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. 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again, one gave the name of the hamlet, the other the name of the parish at the time of his birth which was already out of date as it was being split).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. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

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.