Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Conscription ages and avoiding conscription


GNH

Recommended Posts

I am a genealogist and am currently researching a case involving a male who I believe was born in 1879 in Wigan, Lancashire. He marries in 1905, with a given age of 25 on the certificate. His wife dies in 1910 and he is a widower age 30 in the 1911 census. I then track him to Bradford, Yorkshire in 1917 where he marries, but is now aged 41 on the certificate (therefore born c1876).

My working theory is that he moved away from his local area after the death of his wife, to where he was not known. He marries and gives a false age of 41. I believe that conscription in 1916 had been targeted at single men aged 18 41 and that this had later been extended to include married men as well.

Has anyone got knowledge of conscription avoidance strategies during WW1?

Many thanks

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man putatively born in 1879, being a widower with no dependant children, would have been liable under the Military Service Act 1916, and would have remained liable for the duration of the war, regardless of future marriage.

A man born in 1876, being a widower with no dependant children, would have been marginally liable under the Military Service Act 1916, depending on his precise date of birth.

Misstating an age for record on a marriage register, as is apparently being suggested may have have happened in the case in question, would not be relevant to liability under the Military Service Acts, as there was no mechanism for correlating ages randomly cited on marriage with potential conscription defaulters.

What was relevant to conscription was age cited for the purpose of the National Register in August 1915.

If there is clear evidence that one man gave ages at his two marriages that did not correspond with each other, then manifestly one age is false, but, in the absence of other evidence, it is impossible to identify which one, and there is even the possibility that both are false. There are a variety of motives for giving a false age on marriage, among them disguising a wide gap in age in comparison with the spouse, and, in the case of a man, disguising that he is younger than his bride.

If the question is that the man concerned does not appear to have been enlisted, there are more realistic reasons than hypothecating about a possible false age on marriage.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a genealogist and am currently researching a case involving a male who I believe was born in 1879 in Wigan, Lancashire. He marries in 1905, with a given age of 25 on the certificate. His wife dies in 1910 and he is a widower age 30 in the 1911 census. I then track him to Bradford, Yorkshire in 1917 where he marries, but is now aged 41 on the certificate (therefore born c1876).

My working theory is that he moved away from his local area after the death of his wife, to where he was not known. He marries and gives a false age of 41. I believe that conscription in 1916 had been targeted at single men aged 18 41 and that this had later been extended to include married men as well.

Has anyone got knowledge of conscription avoidance strategies during WW1?

Many thanks

Graham

What was his usual occupation.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig

Prior to being in Bradford (1911 census) he was a cotton loom weaver. In Bradford his marriage certificate gives an occupation of Mechanic (Fitter)

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Sweats

Thanks for your comments. The lady he marries in 1917 was only 23, so he was making the age difference even greater by saying he was 41.

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two further points:

How certain are you that a man living in one place, giving an age reflecting birth in one year and citing one occupation is the same man as one living in another place, giving an age reflecting birth in another year and citing a different occupation? It is surprising how often even a combination of an unusual forename and unusual surname can be replicated. If he was described at the second marriage as widower, that would greatly reduce the chance of replication.

Although a man in his thirties, qualified and experienced as a fitter, might be exempted, as an essential worker, from military service, it would ultimately depend on whether he was actually working as such, and where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig

Although he had been a cotton loom weaver, in 1911 he was living with a younger brother who was a Cycle & Motor Repairer, so he could have learnt new skills there

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magnumbellum

Thanks for your continued thoughts on this subject.

There is still a slight doubt that it is the same person. However everything (except age) indicates it is correct. On 1917 marriage cert, correct fathers name and occupation, and that he was deceased. He is described as a Widower...correct. His occupation was different but could be accounted for by skills learnt via his brother (see post to Craig above)

Thanks

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Did the lady he married in 1917 have any children?

CGM

I was mistaken in my response to your question. They did have a child in October 1916, who was registered as if the patents were married. They did marry 6 months later in April 1917

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you checked GRO deaths for births in 1879 and 1876 for men with that name to check there are not two men with the same name. Are there multiple possibilities of birth GROs for this name for one or both years.

If so, can you follow each one through from birth to death to eliminate them from being your man.

FMP may have his parish record for baptism.

TEW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks TEW

At the beginning of my research I logged all registered births of this name 1874 - 1882. Have killed off many due to infant deaths and followed others of them through various census returns.

Thanks G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...