Request for help with understanding marriage record

[gj06211]

Please forgive me for being a new person on this forum, not a Norwegian speaker, and not entering the Norwegian characters properly.

I have been looking at the marriage record (in the digitalised parish records for Hole) for my ancestors Anders Olsen Svenbye and Johane Pedersdatter Grefsrud on 7 August 1815. This is marriage number 21 on page 385 of the marriage records for Hole parish 1815.

My question concerns the rather lengthy statement included in the record, which is signed by the two sponsors of the marriage.

Would someone be so kind as to give me a brief general idea as to what the statement says? I am not looking for a complete translation, just a summary sentence or two.

Thank you very much in advance.

Marilyn Veek (my husband's name; original Rorvik from Tysfjord, Nordland).

[gj00165]

Jeg løser ikke dette. Hvis noen som er flinkere til å lese håndskriften kan foreslå en løsning (på norsk), er det sikkert andre som kan oversette til engelsk (f.eks. jeg).
De har kongelig bevilgning, og kommentaren dreier seg om forlovererklæringen. Kanskje det dreier seg om slektskap?

Engelsk:
I cannot crack this. If someone better at the handwriting could suggest a solution (in Norwegian), I am sure others (e.g. myself) can do the translation.
The couple has "The King's permission" to wed, and the comment is part of what the witnesses declare. This may be a question of the couple being related?

Best,
Agnete

[gj05549]

hello,
I did not manage to "crack" it myself, but thanks to others on the Net, I got the translation: "At vi undertegnede Cautionister ved denne Vielsses Forretning, som ved nedlagt Forbud ved Fogd Thams den 4de Augusti blev standset, men relaxeret den 7de Augusti 1815 Kl: 8te Morgen, indestaaer i enhver Henseende Sognepræst Provst
Kjerulf og ere ansvarlige for alle den Følge være sig Ære eller PengeTab, samt alle de Omkostninger, som sagførelse meulig kunde foraarsage ham, bekræftetes herved under vore Hænder. Lars Grefsrud/s/ Jan Houg/s/".

This is old "Norvegian/Danish", and I wrote it all down, in case someone can translate all of it, but the main issue is this:

"the marriage was stopped on August 4th by Fogd Thams (an official - don`t remember the English word), but the decesion was reversed at 08.00 on August 7th (they got married one hour later). The two Best Men (Cautionister), Lars Grefsrud and Jan Houg, accepts the full responsibility, including problems the vicar (provst Kjerulf) may face, including "Honor or Money-loss" if the matter goes to trial".


Astrid.

[gj00165]

I absolutely agree with Astrid's translation/interpretation. But this is quite intriguing, unless the wording is part of some standard formula I do not know of. Why was the marriage initially stopped? This rarely happened, as far as I know. And why was the decision reversed?

What could the reason possibly be, for the fogd (bailiff) Thams to stop the marriage? And why was this prohibition lifted 3 days later? (And by whom?)

There must have been some kind of dispute, and what kind could give such results? Another suitor? Forced marriage? Less romantic: The economic part of the agreement (off-church) did not come true?

And then: How to find out...

Agnete

[gj00165]

I absolutely agree with Astrid's translation/interpretation. But this is quite intriguing, unless the wording is part of some standard formula I do not know of. Why was the marriage initially stopped? This rarely happened, as far as I know. And why was the decision reversed?

What could the reason possibly be, for the fogd (bailiff) Thams to stop the marriage? And why was this prohibition lifted 3 days later? (And by whom?)

There must have been some kind of dispute, and what kind could give such results? Another suitor? Forced marriage? Less romantic: The economic part of the agreement (off-church) did not come true?

And then: How to find out...

Agnete

[gj06211]

Thank you so very much for your efforts. Despite the difficulty in the beginning, the marriage apparently succeeded, because there were at least four children in the next seven years.
Tusen takk.

[gj01508]

To me it would seem only natural that most of this was a standard contract that all the sponsors agreed to for each wedding. I can imagine that the only reason it was written in the parish record was due to the very fact that they were at first not permitted to marry. I'm not too familiar with the various reasons as to why a couple could not marry but I think the main one would be kinship. Even then I think that anything beyond being first cousins was fine (I'm sure someone can correct me here). It may prove to be a challenge finding the cause for the ban but on the other hand you may stumble over it before you know it.

Hopefully it's one of those things that just makes your family history that little bit more interesting and colourful.

The best of luck.