Tweet
Our resident expert Stephen Rigden, pictured below, answers your queries.
From Janice Curtis:
‘Some months ago I obtained the marriage certificate of the parents of my great-grandmother Emma Gray. John Gray, a Coldstream Guard (service no. 296) and Elizabeth Atkin were married on 2 April 1867 at St Peter ad Vincula, Middlesex. Their fathers are shown as John Gray, sawyer and Charles Atkin, ostler. In the 1871 census, Emma, her parents and two siblings are shown at the Tower of London.
I had thought that Emma was the oldest child, born in August 1867 but I found a further census entry for a William Gray with his grandfather Charles Atkin in New Sleaford. William Gray was born around 1865 and later joined the Royal Artillery (service no. 33382). References in his service record relate to his father’s later address in West Ham and also to the fact that two of his sons were with John and Elizabeth Gray on the 1901 census.
I have now found a parish record for a marriage between John Gray and Elizabeth Atkin in September 1861. This again gives his occupation as a Coldstream Guard and the bride and groom’s father details are the same. The 1911 census shows they had been married 49 years which would tie in with the 1861 marriage date. Do you have any suggestion as to why they appear to have married twice?’
Stephen says:
‘Hi Janice – thanks for this interesting question.
There are a number of possible reasons for a couple seemingly remarrying each other, such as:
I don’t believe any of these reasons are relevant to your case, however. I see that the bride Elizabeth married first as Atkins in 1861 and secondly as Atkin in 1867, although I don’t believe this would have been sufficient cause for them to remarry. Both times the wedding ceremonies were conducted in an Anglican church, so it wasn’t a case of civil and religious ceremonies, or of conversion.
Rather, I think the key to this question is the fact that John Gray was a Private in the Coldstream Guards. I expect that when he married in 1861 he did so ‘without leave’, i.e., he hadn’t sought permission from the Army. If he didn’t have permission, the Army would not recognise the marriage and would not allow the couple to live in public quarters. He got married on a second occasion (presumably self-declaring as ‘bachelor’ in the register), therefore, with the permission of his commanding officer. This would mean he would be placed upon the married establishment and that the Army would acknowledge his wife and issue as his dependents.
The King’s Regulations of 1912 (I do not have an earlier edition to hand) state that: ‘A soldier other than a warrant officer will not be placed on the married roll unless he has obtained the consent of his CO before marriage’ (paragraph 1359); ‘Permission to marry will not be granted unless (i) a vacancy exists on the married establishment, (ii) the CO has satisfied himself as to the woman’s character; (iii) the solider, if below the rank of serjeant, has (a) 5l in the Post Office Savings bank, (b) 7 years’ service…and (c) two good conduct badges’ (paragraph 1360); and ‘A soldier who married without the consent of his CO, or who was married before enlistment [not the case with John Gray], will be thereby debarred from being placed on the married roll at any subsequent time without the permission of his CO’ (paragraph 1361).
The corresponding paragraphs in the Queen’s Regulations, in place in the 1860s, may have differed slightly from these King’s Regulations of 1912, but I imagine that their import was the same. In other words, your great-great-grandparents got remarried to secure material benefits which were not otherwise available.’
If you’d like to send your question to Stephen, please register or opt to receive newsletters in ‘my account’. Stephen only has time to answer a couple of queries each month but if yours wasn’t answered this month, you could be lucky next time!
More...
Please note: This post has originated from a news feed from an external website.
Family Tree Forum neither endorses nor is responsible for the views of the author or any other content.
From Janice Curtis:
‘Some months ago I obtained the marriage certificate of the parents of my great-grandmother Emma Gray. John Gray, a Coldstream Guard (service no. 296) and Elizabeth Atkin were married on 2 April 1867 at St Peter ad Vincula, Middlesex. Their fathers are shown as John Gray, sawyer and Charles Atkin, ostler. In the 1871 census, Emma, her parents and two siblings are shown at the Tower of London.
I had thought that Emma was the oldest child, born in August 1867 but I found a further census entry for a William Gray with his grandfather Charles Atkin in New Sleaford. William Gray was born around 1865 and later joined the Royal Artillery (service no. 33382). References in his service record relate to his father’s later address in West Ham and also to the fact that two of his sons were with John and Elizabeth Gray on the 1901 census.
I have now found a parish record for a marriage between John Gray and Elizabeth Atkin in September 1861. This again gives his occupation as a Coldstream Guard and the bride and groom’s father details are the same. The 1911 census shows they had been married 49 years which would tie in with the 1861 marriage date. Do you have any suggestion as to why they appear to have married twice?’
Stephen says:
‘Hi Janice – thanks for this interesting question.
There are a number of possible reasons for a couple seemingly remarrying each other, such as:
- They divorced, thought better of it, and then remarried
- They had doubts about the validity of the first marriage and, therefore, remarried
- They had a civil and then a religious ceremony
- They changed (or acquired) faith and got married a second time
I don’t believe any of these reasons are relevant to your case, however. I see that the bride Elizabeth married first as Atkins in 1861 and secondly as Atkin in 1867, although I don’t believe this would have been sufficient cause for them to remarry. Both times the wedding ceremonies were conducted in an Anglican church, so it wasn’t a case of civil and religious ceremonies, or of conversion.
Rather, I think the key to this question is the fact that John Gray was a Private in the Coldstream Guards. I expect that when he married in 1861 he did so ‘without leave’, i.e., he hadn’t sought permission from the Army. If he didn’t have permission, the Army would not recognise the marriage and would not allow the couple to live in public quarters. He got married on a second occasion (presumably self-declaring as ‘bachelor’ in the register), therefore, with the permission of his commanding officer. This would mean he would be placed upon the married establishment and that the Army would acknowledge his wife and issue as his dependents.
The King’s Regulations of 1912 (I do not have an earlier edition to hand) state that: ‘A soldier other than a warrant officer will not be placed on the married roll unless he has obtained the consent of his CO before marriage’ (paragraph 1359); ‘Permission to marry will not be granted unless (i) a vacancy exists on the married establishment, (ii) the CO has satisfied himself as to the woman’s character; (iii) the solider, if below the rank of serjeant, has (a) 5l in the Post Office Savings bank, (b) 7 years’ service…and (c) two good conduct badges’ (paragraph 1360); and ‘A soldier who married without the consent of his CO, or who was married before enlistment [not the case with John Gray], will be thereby debarred from being placed on the married roll at any subsequent time without the permission of his CO’ (paragraph 1361).
The corresponding paragraphs in the Queen’s Regulations, in place in the 1860s, may have differed slightly from these King’s Regulations of 1912, but I imagine that their import was the same. In other words, your great-great-grandparents got remarried to secure material benefits which were not otherwise available.’
If you’d like to send your question to Stephen, please register or opt to receive newsletters in ‘my account’. Stephen only has time to answer a couple of queries each month but if yours wasn’t answered this month, you could be lucky next time!
More...
Please note: This post has originated from a news feed from an external website.
Family Tree Forum neither endorses nor is responsible for the views of the author or any other content.