Soldier's "permission to marry"

[medpat]

Have now been on 3 sites and all giving 20th Dec 1795 as marriage but no paperwork and quoting parish records

[LizzieL]

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.

[LizzieL]

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.

[medpat]

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.

[LizzieL]

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.

[medpat]

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?

[medpat]

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?

[stanmapstone]

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

[km1971]

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