What should I make of the FreeBMD records for the marriages of my cousin, Arthur William GOUGH? In FreeBMD, I pick out two marriages between Arthur William GOUGH and Emily Jane CHANT, in two different locations and in two different years: firstly, in Bruton, Somerset, in Wincanton distict in Q4 of 1905, and secondly, in Guildford, in Q3 of 1906. In those years, as best I can determine, Arthur was in the Army Service Corp.. Any helpful suggestions? Peter Ferreira Toronto, Canada.

Whilst it is surprising when it happens to you, and causes a bit of a puzzle, I have a relative who led me a long and merry dance; it is in fact quite common. Tom Wood wrote a piece about it: "Permission to marry, sir?" in Family Tree Magazine (October 2005, and before). Men in the ranks and officers had to have permission to marry, and that was often difficult to obtain. Army personnel who wanted their wives to be "taken on strength" for Army accommodation and rations needed their commanding officer's permission to marry, and sometimes that was difficult to obtain. In my case, and for at least one other case (mentioned in the above article) in the Royal Artillery permission was refused because the officer concerned did not qualify for a "marriage allowance" until his 30th birthday. Also the army restricted the number of men who were permitted to marry. It was usual for maximum of only 6 men per company of 100 to be allowed to marry and have families "on strength". The fact that you were already legitimately married was irrelevant. According to the regulations a serving man had to ask permission to marry, get that request agreed and then go through a ceremony before his wife could be taken "on strength". Alan Ramsey Skellcy's book The Victorian Army at Home: The recruitment and Terms and conditions of the British Regular 1859·1899 McGill-Queen's University Press, 1977; gives a very good account of the lot of an army family, and sometimes it was a pretty grim existence by today's standards. The question that I am intrigued by, and haven't yet had a sufficient answer to, is what is/are the legal status of the the marriage(s)? Presumably the participants in the second ceremony had to lie about their marital status etc, and does that make the second marriage illegal? (I don't think it qualifies as bigamy, or does it?). If the second marriage IS legal, then what is the status of the first one? Is that just "void" because of the second one? Was the second marriage an illegal act, could people have been prosecuted for it? Or was it just a ceremony that all parties (including the clergy) knew to be a sham, and just going through the motions and blind eyes abounded? On 2 September 2011 01:55, Peter Ferreira <[email protected]> wrote: > What should I make of the FreeBMD records for the marriages of my cousin, > Arthur William GOUGH? > > In FreeBMD, I pick out two marriages between Arthur William GOUGH and Emily > Jane CHANT, in two different locations and in two different years:  firstly, > in Bruton, Somerset, in Wincanton distict in Q4 of 1905, and secondly, in > Guildford, in Q3 of 1906. In those years, as best I can determine, Arthur > was in the Army Service Corp.. > > Any helpful suggestions? > > > Peter Ferreira > Toronto, Canada. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On 2011/09/02 02:55, Peter Ferreira wrote: > In FreeBMD, I pick out two marriages between Arthur William GOUGH and Emily > Jane CHANT, in two different locations and in two different years: firstly, > in Bruton, Somerset, in Wincanton distict in Q4 of 1905, and secondly, in > Guildford, in Q3 of 1906. In those years, as best I can determine, Arthur > was in the Army Service Corp.. > > Any helpful suggestions? There was probably something wrong with the details of the first registration that necessitated a correction or alteration. The GRO does not alter registration details. Instead, it makes a second registration and adds an annotation to the first denoting that this has been done. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg