"Most marriages in Wales could only take place after:
- either banns were read out in the parish church, where the wedding was due to take place, on three consecutive weeks. This announced the couples' intention to marry
- or a licence was granted to the couple by the appropriate ecclesiastical authority. In order to obtain a licence the couple had to make an allegation, a document in which the couple, or sometimes just the groom, declared that there were no impediments to the marriage. Additionally, a marriage bond was signed which set a financial penalty on the groom and his bondsman (usually a relative or close friend). If the the allegation should prove to be false, this sum was forfeited. The sums involved were usually set deliberately high and so licences tended to be only used by relatively wealthy families." (From Family Search Wiki, "Wales Marriage Bonds")
So this is interesting to note that they chose to obtain a license instead of the more common banns, which you did not have to pay for. Although you had to pay a fee for a license, you could usually get married more quickly and more privately that way, as you did not have to wait 3 weeks while your intention to marry was posted and/or announced at church. In some ways, getting married by license was a sign of your social standing because you could afford it and you had privacy from the rest of the village knowing your business. But some people could have chosen to marry by license just because they didn't want a large ceremony or the expectation of one. If there was a difference in social standing between the groom and bride, it could have been another reason. Also, the residency requirements were not as strict as for a license. You didn't have to be a resident of that parish for as long. "It should be borne in mind that probably fewer than one in ten weddings were by licence. The licences themselves, which have not survived in any great number, may sometimes be found among parish records." (http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=485) As is often the case, I have been unable to find the actual license. However, knowing that Christiana Walters Watkins gave her parents names as William Walters and Mary Powell when she completed her own temple ordinances during her lifetime, this marriage bond document is enough to know that the marriage must have taken place. The penalty attached to a bond was generally not enforced unless one or both parties was found to have been already married. It did not apply if the couple mutually agreed to end the engagement.
Now to the actual document, copied from a microfilm for the parish of Llanbedr, in the county of Breconshire, southern Wales:
Since it's a little hard to read, here's the transcription I made. *Note: Underlined portions were handwritten. Bracketed words are my best guess since the word was very difficult to read. Items in parentheses are my own notations.
Know all men by these presents that we William Waters of
the parish of Llanbed[o]r in the county of Brecon yeoman and Walter Walters the
same Farmer are held and firmly bound to William by divine permission
Lord Bishop of Saint David's in ten thousand pounds of lawful money of
Great Britain to be paid to the said Lord Bishop or his certain Attorney
Executors Administrators or Assigns for the true payment whereof we bind
ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole and every part thereof
and the Heirs Executors and Administrators of us and each of us firmly
by the presents stated with our seals dated the sixth day of October
in the thirty sixth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George
the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland king
defend [sic] of the faith and in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and ninety six.
The condition of this obligation is such that if hereafter
there shall not appear any lawful let or impediment by reason of any [pre]
contract entered into before the twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven
Hundred and fifty four consanguinity affinity or any other lawful means
whatsoever but that the above [bounden] Wm Waters and Mary Powell of the same place
spinster may lawfully solemnize marriage together and in the same
afterwards lawfully remain and continue for Man and Wife [attending] to the
laws in that behalf provided And moreover if there be not at this present time
any Action Suit Plaints Quarrel or Demands [moved] or [depending] before any judge
Ecclesiastical or Temporal for or concerning any such lawful impediment between the said
parties nor that either of them be of any other Parish or of better Estate or
Degree than to the judge at granting of the license is suggested and by him sworn to ?
And lastly if the same Marriage shall be openly solemnized
in the Church or Chapel in the License specified between the hours appointed in
the Constitutions Ecclesiastical confirmed according to the form of the Book of
Common Prayer now by law established and if the above bounden Waters do save harmless the said Lord Bishop his Surrogates and others his Officers whatsoever
by Reason of the Premises Then this Obligation to be void or else to remain in full
force and Virtue.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of
W
Walters (his own signature)
A signature that looks like the name The mark of Walter Walters
William (maybe signed by the
Lord Bishop)
A few interesting observations...
1) William is of course the groom. But it also gives the name of the bondsman - Walter Walters. I would tend to believe that Walter is William's father, since he is also giving his guarantee here. It could be an older brother, perhaps, but I would think that father is the more likely relationship. This remains to be seen as I do some more research.
2) There is some discrepancy on the surname. The first line does say "William WATERS" whereas the second line says "Walter WALTERS," the middle uses "Wm WATERS" and the two signatures at the bottom appear to use the surname "WALTERS." I tend to believe that the surname is meant to be WALTERS, as this is what William actually signed his own name as. When writing "Walters" in cursive, the line of the 't' can often cross over the preceding 'l', making it look like Watters. And when pronounced with certain British accents, as one might imagine, the 'l' might be less pronounced than in American English, making it perhaps sound like "Waters." So in my research, I have seen the name spelled variously as Waters, Watters, and Walters. I tend to also think it should really be Walters based on the fact that, historically, Welsh surnames were patronymic, meaning they were derived from the first name of the person's father. So William Walters would be William, son of Walter (another reason I think Walter Walters was probably William's father). And in turn, Walter Walters would be Walter, son of Walter. So it's likely that William's grandfather was also named Walter.
3) We learn that William Walters is listed as a "yeoman." Dictionary.com defines this as: (in Britain) one of a class of lesser freeholders, below the gentry, who cultivated their own land, and were early on admitted in England to political rights. So it seems they were land-owning farmers of some means, especially as they gave their guarantee in the amount of $10,000 pounds! Thinking about how much that would be today is astounding, let alone over 200 years ago!
I now plan to look in the church records for more information about their children and hopefully parents and siblings, so more information to come later. And if anyone would like a copy of this marriage bond, I am happy to e-mail the document to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment