RootsChat.Com
General => Armed Forces => Topic started by: LizzieL on Monday 26 September 16 12:36 BST (UK)
-
I know that Victorian soldiers needed their commanding officers permission if they wanted to get married, but does anyone know if that would have been the case in 1795?
I have found Banns for my ancestors marriage, but no marriage. Both were otp, so I would expect marriage in same church as banns within a week or two of the third reading.
The couple had their first child baptised in the same town 50 weeks after third reading of the banns.
He would have been abt 35 and she would have been abt 19 in 1795 (calculated from stated age at death. He was a corporal when first child baptised, promoted to Sergeant a few years later, so I suspect he had served for several years by 1795.
Could the marriage have been refused, but they decided to live together as man and wife anyway. They had several more children baptised in a variety of places where he served in the Royal Artillery.
-
A name please to search with.
Maggsie
-
Kenneth Fowler
I have other threads on his family, but I thought I'd try from another angle - e.g refusal of permission to marry
-
Hi,
Oh dear, sorry I could only find Muster and Medal records.
Maggsie
-
Could they have married at her church? The Banns are read at both churches if the couple live in separate parishes or different religions. The ones you found are obviously where he was stationed and so his parish church. After marriage they would live where he was stationed so use this church for the baptism of children.
Having had to ask permission to marry my OH as both serving at the time it was just a courtesy so they knew we were married and could adjust paperwork. The bride would have to ask permission of her father.
:)
Edit - if permission was with held he would have been posted away from the area but they stayed together so don't think it was the army. What about her father stopping it but with children don't think he would and they could marry when she was 21.
-
Could they have married at her church? The Banns are read at both churches if the couple live in separate parishes or different religions. The ones you found are obviously where he was stationed and so his parish church. After marriage they would live where he was stationed so use this church for the baptism of children.
:)
They were both OTP, so only one set of Banns. The banns were in Great Yarmouth. Their first child Ann was baptised in the Methodist chapel in GY. All children baptised in Non Conformist chapels of various types.
I have come across couples who have banns read with no marriage immediately after, then had another set of banns readings sometime later followed by a marriage. Also Banns and no immediate marriage, then a marriage later by licence. So I expect in those cases, there was an objection. I think in one case, the groom hadn't finished his apprenticeship and in the other the bride was under age. My longest delay is a couple who had banns read in 1826, had three children, then got married in 1866.
-
There's a Kennith (sic) Fowler married Maria Nile 20th Dec 1795 Yarmouth Norfolk
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NX11-6YX
-
There's a Kennith (sic) Fowler married Maria Nile 20th Dec 1795 Yarmouth Norfolk
That's not a marriage - I have the image - it's the Banns record I was referring to.
-
There's no original paperwork with it so can't tell.
-
Have now been on 3 sites and all giving 20th Dec 1795 as marriage but no paperwork and quoting parish records
-
According to the parish register only one marriage took place at St Nicholas Great Yarmouth on 20 Dec 1795, that was between William Hodge and Sarah Eldridge. I have been through the register for three months after last reading of banns and not found marriage.
20th Dec date given by various websites is the third reading of banns.
-
The couple who did marry on 20th Dec had the third reading of banns on 22 Nov, but they were both widowed, so maybe not in such a great hurry.
-
The children were baptised at non conformist churches. Is St Nicholas C of E if so the couple may be of different religions and married at the non conformist church. The Banns would be called for the 1 who was C of E.
-
I thought that Hardwicke's marriage act 1753 said that all marriages must take place in a C of E church, up till the establishment of register offices in 1837. So I don't see how a 1795 marriage could be in a non-conformist church.
-
Except Quakers and Jews. Ever thought they just couldn't afford to be married or decided on a non conformist marriage even though it wasn't legal. Wonder if it just wasn't written up.
If the army had said no to the wedding they wouldn't promote him if he stayed with her. They may not have married but I wouldn't blame the army there's something not quite right here, we just haven't come across what it is.
He's quite old for a 1st marriage isn't he? Could he still have a wife?
-
Had a thought when out walking the dog.
Were they Maria's Banns and was the marriage service on the army camp by the regimental chaplain?
-
I know that Victorian soldiers needed their commanding officers permission if they wanted to get married, but does anyone know if that would have been the case in 1795?
There is a report in the Bury and Norwich Post - Wednesday 21 May 1817 of a soldier who had asked his Commanding Officer permission to marry which he refused because the woman was of bad character. So it is quite likely that it was required in 1795.
According to "The Marriage Law of England" 1873, although a commanding officer was not authorized by law to forbid the banns or other preliminary proceedings, he may take other steps to check an improvident marriage.
Stan
-
Commanding Officers could not really stop soldiers getting married while they were at Home. There weren't many barracks at this time so most soldiers were billoted on the population. So again the CO could not really stop soldiers and their wives cohabiting. The crunch came when the regiment was ordered overseas.
Before the marriage roll became official it is thought that, as far as Private soldiers were considered, they would have been a ballot as to which wives (and children) could go with the regiment. The rest would have been left behind, and because the pay of a Private did not allow him to save much money, it is likely that the wife and children had to return to her home parish. As I am sure that the parish of the seaport they sailed from would not want to keep them on their parish relief.
This is really non-military. You may get a better answer on a general section from someone with knowledge of the treatment of the poor.
Ken
-
Have just come across your conversations. My 4x G.Grandfather, Thos Stephens, a Private in the Sussex Militia, married Mary Parris by Licence, at Beddingham, Lewes 14/9/1799. It appears Thos was underage and I am told there was a Permission to Marry signed by his father George. As a private, would he also have needed the permission of his superiors? Also, is it possible to find a copy of the Permission signed by his father?
Apologies for jumping in but I am hitting a lot of bricks walls in Oz.
Cheers
-
The marriage certificate is available on Ancestry. Mary is stated to be a widow. The marriage is by licence. Neither of the couple signed the marriage record.