
... in the Sum of <one hundred> Pounds
...
the above bounden <George Mason and Mary Smith Spinster> now licenced
to be married together ..."
1. Is Thomas Smith going to be Mary's father?
2. Isn't a hundred pounds a vast amount in 1767 (King George III)?
"... appeared personally <George Mason of Great Sutton in the Parish
of Eastham and County and Diocese of Chester Yeoman> ... alledged and
made Oath as follows, That he is of the Age of <twenty five> Years
and upwards, and a <Bachelor> and intends to marry <Mary Smith of the
parish of Saint Oswald in the City and Diocese of Chester> aged
<twentyone> Years and upwards, and a <Spinster> ... and he prayed a
Licence to solemnise the said Marriage ..."
3. "Years and upwards" puzzles me, as a specific number (25 and 21)
is handwritten in; are these likely to be their actual ages?
4. As she's 21 (or "upwards"?), why does her father (if Thomas _is_
her father) need to be involved?
5. Was it normal for a Licence to be "prayed" (I assume that means
applied for) the same day as the actual wedding?
I'm new to marriage "bonds and allegations". Is it sort of a
(monetary) deposit of good faith, that the couple are not related or
that there is otherwise nothing that could impede the marriage? Was
the money actually paid, and then refunded at some later date, or
just an obligation to pay it accepted (which obligation became void
at some later date)?

I haven't had to deal with many. The immediate purpose of the licence
was to avoid the alternative of banns.

6. Did the obtaining of a licence always involve one of these "bonds"?
(Of a hundred pounds, which sounds like a huge amount: >17k in today's
terms.)

Post by Ian Goddard
Why banns were being avoided was a different matter. It might have
been to avoid possible objections from parents but I have an example of
a couple in 1684 aged 60 and 54. In that case it may well have been
that an elderly couple preferred discretion. On the whole I think you
need to know a bit more about the couple to work out motives - if you
can even do so.

Unlikely, I fear.

Post by Ian Goddard
The "and upwards" bit seems to be legalese not confined to marriage
bonds. I'd hazard a guess that it covers the situation when someone
wanting to throw a spanner in the works or just to pedantic says "she's
not 21, she's 21 and 2 months and 5 days".

That makes sense (-:! Certainly, FindMyPast's transcribers have taken it
as meaning the base age given.

Post by Ian Goddard
Having said all that I still wouldn't trust the 21 and upwards. In

Indeed. Especially with it being applied for on the same day as the
wedding.

Though with the appearance of a male Smith in the documents, which I at
the moment can only assume is her father, this case may be OK.

Post by Ian Goddard
another case the groom (in fact a descendant of the groom of the couple
I just mentioned) also married by licence stating that he was 21 when
he was under-age. In that case the bride was a good bit older and I
think they were may have anticipated objections from his parents; at
least one of the witnesses was a cousin. They had some odd spellings
of names which might have been innocent error or may have been an
attempt to cover tracks. I might even distrust "Smith" as the name.

Indeed!

Post by Ian Goddard
Ian

A couple more questions (added to 6. above):

7. I've got another marriage in the same area and era, and again there
seem to be two similar but not identical documents. Any idea why (there
are the two)?

8. One of the documents (for each marriage), in the pre-printed section,
has "... not knowing or believing any lawful Let, or Impediment, by
reason of any Praecontract, entered into before the Twenty-fifth Day of
March, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four, ... to hinder the said
intended Marriage: ..."; this seems odd, as the document is dated later
than that (it has pre-printed "One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty"
[with "Five" written thereafter] at the top). What happened on 1754-3-25
that made whether things were "entered into" before or after then
important?

[Charles Ellson]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:54:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Ian Goddard

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'm trying to trace a Mary Smith!
Yes, about as impossible as it could be. My 5th Great Grandmother.
Married at St. Oswalds, Cheshire (I think it's actually in Backford,
3.7 miles north of Chester), 1767-June-1, to George Mason; I have the
scan of the marriage register entry. Both were of the/this parish.
Witnesses Tho.s Smith and Samuel Mason. By Licence.
I have also found in "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and
allegations 1606-1905" a couple of documents (handwritten bits
"... we <George Mason of Great Sutton in the County of Chester
Yeoman and Thomas Smith of the City of Chester Carrier> are ... bound
... in the Sum of <one hundred> Pounds
...
the above bounden <George Mason and Mary Smith Spinster> now licenced
to be married together ..."
1. Is Thomas Smith going to be Mary's father?
2. Isn't a hundred pounds a vast amount in 1767 (King George III)?
"... appeared personally <George Mason of Great Sutton in the Parish
of Eastham and County and Diocese of Chester Yeoman> ... alledged and
made Oath as follows, That he is of the Age of <twenty five> Years
and upwards, and a <Bachelor> and intends to marry <Mary Smith of the
parish of Saint Oswald in the City and Diocese of Chester> aged
<twentyone> Years and upwards, and a <Spinster> ... and he prayed a
Licence to solemnise the said Marriage ..."
3. "Years and upwards" puzzles me, as a specific number (25 and 21)
is handwritten in; are these likely to be their actual ages?
4. As she's 21 (or "upwards"?), why does her father (if Thomas _is_
her father) need to be involved?
5. Was it normal for a Licence to be "prayed" (I assume that means
applied for) the same day as the actual wedding?
I'm new to marriage "bonds and allegations". Is it sort of a
(monetary) deposit of good faith, that the couple are not related or
that there is otherwise nothing that could impede the marriage? Was
the money actually paid, and then refunded at some later date, or
just an obligation to pay it accepted (which obligation became void
at some later date)?

I haven't had to deal with many. The immediate purpose of the licence
was to avoid the alternative of banns.

6. Did the obtaining of a licence always involve one of these "bonds"?
(Of a hundred pounds, which sounds like a huge amount: >17k in today's
terms.)

Post by Ian Goddard
Why banns were being avoided was a different matter. It might have
been to avoid possible objections from parents but I have an example of
a couple in 1684 aged 60 and 54. In that case it may well have been
that an elderly couple preferred discretion. On the whole I think you
need to know a bit more about the couple to work out motives - if you
can even do so.

Unlikely, I fear.

Post by Ian Goddard
The "and upwards" bit seems to be legalese not confined to marriage
bonds. I'd hazard a guess that it covers the situation when someone
wanting to throw a spanner in the works or just to pedantic says "she's
not 21, she's 21 and 2 months and 5 days".

That makes sense (-:! Certainly, FindMyPast's transcribers have taken it
as meaning the base age given.

Post by Ian Goddard
Having said all that I still wouldn't trust the 21 and upwards. In

Indeed. Especially with it being applied for on the same day as the
wedding.
Though with the appearance of a male Smith in the documents, which I at
the moment can only assume is her father, this case may be OK.

Post by Ian Goddard
another case the groom (in fact a descendant of the groom of the couple
I just mentioned) also married by licence stating that he was 21 when
he was under-age. In that case the bride was a good bit older and I
think they were may have anticipated objections from his parents; at
least one of the witnesses was a cousin. They had some odd spellings
of names which might have been innocent error or may have been an
attempt to cover tracks. I might even distrust "Smith" as the name.

Indeed!

Post by Ian Goddard
Ian

7. I've got another marriage in the same area and era, and again there
seem to be two similar but not identical documents. Any idea why (there
are the two)?
8. One of the documents (for each marriage), in the pre-printed section,
has "... not knowing or believing any lawful Let, or Impediment, by
reason of any Praecontract, entered into before the Twenty-fifth Day of
March, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four, ... to hinder the said
intended Marriage: ..."; this seems odd, as the document is dated later
than that (it has pre-printed "One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty"
[with "Five" written thereafter] at the top). What happened on 1754-3-25
that made whether things were "entered into" before or after then
important?

Anything after that date would be on the current calendar with the
year being unambiguous. An ambiguous (was it new or old style ?) date
before that could cause uncertainty where any limitation period was
involved.

[Chris Pitt Lewis]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:54:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
8. One of the documents (for each marriage), in the pre-printed section,
has "... not knowing or believing any lawful Let, or Impediment, by
reason of any Praecontract, entered into before the Twenty-fifth Day of
March, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four, ... to hinder the said
intended Marriage: ..."; this seems odd, as the document is dated later
than that (it has pre-printed "One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty"
[with "Five" written thereafter] at the top). What happened on 1754-3-25
that made whether things were "entered into" before or after then
important?

Anything after that date would be on the current calendar with the
year being unambiguous. An ambiguous (was it new or old style ?) date
before that could cause uncertainty where any limitation period was
involved.

Nothing to do with the calendar change (which was in 1752).

25 March 1754 is the day that the Marriage Act 1753 (Hardwicke's Act)
came into force. One provision of that act made a contract of marriage
entered into on or after that day unenforceable, in the sense that legal
action could not be taken in the Church Courts to force the parties to
go through with it (other consequences such as an action for damages
might still have been available, I think). So an agreement to marry made
before that date might still be enforceable, and would be an impediment
to a different marriage.

The age of the parties was not included in the documents for the
assistance of future genealogists, but because under the same Act a
marriage by licence of a person under 21 (not being a widow or widower),
without parental consent, was void, so a licence should not be issued.
So "21 and upwards" is all that really needed to be said. Didn't stop
people lying, or being genuinely confused or ignorant as to their
precise age. The marriage would be treated as valid unless someone
actively took court proceedings to annul it.

There was no such provision for marriages by banns, presumably because
it was assumed that a disapproving parent would object to the banns.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis

Post by Charles Ellson
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:54:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
8. One of the documents (for each marriage), in the pre-printed section,
has "... not knowing or believing any lawful Let, or Impediment, by
reason of any Praecontract, entered into before the Twenty-fifth Day of
March, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four, ... to hinder the said
intended Marriage: ..."; this seems odd, as the document is dated later
than that (it has pre-printed "One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty"
[with "Five" written thereafter] at the top). What happened on 1754-3-25
that made whether things were "entered into" before or after then
important?

Anything after that date would be on the current calendar with the
year being unambiguous. An ambiguous (was it new or old style ?) date
before that could cause uncertainty where any limitation period was
involved.

Nothing to do with the calendar change (which was in 1752).

Yes, I didn't think that was it - wouldn't make sense giving just one
date.

There were two calendar changes - the one where they nicked a chunk of
September, to get us back in step with the seasons - which I think _was_
in 1752 - and the one that made the year number change definitely
between December and January, rather than around the end of March. That
seems to have come in over several years (causing considerable
confusion), though there was a date (was that also 1752?) after which it
was definite.

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
25 March 1754 is the day that the Marriage Act 1753 (Hardwicke's Act)
came into force. One provision of that act made a contract of marriage
entered into on or after that day unenforceable, in the sense that
legal action could not be taken in the Church Courts to force the
parties to go through with it (other consequences such as an action for
damages might still have been available, I think). So an agreement to
marry made before that date might still be enforceable, and would be an
impediment to a different marriage.

Thanks! Very clear!

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
The age of the parties was not included in the documents for the
assistance of future genealogists, but because under the same Act a
marriage by licence of a person under 21 (not being a widow or
widower), without parental consent, was void, so a licence should not

So a widower or widow under 21 _could_ marry by licence?

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
be issued. So "21 and upwards" is all that really needed to be said.
Didn't stop people lying, or being genuinely confused or ignorant as to
their precise age. The marriage would be treated as valid unless
someone actively took court proceedings to annul it.

Though three out of the four people in the two marriages I've been
looking at did have higher ages filled in on the form - one was a "25
and upwards" marrying a "22 and upwards".

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
There was no such provision for marriages by banns, presumably because
it was assumed that a disapproving parent would object to the banns.

Interesting.

If someone _did_ have a concern over a marriage by banns, which AIUI
were read out on the three preceding weeks (Sundays?), did they have to
speak out in church right after the banns, or could they approach the
vicar (or whoever) quietly in between? I know there's the "speak now or
forever hold your peace", but I think that's the marriage ceremony
itself.

[Ruth Wilson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'm trying to trace a Mary Smith!
Yes, about as impossible as it could be. My 5th Great Grandmother.
Married at St. Oswalds, Cheshire (I think it's actually in Backford, 3.7
miles north of Chester), 1767-June-1, to George Mason; I have the scan
of the marriage register entry. Both were of the/this parish. Witnesses
Tho.s Smith and Samuel Mason. By Licence.
I have also found in "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and allegations
1606-1905" a couple of documents (handwritten bits <thus>, rest printed
"... we <George Mason of Great Sutton in the County of Chester Yeoman
and Thomas Smith of the City of Chester Carrier> are ... bound ... in
the Sum of <one hundred> Pounds
...
the above bounden <George Mason and Mary Smith Spinster> now licenced to
be married together ..."
1. Is Thomas Smith going to be Mary's father?
2. Isn't a hundred pounds a vast amount in 1767 (King George III)?
"... appeared personally <George Mason of Great Sutton in the Parish of
Eastham and County and Diocese of Chester Yeoman> ... alledged and made
Oath as follows, That he is of the Age of <twenty five> Years and
upwards, and a <Bachelor> and intends to marry <Mary Smith of the parish
of Saint Oswald in the City and Diocese of Chester> aged <twentyone>
Years and upwards, and a <Spinster> ... and he prayed a Licence to
solemnise the said Marriage ..."
3. "Years and upwards" puzzles me, as a specific number (25 and 21) is
handwritten in; are these likely to be their actual ages?
4. As she's 21 (or "upwards"?), why does her father (if Thomas _is_ her
father) need to be involved?
5. Was it normal for a Licence to be "prayed" (I assume that means
applied for) the same day as the actual wedding?
I'm new to marriage "bonds and allegations". Is it sort of a (monetary)
deposit of good faith, that the couple are not related or that there is
otherwise nothing that could impede the marriage? Was the money actually
paid, and then refunded at some later date, or just an obligation to pay
it accepted (which obligation became void at some later date)?

A couple of my ancestors from Liverpool both had marriage licences
issued in Chester, 1743 and 1768. The first was also £100 but the second
was £50. For this later one, I noticed that the other licences at this
time were, I think, all for £100. I queried this on here many years ago
and had a reply from Eve Mclaughlin (some of you will recognise and
respect the name) who said my ancestor must have driven a good bargain!

I think the second person named was the guarantor - I assume something
like the best man - who would guarantee that the groom was going to turn
up for the wedding. Neither of these licences of mine have a family name
for the second person and in the later marriage he was also a witness in
the parish register. I don't know if the money was paid up front (as you
say, it is 2-3 years wages for a working man - mine, unsurprisingly,
were mariners) or was there to be paid if the marriage didn't take
place. I assume the latter, but I'm not 100 per cent sure.

The two licences I have were issued one and two days before the marriage.

21 and over is just saying you were in your legal majority, not stating
a particular age (like saying you have held your driving licence for
'over seven years').

I don't know Chester especially well (I'm in Wirral), but I'm pretty
sure St Oswald parish was in Chester city centre - Find a Grave suggests
it was part of the cathedral until 1882. Backford, I would imagine,
would have been named as such.

Hope this helps.

Ruth

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Ruth Wilson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'm trying to trace a Mary Smith!
Yes, about as impossible as it could be. My 5th Great Grandmother.
Married at St. Oswalds, Cheshire (I think it's actually in Backford,
3.7 miles north of Chester), 1767-June-1, to George Mason; I have the
scan of the marriage register entry. Both were of the/this parish.
Witnesses Tho.s Smith and Samuel Mason. By Licence.
I have also found in "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and
allegations 1606-1905" a couple of documents (handwritten bits
"... we <George Mason of Great Sutton in the County of Chester
Yeoman and Thomas Smith of the City of Chester Carrier> are ... bound
... in the Sum of <one hundred> Pounds
...
the above bounden <George Mason and Mary Smith Spinster> now licenced
to be married together ..."
1. Is Thomas Smith going to be Mary's father?
2. Isn't a hundred pounds a vast amount in 1767 (King George III)?
"... appeared personally <George Mason of Great Sutton in the Parish
of Eastham and County and Diocese of Chester Yeoman> ... alledged and
made Oath as follows, That he is of the Age of <twenty five> Years
and upwards, and a <Bachelor> and intends to marry <Mary Smith of the
parish of Saint Oswald in the City and Diocese of Chester> aged
<twentyone> Years and upwards, and a <Spinster> ... and he prayed a
Licence to solemnise the said Marriage ..."
3. "Years and upwards" puzzles me, as a specific number (25 and 21)
is handwritten in; are these likely to be their actual ages?
4. As she's 21 (or "upwards"?), why does her father (if Thomas _is_
her father) need to be involved?
5. Was it normal for a Licence to be "prayed" (I assume that means
applied for) the same day as the actual wedding?
I'm new to marriage "bonds and allegations". Is it sort of a
(monetary) deposit of good faith, that the couple are not related or
that there is otherwise nothing that could impede the marriage? Was
the money actually paid, and then refunded at some later date, or
just an obligation to pay it accepted (which obligation became void
at some later date)?

A couple of my ancestors from Liverpool both had marriage licences
issued in Chester, 1743 and 1768. The first was also £100 but the
second was £50. For this later one, I noticed that the other licences
at this time were, I think, all for £100. I queried this on here many
years ago and had a reply from Eve Mclaughlin (some of you will
recognise and respect the name) who said my ancestor must have driven a
good bargain!
I think the second person named was the guarantor - I assume something
like the best man - who would guarantee that the groom was going to
turn up for the wedding. Neither of these licences of mine have a
family name for the second person and in the later marriage he was also
a witness in the parish register. I don't know if the money was paid up
front (as you say, it is 2-3 years wages for a working man - mine,
unsurprisingly, were mariners) or was there to be paid if the marriage
didn't take place. I assume the latter, but I'm not 100 per cent sure.
The two licences I have were issued one and two days before the marriage.
21 and over is just saying you were in your legal majority, not stating
a particular age (like saying you have held your driving licence for
'over seven years').

That was my first thought - but one of mine has a 25 and over marrying a
22 and over. (Besides, the form has a space for it to be written in; if
it was just to show majority, the form could just have "is over 21 years
of age" pre-printed.)

Post by Ruth Wilson
I don't know Chester especially well (I'm in Wirral), but I'm pretty

Closer than me - I'm in Kent, and have never been to the area at all!

Post by Ruth Wilson
sure St Oswald parish was in Chester city centre - Find a Grave
suggests it was part of the cathedral until 1882. Backford, I would
imagine, would have been named as such.

Hmm. Well, there _is_ a St. Oswalds in Backford, only 3.4 miles from
Chester - see https://goo.gl/maps/M2urQ7H2Y1r4naN1A ; it seems unlikely
that there'd be two (it's not a common name) so close together; I could
be wrong about that though! I hadn't thought of checking with FAG,
though - good steer.
[]

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Hmm. Well, there _is_ a St. Oswalds in Backford, only 3.4 miles from
Chester - see https://goo.gl/maps/M2urQ7H2Y1r4naN1A ;  it seems unlikely
that there'd be two (it's not a common name) so close together; I could
be wrong about that though! I hadn't thought of checking with FAG,
though - good steer.

https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Chester_St_Oswald,_Cheshire_Genealogy

or

https://tinyurl.com/y8nohw2m

will tell you all about St Oswald's in Chester.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Hmm. Well, there _is_ a St. Oswalds in Backford, only 3.4 miles from
Chester - see https://goo.gl/maps/M2urQ7H2Y1r4naN1A ;  it seems

[my posting software says the first space after the semicolon in the
line above is a weirdo; it wasn't when I posted it.]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
unlikely that there'd be two (it's not a common name) so close
together; I could be wrong about that though! I hadn't thought of
checking with FAG, though - good steer.

https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Chester_St_Oswald,_Cheshire_Genealogy
or
https://tinyurl.com/y8nohw2m
will tell you all about St Oswald's in Chester.

Hmm, as opposed to
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Backford,_Cheshire_Genealogy !
Obviously I was wrong, and there _are_ (well, were: the Chester one
closed in 1881) two St. Oswalds less than 4 miles apart. Must have been
a local hero (like St. Cuthbert, who crops up a lot in south
Northumberland).

Are you by any chance any of "Bots, Administrators, Bureaucrats,
Moderator, editor, pagecreator, Reviewer" for the above Wiki? I wanted
to edit it to add a comment that the GENUKI link comes up "Gone", but it
wouldn't let me. (I logged in to familysearch, as I have a login, but
obviously I must not be in any of the above groups.)

Ho hum - off to search my records for Oswald, to unpick which ones are
Chester and which Backford! Hmm, only six, and three of those have
Oswald as one of their names, so not so bad. First one is Kirkoswald, so
not her. And the other two are I think the Chester one. Thanks.

[Tickettyboo]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'm trying to trace a Mary Smith!
Yes, about as impossible as it could be. My 5th Great Grandmother.
Married at St. Oswalds, Cheshire (I think it's actually in Backford,
3.7 miles north of Chester), 1767-June-1, to George Mason; I have the
scan of the marriage register entry. Both were of the/this parish.
Witnesses Tho.s Smith and Samuel Mason. By Licence.
I have also found in "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and allegations
1606-1905" a couple of documents (handwritten bits <thus>, rest printed
"... we <George Mason of Great Sutton in the County of Chester Yeoman
and Thomas Smith of the City of Chester Carrier> are ... bound ... in
the Sum of <one hundred> Pounds
...
the above bounden <George Mason and Mary Smith Spinster> now licenced
to be married together ..."
1. Is Thomas Smith going to be Mary's father?
2. Isn't a hundred pounds a vast amount in 1767 (King George III)?
"... appeared personally <George Mason of Great Sutton in the Parish of
Eastham and County and Diocese of Chester Yeoman> ... alledged and made
Oath as follows, That he is of the Age of <twenty five> Years and
upwards, and a <Bachelor> and intends to marry <Mary Smith of the
parish of Saint Oswald in the City and Diocese of Chester> aged
<twentyone> Years and upwards, and a <Spinster> ... and he prayed a
Licence to solemnise the said Marriage ..."
3. "Years and upwards" puzzles me, as a specific number (25 and 21) is
handwritten in; are these likely to be their actual ages?
4. As she's 21 (or "upwards"?), why does her father (if Thomas _is_ her
father) need to be involved?
5. Was it normal for a Licence to be "prayed" (I assume that means
applied for) the same day as the actual wedding?
I'm new to marriage "bonds and allegations". Is it sort of a (monetary)
deposit of good faith, that the couple are not related or that there is
otherwise nothing that could impede the marriage? Was the money
actually paid, and then refunded at some later date, or just an
obligation to pay it accepted (which obligation became void at some
later date)?

https://www.york.ac.uk/media/borthwick/documents/5marriagebonds.pdf

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Tickettyboo

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'm trying to trace a Mary Smith!
Yes, about as impossible as it could be. My 5th Great Grandmother.
Married at St. Oswalds, Cheshire (I think it's actually in Backford,
3.7 miles north of Chester), 1767-June-1, to George Mason; I have the
scan of the marriage register entry. Both were of the/this parish.
Witnesses Tho.s Smith and Samuel Mason. By Licence.
I have also found in "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and
allegations 1606-1905" a couple of documents (handwritten bits
"... we <George Mason of Great Sutton in the County of Chester
Yeoman and Thomas Smith of the City of Chester Carrier> are ... bound
... in the Sum of <one hundred> Pounds
...
the above bounden <George Mason and Mary Smith Spinster> now licenced
to be married together ..."
1. Is Thomas Smith going to be Mary's father?
2. Isn't a hundred pounds a vast amount in 1767 (King George III)?
"... appeared personally <George Mason of Great Sutton in the Parish
of Eastham and County and Diocese of Chester Yeoman> ... alledged and
made Oath as follows, That he is of the Age of <twenty five> Years
and upwards, and a <Bachelor> and intends to marry <Mary Smith of the
parish of Saint Oswald in the City and Diocese of Chester> aged
<twentyone> Years and upwards, and a <Spinster> ... and he prayed a
Licence to solemnise the said Marriage ..."
3. "Years and upwards" puzzles me, as a specific number (25 and 21)
is handwritten in; are these likely to be their actual ages?
4. As she's 21 (or "upwards"?), why does her father (if Thomas _is_
her father) need to be involved?
5. Was it normal for a Licence to be "prayed" (I assume that means
applied for) the same day as the actual wedding?
I'm new to marriage "bonds and allegations". Is it sort of a
(monetary) deposit of good faith, that the couple are not related or
that there is otherwise nothing that could impede the marriage? Was
the money actually paid, and then refunded at some later date, or
just an obligation to pay it accepted (which obligation became void
at some later date)?

https://www.york.ac.uk/media/borthwick/documents/5marriagebonds.pdf

Thanks. Good document. Answers some of my questions (in particular, that
the sum mentioned wasn't paid unless the marriage _didn't_ take place).

[Tickettyboo]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Tickettyboo

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'm trying to trace a Mary Smith!
Yes, about as impossible as it could be. My 5th Great Grandmother.
Married at St. Oswalds, Cheshire (I think it's actually in Backford,
3.7 miles north of Chester), 1767-June-1, to George Mason; I have the
scan of the marriage register entry. Both were of the/this parish.
Witnesses Tho.s Smith and Samuel Mason. By Licence.
I have also found in "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and allegations
1606-1905" a couple of documents (handwritten bits <thus>, rest printed
"... we <George Mason of Great Sutton in the County of Chester Yeoman
and Thomas Smith of the City of Chester Carrier> are ... bound ... in
the Sum of <one hundred> Pounds
...
the above bounden <George Mason and Mary Smith Spinster> now licenced
to be married together ..."
1. Is Thomas Smith going to be Mary's father?
2. Isn't a hundred pounds a vast amount in 1767 (King George III)?
"... appeared personally <George Mason of Great Sutton in the Parish of
Eastham and County and Diocese of Chester Yeoman> ... alledged and
made Oath as follows, That he is of the Age of <twenty five> Years and
upwards, and a <Bachelor> and intends to marry <Mary Smith of the
parish of Saint Oswald in the City and Diocese of Chester> aged
<twentyone> Years and upwards, and a <Spinster> ... and he prayed a
Licence to solemnise the said Marriage ..."
3. "Years and upwards" puzzles me, as a specific number (25 and 21) is
handwritten in; are these likely to be their actual ages?
4. As she's 21 (or "upwards"?), why does her father (if Thomas _is_ her
father) need to be involved?
5. Was it normal for a Licence to be "prayed" (I assume that means
applied for) the same day as the actual wedding?
I'm new to marriage "bonds and allegations". Is it sort of a (monetary)
deposit of good faith, that the couple are not related or that there
is otherwise nothing that could impede the marriage? Was the money
actually paid, and then refunded at some later date, or just an
obligation to pay it accepted (which obligation became void at some
later date)?

https://www.york.ac.uk/media/borthwick/documents/5marriagebonds.pdf

Thanks. Good document. Answers some of my questions (in particular,
that the sum mentioned wasn't paid unless the marriage _didn't_ take
place).

I don't think it mattered if the marriage took place or not, in fact I
think the licence was only valid for a certain time after issue.
The penalty was for making a false allegation - the bond was a 'surety'
that the allegation, sworn under oath, which stated there were no
impediments was the truth.
I assume that if at a later date it was proved to be a false allegation
then the penalty would become due, though have yet to come across case
where that happened.