On 07/12/2014 22:10, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:14:21 +0000, Ian Goddard > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 06/12/14 19:36, The Chief wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 6, 2014 4:18:39 AM UTC-8, David Marshall wrote: >>>> In January 1883 Corporal Booth of the Grenadier Guards married Elizabeth >>>> Bennett from Ireland in Clewer Berks. The marriage was correctly noted >>>> in his Army records. >>>> However on the civil marriage certificate his only occupation was given >>>> as lacemaker, which was indeed his occupation before and after his >>>> military service. >>>> On other marriage certificates for military personnel that I have seen >>>> (admittedly mainly in the 20th century) the serviceman's rank and number >>>> are recorded. >>>> Can anyone suggest if this case is unusual, or what might be an explanation? >>>> >>>> David >>> >>> People cared about social position then as now. A soldier was pretty low on the totem pole - very low - and I would suggest that he thought lacemaker was a better choice to put on an official marriage record. >>> >> >> Indeed. >> >> It's worth remembering that to a first approximation the clerk writing >> up a register writes down what they were told by the informant. Maybe >> in the case of a vicar writing up a PR they might supply information >> which they think they know but might be incorrect. >> >> To be more precise they write down what they think they heard which >> might not be what the informant said if there's a mismatch in accent >> (e.g. my ggfather's brothers with their broad Yorkshire accents about >> their place of birth on disembarkation in Sydney). >> >> To be even more precise, if the record was written up later it might be >> what the register writer makes of a scribbled note which the >> interrogator (not necessarily the same person) originally wrote. >> > If it is 1883 then the details should already have been written in the > register before the parties to the marriage have signed it. > >> And for even greater precision, the informant will have replied to the >> question he thought he was asked (ggfather's brothers again, one gave >> the name of the hamlet, the other the name of the parish at the time of >> his birth which was already out of date as it was being split). >> >> And finally the informant's answer will be what he chose to say in reply >> to the perceived question which might range from plain unvarnished truth >> via exaggeration to outright lie if he thought he could get away with it. My thanks to all who made suggestions. I am a little surprised that "lacemaker" would have been considered more prestigious than "Corporal in the Grenadier Guards" but maybe he just considered his military service a temporary episode in his life - he bought himself out and returned to lacemaking a couple of years later. David

David Marshall wrote: > > My thanks to all who made suggestions. I am a little surprised that "lacemaker" would have been considered > more prestigious than "Corporal in the Grenadier Guards" but maybe he just considered his military service a > temporary episode in his life - he bought himself out and returned to lacemaking a couple of years later. > > David > A temporary aberration perhaps ? How long was he in the Army; had there been any Army recruiting operations in the vicinity when he joined up ? Did he sign up for xxx years and then have to wait until he could leave? -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On 08/12/2014 10:49, Anne Chambers wrote: > David Marshall wrote: > >> >> My thanks to all who made suggestions. I am a little surprised that >> "lacemaker" would have been considered >> more prestigious than "Corporal in the Grenadier Guards" but maybe he >> just considered his military service a >> temporary episode in his life - he bought himself out and returned to >> lacemaking a couple of years later. >> >> David >> > A temporary aberration perhaps ? How long was he in the Army; had there > been any Army recruiting operations in the vicinity when he joined up ? > Did he sign up for xxx years and then have to wait until he could leave? > He enlisted in his home town of Nottingham in January 1877 for 12 years and purchased his release for £9 in July 1885. I have not yet found out why the wedding was in Clewer. David

On 08/12/2014 10:38, David Marshall wrote: > My thanks to all who made suggestions. I am a little surprised that > "lacemaker" would have been considered more prestigious than "Corporal > in the Grenadier Guards" but maybe he just considered his military > service a temporary episode in his life - he bought himself out and > returned to lacemaking a couple of years later. > > David > Perhaps he was asked about his profession rather than his occupation. He may have served a long apprentiship to become a lace maker and only joined the army because he lost his job?