John Holland marriage to Sarah Beans 1810 Portsmouth - Royal Marines?

[rdarby]

Hi all,
just searching for the parents of my 2 x great grandmother, Elizabeth Holland..
I found a birth for Elizabeth in 1816, Portsmouth, mother 'Sarah' and not much else in the way of detail.
I know Elizabeth's father was John Holland from information she gave on her marriage(s) and he was in the employ of the Navy.
Also, one of the marriages was  witnessed by a Sarah Holland.
I have now found a marriage for a John Holland and a Sarah Beans, Portsmouth 1810 and would like to think these are Elizabeth's parents. On this marriage (Pallot's marriage index) it has 'R.Marines' next to John's name - could this mean Royal Marines? If so, lends a bit of weight to the finding.

[AlanBoyd]

There is an image on FindMyPast for the marriage, it clearly says 'bachelor, of the Royal Marines'

[AlanBoyd]

Elizabeth Holland baptised 22nd March 1816, Portsmouth St Thomas, mother Sarah is recorded as 'baseborn'.

added: that is a note in a transcript, the original simply has no father recorded.

[Rogerd1]

Elizabeth Holland baptised 22nd March 1816, Portsmouth St Thomas, mother Sarah is recorded as 'baseborn'.

added: that is a note in a transcript, the original simply has no father recorded.

Thanks for that, it is quite interesting and helpful.
Would ‘baseborn’ mean born on a Naval Base?

[Rogerd1]

Can any of you knowledgeable and kind people enlighten me about the role of the Royal Marines at this time (circa 1810-1816)? This was around the time of war with France wasn’t it?

[AlanBoyd]

No, baseborn means illegitimate. The evidence suggests that this Sarah/Elizabeth combination does not match the Holland/Beans marriage.

[Andy J2022]

Can any of you knowledgeable and kind people enlighten me about the role of the Royal Marines at this time (circa 1810-1816)? This was around the time of war with France wasn’t it?

The Royal Marines were and still are light infantry under the control of the Admiralty. Their principal role then and now is to act as a defence and fighting force principally intended to assist naval operations. For the period you are interested in I think this extract from Wikipedia deals with it well:

During the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Marines participated in every notable naval battle on board the Royal Navy's ships and also took part in multiple amphibious actions. Marines had a dual function aboard ships of the Royal Navy in this period; routinely, they ensured the security of the ship's officers and supported their maintenance of discipline in the ship's crew, and in battle, they engaged the enemy's crews, whether firing from positions on their own ship, or fighting in boarding actions.
The number of marines on board Royal Naval ships depended on the size of the ship and was generally kept at a ratio of one marine per ship gun, plus officers. For example: a First Rate Ship of the Line contained 104 marines while a 28 gun Frigate had 29. Between 1807 and 1814, the total marine establishment number was 31,400 men. Manpower (recruitment and retention) problems saw regular infantry units from the British Army being used as shipboard replacements on numerous occasions. One result of the Royal Navy's dominance of the seas in Europe, and the blockading of the French Navy's ports, was that manpower constraints became less of an issue at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. From 1812, such maritime supremacy meant the Mediterranean and Channel Fleets were assigned additional marines for use 'in destroying signal communications and other petty harassing modes of warfare."

You can find much more on the subject here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marines_Battalions_(Napoleonic_Wars)
The Royal Marines also played a major role during the American War of 1812. This included being part of the force which attacked Washington and burnt down the Capitol Building and the White House. Throughout the war Royal Marines units raided along the east coast of America including up the Penobscot River and in the Chesapeake Bay. They later helped capture Fort Bowyer in Mobile Bay in what was the last action of the war.

[rdarby]

No, baseborn means illegitimate. The evidence suggests that this Sarah/Elizabeth combination does not match the Holland/Beans marriage.

Thanks for your reply. I am still in the dark then as far as Elizabeth's birth is concerned!
The possibilities are that the Elizabeth baptised 22 March 1816 is not my 2xgreat grandmother. The marriage between John Holland and Sarah Beans may not be related to me either, but the time, place and occupation fits in. Elizabeth said in the census she was born in Portsmouth and going by her actual age it would have been c.1816.
The only other marriage & Birth that may be a match is John Holland & Elizabeth Hicks m. St Thomas Portsmouth 1813 and then a birth of an Elizabeth Holland in Oct 1816 to Elizabeth Holland

[AlanBoyd]

In the absence of information about John Holland's death I suppose it is a formal possibility that Sarah was a widow by the time of Elizabeth's conception/birth (i.e. the father was not John Holland). This would also require that Elizabeth believed that her father was JH, or lied about it when she married.