A British Regiment, which typically has ten companies, was allowed six women to each company for embarkation.  Or about one woman for every ten men.

     There was no single, hard and fast proportion of women allowed to accompany a regiment on foreign serve.  The ratio varied, and can only be determined for certain by finding the orders given to each specific regiment.  More importantly, it is not necessarily true that the orders were followed.

     The number of women and children with the regiments generally exceeded that allowed in the embarkation orders.  In explaining the discrepancies (assuming that the orders were at least sometimes enforced), we must remember that the orders concern transportation, and do not address the number of women allowed to be with regiments after arrival at their destination.

     It is important to note that not all soldiers' wives chose to accompany their husbands to British Columbia.  We have no documentation of how many soldiers were married but not accompanied by their wives.  There is clear evidence, however, that some wives remained in England, never attempting to journey to British Columbia.

When a regiment went into an encampment or on campaign, orders were given regulating the number of women who could accompany it.  The numbers given in orders for campaigning are usually lower than the total number of women belonging to a given regiment.  We can assume, then, that only a portion of the women went into the field with the regiments, while the rest remained in the garrisons.          The numbers of women allowed to accompany a regiment on campaign are usually found in orderly books, and are sometimes mistaken for the total number of women that were accompanying a regiment.  In fact, it is clear that regimental women and children continued to be provided for on the regimental accounts even if they did not accompany their regiments into the field.

A wife On The Strength in Scutari, Turkey. The above is found in the upper right-hand corner of the photograph, The 3rd Grenadier Guards in Scutari, Turkey, 1845, by John Robertson.

Married to a Soldier

     We have referred to regimental women strictly as wives of soldiers.  This is because there is no reason to believe that the women of a regiment were anything but wives of soldiers in that regiment.  Unfortunately, it is just as difficult to prove that all of these women were married as it would be to prove that a significant number were not.  There is, however, considerable evidence to support the view that any woman who was considered a part of a regiment was in fact married to a man in that regiment.

     Records of general courts martial conducted by the British Army contain many citations of women being defendants or witnesses, as well as numerous other references to women who were involved with the army in one way or another.  Among these women are many who belonged to regiments.  In all such cases examined to date, women who belonged to a regiment are clearly stated as being wives of soldiers of the regiment.  More extensive research into this collection of court records may reveal otherwise, but all of the to date evidence from this source supports the conclusion that regimental women were army wives.

Widows and Orphans

     A woman's connection to a regiment was through marriage.  When a married soldier died, his widow and their children, as well as orphans, were provided with passage back to the British Isles.  It is also clear that, until they were able to make their way home, women who lost their husbands were cared for by the respective regiments.

     That this kind of consideration was given is illustrated by a general order issued on June 5, 1776, which ordered regimental quartermasters to draw shoes and stockings from army stores for widowed women and their children.  In some cases, widows fared better than the basic provision of subsistence and passage home.  Regimental commanders could provide additional accommodation if they wished.

Restrictions on Marriage

     Since a soldier's marital status could have an effect on his ability to serve, and since his wife could become a part of the regiment, it follows that the soldier's commanders would have some say over whether or not he should be allowed to marry.  While we do not find any evidence that a soldier could be forbidden to marry, we do find statements such as the following:

     This passage sheds light on some of the problems that could be introduced by imprudent marriages.  Since these types of problems would ultimately affect the regiment, the officers had a responsibility to attempt to influence their soldiers' marital choices.  Bennett Cuthbertson, author of a popular military textbook, devoted several paragraphs to the subject, which are here reproduced in their entirety.

Employment

For a soldier to be allowed to marry, it was expected that his future wife would be someone who could "earn her bread."  This was sensible for the woman, who could not be expected to subsist on her husband's meager pay and the half-ration allotted by the crown, especially if children were expected.  It was also sensible for the army, to avoid the possibility of the soldier being distracted from his duty either by indebtedness or by his spouse's deviant behavior, both of which often resulted from idleness.

Wives of the Coldstream Guard in Scutari, Turkey, 1854 The above is found in the lower left-hand corner of the photograph, The Coldstream Guard in Scutari, Turkey, 1854, newly arrived from England, by John Robertson.

     Many employment options were open to a soldier's wife.  Some of the more frequently documented occupations are presented below and discussed in terms of the information that we find in period military manuals, orderly books and other documents.

Women as Sutlers

     SUTLER, in war, one who follows the army, and furnishes provisions for the troops.  They pitch their tents, or build their huts, in the rear of each regiment, and about head quarters.

     The popular military writers of the day documented that women were allowed to employ themselves in this role.  Unfortunately, we are not given the details of how this occupation was sustained, that is, how the sutlers were to procure their wares, or the booths or tents from which to sell them.  What is clear is that they were an integral part of the encampment and of the military organization, and as such were subject to regulation:

     We see from this that it was considered wise to limit the number of sutlers (remember that the military texts usually contain recommendations, not regulations; regulations of this nature were usually established locally and could vary), and control their activities through the necessity of permission.  Permits would only be granted to women who had shown that they would follow orders.  Further, the sutler was required to operate a sound business, and not to "harbour" soldiers.

     In order to promote sobriety and safety, the army established regimental canteens so that the dispensation of spirits could be controlled.  To sell liquor more freely, soldiers' wives rented rooms and opened shops.  When the shops were ordered closed, it appears that some women attempted to expand the canteens.  In response, it was then ordered that only one canteen was allowed for each regiment, and only one sutler allowed to operate it, although it was not specified whether the sutler could or could not employ others.  Presumably, the regimental canteens were further regulated to guard against drinking to excess because the soldiers found that they could drink more by visiting the canteens of other regiments.  To prevent this, it was required that each canteen serve only its own regiment, with dire consequences for the sutler who failed to obey.  Finally, all dram shops were required to be licensed, regardless of who ran them.  Also from the preceding orders, it would appear that a significant proportion of the women who sold liquor illegally procured the cheapest product available, or perhaps made it themselves, thus explaining the concern about the potentially dire effect on the health of soldiers.

     In some cases, a female sutler enjoyed a privilege that was typically not allowed to the army's women, and often not even allowed to junior officers:

     None of the orders above pertains to armies on campaign.  We cannot say whether these women sutlers did, or were allowed to, ply their trade outside of garrisons and regular encampments.

Women as Nurses

     Nurses were an integral part of the army medical system.  As such, their duties were described in detail by military writers of the period:

     Notice the emphasis on character and sobriety, always requirements of a woman who was to hold a job with the army.  The above extracts pertain to regimental hospitals, for which we would expect only one or a few nurses.  Service abroad, however, offered additional nursing opportunities in the general hospitals of the various garrisons.  Orderly books are replete with entries such as the following:

     Overall, the available information demonstrates that British soldiers' wives who were employed as nurses could earn a "respectable" wage.  And, although such employment was not assuredly steady, there were many opportunities for it during the course of the war, with some women maintaining continuing employment in this capacity for extended periods.

     The image of the washerwoman camp follower is somewhat of a cliché, but evidence suggests that this may have been the most common occupation of regimental women who left the garrison or cantonment to accompany the army during an active campaign.  Order given shortly before the war began suggests that, in some cases, washing may have been the only reason that women were allowed to be with the army in the field.

     Most orders pertaining to laundresses address restrictions on where they could work in order to insure cleanliness and sanitation.

    One military text sheds some further light on the logistics of the job, clarifies that this was a paid occupation, and mentions one of the improprieties that could occur if finances were poorly managed:

    Another text mentions allowances made for laundresses in camps, further clarifying that the function was an established part of army logistics:

     An account book for one company of a British battalion shows twelve soldiers having debits for washing by four women.  All four washerwomen appear to have been married to men in the company since their surnames match.  There were over eighty men in this particular company, but only twelve with laundry debts recorded.  Perhaps, as described above, these men were the ones who could not be trusted to make a "punctual Payment."

     There are a number of mentions of laundry and laundresses in court martial records.  In one trial, Sarah Serjeant of the 1st Regiment of Guards testified "She got up at Gun firing, & felt a pair of Breeches by her Washing Tub."  Other wording of the trial testimony suggests that the washtub was in the camp, but this is not certain, nor is it apparent that the tub was in use at the time.  In many trials, soldiers testified that they were doing their own washing, but others refer to washerwomen.  Perhaps soldiers did their own laundry some of the time or washed only certain garments.  One defendant's testimony does nothing to clarify the issue, and raises other questions.  A soldier charged with desertion testified that:

    A second soldier at the same trial gave similar testimony, saying:

     This makes it sound as though a "washing woman" kept a stock of shirts, such that a soldier would bring in a dirty shirt and exchange it for a clean one, although there is not enough evidence to be sure of this.

     In April 1773, a fire destroyed the barracks of the British fort at Crown Point, New York.  A court of inquiry was held to determine the cause, and part of the testimony focused on the activities of Jane Ross, wife of a soldier in the 26th Regiment of Foot.  An officer of the 26th testified that "it was the common talk" that the fire was caused by a soldier's wife boiling soap, a chimney fire having started in the fireplace that Mrs. Ross had used to make soap the day before.  Mrs. Ross testified that it was common practice to make soap in the barracks rooms, that she was not aware of any orders prohibiting this practice, and that the chimney had last been swept some five weeks prior to the fire.

Women as Seamstresses

     Intuition would lead us to expect women to have been employed in the making and altering of clothing for the men of their regiments.  Most new clothing had to be fitted after it was received by a unit.  In addition, British regiments in America often received cloth with which to make up campaign clothing such as leggings, overalls or trowsers, and linen breeches.  When the amount of alterations and repairs required for a regiment on service is considered, it is clear that there was much sewing work to be done.  But tailoring was typically a male profession, and Britain's extensive textile industry provided many skilled tailors who had joined the army as soldiers.  So predictable was the presence in the ranks of skilled tailors that extensive information about their duties and the payments that they were to receive for their work can be found in orderly books and published military writings.  As a result, there are only a few known cases of women finding employment in producing or altering clothing for their regiments.  One such example is described by military writer Thomas Simes:

     The "necessaries" consisted of shirts, stockings and shoes, all items that wore out frequently and were procured locally by companies when they were required.  The company captain was responsible for the procurement of these articles, but might delegate a sergeant to actually locate and purchase them.  Apparently, a privilege associated with this responsibility was an opportunity for the sergeant's wife to realize some extra income.

     Women could be pressed into service to assist the regimental tailors on occasions when clothing had to be produced quickly.

     In general, that it was not typical for soldiers' wives to be employed making, altering or repairing clothing, but there were occasional opportunities for this type of work.

Other Employment

     There were other opportunities offered by the army for wives of soldiers to earn an income, albeit on a temporary basis.  Two examples are given in the following orders:

     Here we have another case of required work being mandatory for those qualified, such women being threatened with loss of ration privileges for noncompliance.  "Hand turf" was used for fuel.

     Concurrently, though, there is record of a work assignment from which women were specifically excluded.  The following prohibition is found within orders regarding fighting fires in Boston early in the war:

     It is not stated whether this ban was due to the hazardous nature of fire fighting or as a precaution against plundering.

Occupations and Numbers

     We have seen that there were many opportunities for "sober, industrious women" to earn a living with the army.  This information improves our overall image of the situation of the soldier's wife since we know that her husband's base pay was not enough to subsist her, much less any children, even if a reasonable amount of food was provided by the army.  What we do not have are precise data on exactly how many women of a regiment were employed at any given time.  The information presented above, however, offers enough benchmarks to make some general assumptions.

     We have seen that it was typical for a regiment to have about eighty women, or eight per company, when on service in America, although actual numbers varied widely.  When on campaign, a number of women were allowed to follow each company; we will use four as a typical figure, remembering that this number also varied widely.  Our scant evidence suggests that the primary employment of these women on campaign was as laundresses.  If we assume that these women also worked as laundresses while in garrison, then we have about one-half of a regiment's women in such employment.

     We know that some women worked as sutlers, and although it appears that only one was allowed to be so employed per regiment, others were sometimes permitted to keep shops in the vicinity of an encampment.  We have also seen opportunities for women to be nurses, and to occasionally engage in required sewing work for the troops.  All of these occupations might account for another five or ten women in a typical regiment.

     This leaves more than a third of the women of a regiment with no steady employment from the army.   Temporary opportunities occurred now and then, and certainly some wives were not "discreet active women," but we still must suppose that some wives sought employment outside of the army.  Continuing research may provide evidence of this or at least uncover details about the proportion of regimental women who were actively employed.

Habitation in the Garrison

     Most of the British army's time was spent in garrison.  Usually, the regiments spent winters in barracks or quarters, and summers in long-term encampments within or adjacent to towns.  During these times it was not necessary for the wives to "follow" their regiments, since the regiments were not going anywhere.  This is significant because it made it possible for women to find long-term housing in the towns.  When a regiment was in garrison, there was no need for the wives to stay in the encampments, even if it was allowed.  For this reason, we must consider habitation not in terms of barracks and encampments, but in terms of garrisons and campaigns.

     The writings of Bennett Cuthbertson provide some general insight on the consideration given to married soldiers and their wives when a regiment was in garrison:

     When a regiment left its huts or barracks and moved to an encampment, and especially if it went on campaign, accommodations had to be found for the women who were not able to accompany it.  One option was to allow them some of their own camp equipment:

Habitation on Campaign

     When they were on campaign, we naturally assume that the women of the regiment simply shared tenting with their husbands and whomever else was assigned to that tent.  An August 1776 return of tent assignments for Lieutenant-Colonel Sir John Wrottesley's Company of the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards includes assignments for five wives among the ninety-nine sergeants, corporals, drummers and private soldiers in the company.  There are eighteen tents specified, most having six people assigned to each, while a few sheltered only five.  Five of the tents included one woman among the six people assigned (excepting one which had only five people in total.)  Clearly, the women were considered among the total tentage requirements of the company.  Orders were very specific about the woman's place in a tent, directing that  " If a woman in the tent she sleeps behind the pole in the apex."  This would put here at the extreme back of the tent, in the area also used to store equipment and food.

Life on Campaign

     Armies on campaign could, of course, find themselves in combat.  The order of march was established to anticipate this, arranging the soldiers so that they could be readily deployed to the best advantage in battle.  Precautions were taken to protect all of the assets of the army by keeping them together on the march.  The fact that these "assets" included both the women and the baggage does not mean that the women were considered as being baggage.  Rather, common sense dictated that everything of value be kept together -- baggage, stores, horses, wagons, and all non­combatants including wounded and invalid soldiers, wives, and children.

     The reason for keeping such a tight rein on the followers of the army was, of course, to prevent plundering.  No amount of orders successfully stopped this constant problem.  Much has been written on this topic.  Since we are concerned with wives of soldiers, and not with followers of the army in general, we would like to be able to ascertain how much of the plundering was committed by army wives.  Unfortunately, there is no reliably accurate way to determine this.  A few bits of information persuade us that soldiers' wives were as opportunistic as anyone in taking advantage of chances to plunder.

     We also have the following mid-war quotation:

     If a woman was arrested for plundering, she was subject to the same system of justice as a man, namely, trial by court martial.  From May 1774 through May 1780, seven women associated with the army were tried by general court martial for plundering, theft or receiving goods known to have been stolen.  Of these, two are known to have been wives of soldiers.  It is not known how the remainder were affiliated with the army, the court records referring to them as "followers of the army" or, in one case, "retainer to the camp."

Women in Battle

     Following the army in any capacity always entailed the possibility of being exposed to battle.  Although the women were protected along with the other "assets" of the army, they were nevertheless at some degree of risk whenever there was combat.  This is illustrated by an event in Rhode Island during the siege in 1778.  On August 19, a soldier of the 54th Regiment's light infantry company was struck by a cannon ball, by which he...

     When Burgoyne's beleaguered army was encamped near Saratoga, the Baroness von Riedesel was with a group of officers' wives in a basement caring for wounded men.  She recounted the efforts of a soldier's wife who was undaunted by constant sniping fire:

Hazards

     We have seen that women who accompanied the army into the field might find themselves exposed to the dangers of battle.  Life with the army, of course, entailed many other hazards.  A soldier of the 33rd Regiment of Foot recounted a unique event demonstrating that, while women might eagerly accompany the troops to join in "foraging" from the inhabitants, they were not immune from being targeted by pranksters:

     Perhaps more disturbing than even the hazards of physical harm was that risk uniquely faced by those soldiers' wives who chose to follow the army, the possibility of dismissal from the regiment.  Few orders could more starkly illustrate the potentially subjective basis upon which an army marriage could be disrupted than the following:

Domestic Distress

     With the exception of being sent back to England, the types of hazards described above were generally typical of everyday life during the period, and not particular to the army.  The same is true of the domestic strife that an army wife might encounter.  Although we cannot accurately judge whether they were more or less frequent at the time, many of the social problems with which we are familiar today were common problems of 19th Century society as well.

          Two tragic incidents are recorded in the journals of British officers:

Notes on Clothing and Behavior

     To develop a more accurate image of British army wives, some information on their clothing and their behavior is of benefit.  Descriptive information of this sort is rare, but a few passages exist that provide some glimpses of these individuals.

  An inventory of the belongings of Mrs. McQueen, wife of a soldier in the 84th Royal Highland Emigrants, was made when she died:

     As we might expect, army women often possessed some items of soldiers' clothing.  In fact, because a soldier owned his clothing, paid for by stoppages from his wages, his widow was entitled to his regimental clothing or the value thereof:

     That an army widow might "inherit" regimental clothing does not mean, of course, that a woman would necessarily wear such garments, selling them always being a potential source of ready cash.  There are, however, a few descriptions of women wearing cast-off uniform coats or other army clothing.  A contemporary writer used this analogy:

     The most obvious departure from the norm of the typical army wife, of course, is Edes' focus upon what was likely a typical 18th Century military prison:

     Beyond the expected household duties and child-rearing responsibilities, as well as the wage-earning occupations noted previously, a military text's mention of another minor role at times fulfilled by the wives quite well illustrates that theme of ongoing service to their husbands and to the communal well-being of the army itself:

Notes on Children

     As noted earlier, the number of children recorded within the strength returns of a regiment was usually at least equal to the number of women.  Although we know far less about the children, their presence was clearly an accepted part of military life.  Several of the noted military writers of the day devoted text to them.  Thomas Simes noted:

     Army children were exposed to many of the same hazards as were faced by the women when in encampments, garrisons, and on board ship.  Some were exposed to domestic distress as well.  Concurrently, however, they were also able to enjoy the pleasures of childhood.  Archaeological excavations of British hut sites in the New York City area recovered a number of playthings: "buzzers" made from lead discs with serrated edges and holes for string through their centers; miniature pewter plates, cups, and platters; a doll; a tiny thimble; and a miniature pewter broom.

     And, the army made an effort to educate the children:

     We cannot say whether such army schools were maintained consistently during the war in America.  An account kept by Rhode Island school­master Joseph Rhodes includes an entry for "Schooling Soldiers Children" in 1777, during the British occupation.  This bit of information shows us not only that army children were sent to school, but also that the schools were not always maintained by the army itself.  In another case, a well-educated British soldier "was employed by a serjeant and his wife to teach their son writing and arithmetic."

Conclusions

This article is an overview intended to stimulate further research into the lives of the wives of the common British soldiers.  As such, it is in no way comprehensive.  It represents the assimilation of disparate notes accumulated during research on other aspects of the British Army.  Every topic covered in this article invites further, dedicated research.  We can, nonetheless, draw some general conclusions.      Women were not considered a burden; instead they were an integral part of the workings of a regiment.  Although some commanders-in-chief complained about the numbers of women with the army, none ever prohibited their presence.      General orders usually specified that three to six women per company were allowed to join a regiment on campaign, but victualing returns show that higher numbers were commonly maintained.  Eight women per company of fifty men was a typical ratio, although numbers varied widely.  In addition, a similar number of children were victualed.

Mrs. Rogers, again, this time from a larger picture entitled Captain Webb's hut, 4th Dragoon Guards. Photograph, by Roger Fenton, courtesy of Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division Digital ID cph 3g09196

     Widows were not abandoned or forced to remarry; instead, they were provided with some financial or material compensation, and given passage home.

     Many, if not most, women were gainfully employed.  In fact, employment was necessary for subsistence, and often was a condition of being allowed to accompany the army.

     Army wives sometimes had their own lodgings when regiments remained in one location for long periods.  Some remained in garrison towns when their regiments went on campaign.  Those who did follow the army on campaign were faced with the similar dangers and hardships as were experienced by the soldiers.

The above information comes from:

The Women of the British Army in America
by Don N. Hagist