VACULPEP-L Archives

Archiver > VACULPEP > 1999-07 > 0931966369


From: "Bob Juch" <>
Subject: Re: RE: [VACULPEP-L] marriage bonds
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:32:49 -0500


I've never seen a case of a bondsman being a relative of the bride, but most
are brothers or cousins of the groom.

I've also seen many cases of the date of the bond incorrectly published as
the marriage date.

Bob
KC MO

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: RE: [VACULPEP-L] marriage bonds

>
> In a message dated 7/13/99 10:16:30 PM, writes:
>
> << Marriage bonds were the precursor to marriage licenses. They contain
the
> names of the bridge and groom, of course, but also the name of the person
> posting bond, who usually was related to the groom. The most important
ting
> is the date of issuance. >>
>
> This is partially correct. The bondsman was not "usually" related to the
> groom. The purpose of the bond was to ensure there was no lawful
impediment
> to the marrige. The bondsman is often a relative of the bride, but there
is
> no hard and fast "rule" on this--it may just as easily be a non-relative.
A
> marriage bond is not proof that a marriage took place, only that a
marriage
> was intended. For proof of a marriage, one needs to find a minister's
return
> to the court--which the minister may or may not have done. So, lack of a
> minister's return is NOT proof that a marriage did NOT occur. If the
bride
> or groom were under legal age, a consent was required from the parent or
> guardian. On earlier bonds, this is often the only instance in which a
> parents name is given.
>
> Craig Kilby
> St. Louis, MO
>
>
> ==== VACULPEP Mailing List ====
> Search this list's archived messages!
> http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl
>
>

This thread: