War Diaries Talk

Married Without Leave

  • cyngast by cyngast moderator

    I've come across mention on this page of two men who are noted as having married without leave. Does this mean they went AWOL in order to get married? Or were they required to get permission before getting married? There is no mention of any disciplinary action. The two entries (about mid-page) are for Pte. Smith of the R.A.M.C. and Cpl. Jennings. Each includes the name of the bride, the location of the marriage, and the fact that the bride was a spinster.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    Permission before getting married I think. Certainly before the war there were all sorts of rules and restrictions around when a soldier could marry as the Army might then have to bear the cost of taking the wives with them overseas and wanted to limit the numbers. The same restrictions were not applied in wartime as the wives would hardly expect to accompany their husbands to France but I believe CO's permission was still required!

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Must have been a nightmare, between getting the father of the bride's permission and the CO's! At least the CO didn't have to turn up to give the soldier away!

    Posted

  • David_Underdown by David_Underdown moderator

    as this is 5 Field COmpany the men were presumably regulars, in order to go on the married establishment, which meant you were eligible for married quarters (if there were any), and to accompany the troops on overseas postings in peacetime you had to have permission to marry. As Heather says, there were limits to the numbers (I think it was basically a percentage of the established strength of the unit). Ordinarily a private might not get eprmission, pay not necessarily being enough to support a wife, a corporal would probably have more chance, and more senior NCOs would almost be expected to be married

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    Didn't there used to be a little rhyme about officers and when they should marry, which indicated the Army's attitude? Something like

    • Lieutenants may not
    • Captains may
    • Majors should
    • Lt Cols must

    I also read something about having to have 7 years service as a Regular solder (before the War) before permission would be given.

    Posted

  • brownfox by brownfox

    Sounds vaguely familiar but I can't find it anywhere.

    I did remember this though:
    GENERAL: Leaps tall buildings in a single bound, faster than a locomotive, talks to GOD.
    COLONEL: Clears medium rise buildings with a run up, can keep up with a locomotive, prays a lot.
    MAJOR: Jumps over Nissen huts with a run up, chases after locomotives, says 'OH GOD!' when he hits his thumb with a hammer..
    CAPTAIN: Jumps over puddles in a single bound, is allowed to ride on trains, goes to church.
    LIEUTENANT: Jumps in puddles, says 'Look at the choo-choo', is a member of the choir.
    SERGEANT-MAJOR: Picks up tall buildings and walks underneath. Derails locos and pulls the train himself to make it go faster. HE IS GOD!.

    Posted

  • cyngast by cyngast moderator

    Does anyone know if there would have been any kind of punishment given men who married without leave? The next page of this type the following month had a third man who did this.

    It also mentioned that one sapper had assumed his true name! (Not one of the men who married.) Again, any punishment for signing up under a false name? So far, and I'm nearly to the end of the diary, there is no further mention of any of them.

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    I'd assume any punishment would have been mentioned, so perhaps the CO chose to be lenient on this occassion. Perhaps others might be able to give a better insight, though!

    Posted

  • David_Underdown by David_Underdown moderator

    You wouldn't be regarded as married so far as the army was concerned I think, in terms of accomodation and so on at least. I think the rules did change a bit duriong the war anyway, with (perhaps surprisingly) greater recognition of couples simply living together and so on, you could alot part of your pay even without a marriage, and any children of such relationships at least might receive payments in the event of their father's deaths. Some of this is looked at in Richard van Emden's "The Quick and the Dead" I think (from memory).

    There was an official process for reverting to your real name, though depending on the circumstances it could also be treated as fraudulent enlistment and lead to a dishonourable discharge, though that was rare in war time. It depended on the reasons why you had adopted a different name too, if it was to esacpe an apprenticeship, or to desert a wife and family, you'd probably be treated more harshly. The principle in common law has always been that you can call yourself what you ike, so long as their is no intent to deceive (though this has been rather eroded in modern times by the requirements of anti-money laundering legislation and the like). There was no requirement to present any form of ID when joining up (which is also why so many managed to join up underage - and indeed overage).

    Posted

  • cyngast by cyngast moderator

    Thank you for the information, David. I can see that the need for men could lead to less strict consequences for these types of transgressions than in peacetime. I hadn't thought about the fact that 100 years ago, people weren't so strictly tied to their "legal" names as we all are now and didn't have to produce ID for even ordinary daily transactions.

    Posted