just a qurie

[tim.griffiths]

on my 4th great grandfather marriage allegations record, it gives his name william griffith a printer and john doe.
can anyone tell me whats meant by john doe as i always thought it meant unknown
thanks for your help in adavance
tim

[JudithM]

Well yes, John Doe has been used to mean unknown at times but on the other hand I have family with the surname Doe. I'm not familiar with marriage allegation records - is the John Doe listed in asection for grooms name in which case perhaps it was an alias, or could it be the name of a witness, or of the groom's father?

[Elaine ..Spain]

Could it be the name of the bondsman?

There is a section on here which might explain it - under the section headed Allegations and Bonds, paragraph 4

https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Marriage_Allegations,_Bonds_and_Licences_in_England_and_Wales

[tim.griffiths]

no does in the family at all judith and deffo not an alias as i got his marrige, baptism, death, residence.
have to look through those on family search, dont think the pregnacy one count, only 2 years between ages so that counts that out, will have to check the others out but as far as i know none of those fit elaine
but thanks for the help ladies

[tim.griffiths]

just had a thought, could it be his occupation?
i have him as a wine and beer merchant 3 years after his marriage, could there possibly have been conflict with his wifes parents concerning that ?
sorry still need to find out a few things but he was born in 1764 / 5 so records are becoming difficult now
tim

[Elaine ..Spain]

Is the marriage allegation available to view on the internet, if so can you give us a link to it?

[Elaine ..Spain]

.. the section I was trying to point you to on my link was as follows:

The bond, sworn "by two sufficient witnesses", one of whom was usually the groom, his father or a friend, pledged to forfeit a large sum of money (ranging from £40 to £200), if there was any consanguinity (a relationship within the prohibited degrees) between the parties or any pre-contract to another person. The large sum of money to be forfeit was intended to underline the serious nature of the oath, and it should not be thought that the couple had these funds at their disposal. The second bondsman soon became a formality, any convenient person acting. Later the second bondsman was often completely fictitious, names like John Doe and Richard Row being used..

source: https://www.familysearch.org/learn/w...land_and_Wales

[tim.griffiths]

i have it on ancestry, there was a bond of 200 quid allegations.jpg hope this helps, i had to snip it and i hope i haven't broken any rules

[PhotoFamily]

Thanks, Elaine. I can't put my finger on it, but I know I've seen John Doe on one of my records, too.

[Elaine ..Spain]

i have it on ancestry, there was a bond of 200 quid ..

Difficult to see because the image is small - if you can give the link (url/web address) it might be better or tell us which database collection it comes from.

.. but is John Doe the second bondsman - as suggested in my link post #7 ?

[tim.griffiths]

London and Surrey, England, Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1597-1921 Record for William GriffithLondon and Surrey, England, Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1597-192, he was born in st. faith's, im assume its st faith's under st'pauls

[Elaine ..Spain]

Found it ..

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?htx=View&r=5538&dbid=2056&iid=32515_1831101883_0014-00801&fn=William&ln=Griffith&st=r&ssrc=&pid=315854

IMO John Doe is the second bondsman!

[tim.griffiths]

London and Surrey, England, Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1597-1921 Record for William GriffithLondon and Surrey, England, Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1597-192, he was born in st. faith's, im assume its st faith's under st'pauls , dont know how to put a link up to ancestry for this record sorry. he was born abt 1764/5

[tim.griffiths]

thanks elaine, couldnt get my head around it, so im assuming here that john doe was someone who didnt want to add his real name to the allegations

[Elaine ..Spain]

thanks elaine, couldnt get my head around it, so im assuming here that john doe was someone who didnt want to add his real name to the allegations

.. or as suggested in the extract (post #7) ... someone completely fictitious!

[Elaine ..Spain]

Thanks, Elaine. I can't put my finger on it, but I know I've seen John Doe on one of my records, too.

Not something I've come across before on marriage allegations! You learn something new every day!

[scuda]

I've come across six for the Pitman family in London, 1783 - 1816. I thought he might have been an actual person, especially as one is quite specific: http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?h...rc=&pid=344460 So far, though, I am working on the basis that he is fictitios.

scuda

[clematised]

It said "in the presence of" and then names the groom and the John Doe will be a person who usually stands in as witness on such occasions.

I wish I could read what is written in the column but it is impossible to read.

Edna

[Elaine ..Spain]

It says (I think!)

Know all men by these presents that we, William Griffith of the parish of Saint Faith London printer and John Doe are hereby become bound unto the Worshipful John Jeffries Doctor in Divinity Major Canon Residentiary of the Cathedral Church of St Paul London and Official of the Diocese of London during the vacancy of the Episcopal ... lawfully consituted in the sum of 200 pounds of good and lawful money ....

I read it that both William Griffith and John Doe were the two bondsman.

[clematised]

Well Don Elaine I tried with magnifier but couldn't read it.