Marriage by License - limited information

[WeatherwaxOn]

Sorry, possibly a stupid question.

I have found scan of an entry in the parish register for the marriage of one of my ancestors. The entry says marriage "by license" (there are other entries which say "by banns" but the document lists only bride, groom and witnesses.
Does this mean that there is no other documentation? Trying to find parents of both parties, and not having much luck trying to find births -21/-23 years in the area.
Both were single, but both surnames could have been spelled in a variety of ways: Underwood (Vanderwood) & Prior (Pryor).
Marriage was in 1797

[RaspberryCoulis]

1797 is prior to civil registration so there won't be a certificate. Some areas have the marriage licences saved but it's patchy. Also not all parish registers have survived - it's entirely possible that the one previous to the marriage register has been destroyed.

www.essexrecordofficeblog.co.uk/married-by-licence/

Marriage by licence was quite common if the bride or groom was under 21, it wasn't necessarily a "quicky" marriage. Quite common if the groom was in the military and about to be sent overseas.

Sometimes when you get into the 18th century there just is no documentation, especially if your ancestors weren't landed gentry or criminals. My family is like this - generations of bog standard farmers who are difficult to track without parish registers.

[WeatherwaxOn]

Thanks Raspberry this is helpful. I'll look back at the census returns to see if I can narrow down year of birth more accurately, and maybe can link that to births in the right areas. I hadn't realised that license would apply where one or other party were under 21 - I will need to consider that too.

[Ellmau]

It won't give you the parents' names unless one of the parties was under age, but there was paperwork produced by the licence. The licence itself was given by the couple to the church, and these occasionally survive in parish records at the relevant record office. However, only a tiny minority survive.

The bishop/archdeacon/other which issued the licence would have kept what is called the allegation (basically a record of the application) and a bond entered into by, usually the groom, with a surety, to swear to them being legally OK to marry. (in my FH there was a couple who swore they were of age when they weren't, but the parents gave consent in the register. Bride was pregnant so I'm guessing it was all presented to the parents as a fait accompli...)

Who could grant a licence depends on where the marriage took place, but for most churches it could either be the bishop or the archdeacon or the archbishop. Some were in 'peculiar jurisdictions' which meant the bishop or archdeacon couldn't issue a licence - best to ask the record office what is likely.

You don't have to have a licence if under 21 btw. You just needed parental consent.

Licences were more expensive than marriage by banns, but more private and generally regarded as a posher option. That may correlate a bit with younger marriages. It also meant if you needed to get married in a hurry you didn't need to wait three weeks for the banns to be called.

[ConquestEmpireHungerPlague]

I'm glad you got some knowledgeable answers @WeatherwaxOn. I tried to check your people out but got nowhere really.

Just to add that ime censuses are not at all reliable wrt YOB, partly because what was actually asked for was age on census night, and the YOB was then extrapolated from that more or less successfully depending on whether the person had had their birthday that year yet or not, but also because a lot of people don't seem to have known their age! Fathers (as head of household) in particular don't always seem to have remembered their children's ages accurately. I've seen whole families listed in the wrong order when I've had their birth records and know perfectly well which one was which age, and a lot of people seem to have yoyo'd up and down in age as you look at them from one census to another. Also remember the first intact (more or less) census was 1841, so your two may not still have been alive by then.

[WeatherwaxOn]

^I found the female from the marriage back in 1797 on the 1841 census, but there isn't a lot of detail, and the age is obviously only approximate.
She's living with her married daughter (my ancestor), her husband and family. Age then is approx 75. No mention of the man she married, so I am guessing he'd died by then.

(I have just tracked down a death cert for an ancestor - she died in 1882 and the death cert says shes' 43. Interestingly on the census in 1881 she gives her age as 38. Well aware of a lot of artistic license with ages among 'my lot'!)

In terms of my searching, I'm trying to get back further. I can trace my lineage from the marriage in 1797 to living ancestors, but was hoping that local records for Surrey would have included these people. I think I need to look a little wider on years/spellings.

[WeatherwaxOn]

^Coming back to the marriage by license, the bride was not of the parish in which the marriage took place, which does provide an explanation.

[Tillytrotterisarotter]

I recently got married by licence due to covid. The church wasn't open for the vicar to read the banns and had no congregation to hear them so we had to pay £200 for a licence and DH had to swear an oath on the bible that all the information we had given was true and we were free to marry. You can also use a licence if you want a quick wedding and don't have time to have the banns read. Hope this helps