Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Age on enlisting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Age on enlisting

    How likely would it be for someone who was born in February 1796 to enlist in Mar 1804, and to subsequently marry (still in the army) in 1810. There are 2 people with the same name, born in the same area, most people think that is the one mentioned above, I think it more likely to be one born in 1783.

    What would be the youngest someone could enlist then?

    Thanks

    Oops, put this in the wrong place, sorry.
    Last edited by ozgirl; 03-11-12, 23:07. Reason: Oops
    Linda


    My avatar is my Grandmother Carolina Meulenhoff 1896 - 1955

  • #2
    Ozgirl,
    If the person was born in 1796 it would be highly unlikely that he would have joined up at the age of 8 in 1804. General recruitment age was 18 yo although young lads

    who looked older could have joined some years earlier. (My g/father joined up at 16 in 1885 for example, by just putting up his age to 18). In those days the onus of proof of age

    didn't come with a birth certificate. For interest sake the age of impressment in the 18th century was between 18 and 45 years old. Normally the navy gained their recruits that way

    but the army could in times of lack of soldiers.

    I would suggest that your man is the one born in 1783.

    David
    Last edited by grumpy; 03-11-12, 23:45.
    Whoever said Seek and Ye shall find was not a genealogist.

    David

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks David, I thought it was highly unlikely, also that he would have married (a 27 year old woman) at the age of fifteen! This is being discussed on another forum, and I have mentioned that I think it likely to be the one born in 1783, but no-one has seemed to consider this. Oh well...
      Linda


      My avatar is my Grandmother Carolina Meulenhoff 1896 - 1955

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ozgirl View Post
        Oops, put this in the wrong place, sorry.
        Moved to the right place!

        I would agree with David, the man born in 1783 seems more likely to be the right one.
        Elaine







        Comment


        • #5
          I also agree that it is extremely unlikely an 8 year old would be enlisted.

          I am not sure when it became necessary to get permission to marry if you were enlisted but I am quite sure it would not have been granted to a 14 year old.

          OC

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks, I'll have another go telling them, see if any one takes any notice!
            Linda


            My avatar is my Grandmother Carolina Meulenhoff 1896 - 1955

            Comment


            • #7
              Well I tried, but no-one seems to be at all interested, even though according to their research the man they want was born in the same town as the one I found in 1783, and not the town of the one born in 1796. Probably because a tree on Ancestry has him as the younger man.
              Linda


              My avatar is my Grandmother Carolina Meulenhoff 1896 - 1955

              Comment


              • #8
                ozgirl

                Do they have his enlistment papers?

                You could put a comment on the ancestry tree, to the effect that you think it's more likely to be the one born in 1783.

                OC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi OC, from what the poster said, she has all the military papers, so presumably that would include enlistment. I'll have a think about putting a comment on the tree. I think one of the reasons they want this one is that he ties in to a tree relating to one of the high up LDS people, so a lot of research done into it.
                  Linda


                  My avatar is my Grandmother Carolina Meulenhoff 1896 - 1955

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If his service papers have survived they might be on FMP and hopefully should give his age at enlistment.
                    The National Archives, Kew – Research Service Offered
                    Contact me via PM on Family Tree Forum or via my personal website - www.militaryandfamilyresearch.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I would also expect his marriage record to contain some kind of reference to his age and occupation. He would have needed parental/guardian permission to marry at 14 and I doubt a 14 year old could pass for 21!

                      OC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I've been googling and found this.

                        "Private John Berry, enlisted...28 Feb 1807, aged 17. Served one year under age, then...."

                        So, in 1807, the age for enlistment was 18 but you could go in younger. I very much doubt you could go in aged 8 though - unless there was some kind of pauper's apprenticeship involved. Still don't like the 14 year old marrying though, if he was a serving soldier.

                        OC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          His marriage is on ancestry - he conveniently married in Dorset so is in the parish records. No mention of age, but is "a soldier in 11th Dragoons". On FMP he is mentioned in the 1806 Regimental indices, which is where I found his date of enlistment, and on the Waterloo Medal Roll. Can't find any other records for him.

                          Thanks for that OC, I think it clarifies the point nicely!
                          Linda


                          My avatar is my Grandmother Carolina Meulenhoff 1896 - 1955

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            One other possibility, you say Born 1796 but surely you mean baptised 1796 as pre 1837 it was baptisms that were recorded more so than births? If the 1796 was a baptismal date then he could have been born 10 years or even more before he was baptised so is that a possibility?

                            Janet
                            Last edited by Janet; 06-11-12, 22:31.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Janet

                              Yes, you are right of course - but it would be his AGE which showed on his service papers, not his date of baptism.

                              Also, in my experience, in the 1700s you were baptised shortly after birth or never at all. Very occasionally I have seen something which states the baptism is not a newborn, but an older child.

                              I'd be wanting a really close look at his service papers myself, before I was convinced of anything at all! You could be right - but none of the other people involved in this tale appear to have any doubts about him being 8 when he enlisted and 14 when he married. I must introduce them to my umpty-times GGF, who married at 8, fathered a child at 10 and then one more when he was 78 (four years after he died, but hey, that's internet research for you).

                              OC

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Hi Janet, I have the baptism discs for the county, and on this particular one baptism was on 3 Apr 1796, and a note that he was born 24 Feb 1796 - I wish all vicars did this!
                                Linda


                                My avatar is my Grandmother Carolina Meulenhoff 1896 - 1955

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I've seen papers for a boy enlisting at 10 so perhaps 8 is possible! What was his name?
                                  The National Archives, Kew – Research Service Offered
                                  Contact me via PM on Family Tree Forum or via my personal website - www.militaryandfamilyresearch.co.uk

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Ann

                                    Would a ten year old be able/allowed to attest? Wouldn't someone else have to do it for him, i.e. parent, guardian, poor law officer?

                                    OC

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      OC

                                      I don't know. The papers I have are just relating to his discharge - they don't include his attestation.

                                      However, there's this, from the Royal Military Asylum website

                                      1. There were an estimated 4,000 boys between the ages of 10 and 17, all armies, present at the Battle of Waterloo. James Wade, a drummer in the 9th Foot (The Norfolk Regiment) was age 7 on his enlistment and present at the Battle of Bucasso. At age 28, after 21 years of service, he applied for a medical discharge due to wounds received in battle.
                                      The National Archives, Kew – Research Service Offered
                                      Contact me via PM on Family Tree Forum or via my personal website - www.militaryandfamilyresearch.co.uk

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        *Faints*


                                        I knew about boy sailors and I knew about drummer boys but sort of thought the drummer boys were camp followers rather than enlisted.

                                        OC

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X