The issue of economic circumstances and their impact upon recruitment was raised in the discussion above - but not necessarily the wider range of socio-economic perspectives. Again, this is one of the instances where there is woefully inadequate input from socio-economic perspectives to help us understand the military ones.
I think Caroline and Don, if I may, the point is how many men, at the time of enlistment were married or subsequently married? This is a totally different question to how many married women were permitted on the company establishment or how many soldiers took “wives” irrespective of whether they were permitted or were admitted to the company establishment. I will look up the references but the inference was that the wife, of a married man who enlisted went on to "the parish" or the dung heap.
Basically the abandoned woman, especially if she had children was dependent upon whatever poor law relief was available. The poor law amendment act of 1834 provided some further relief – but poor law relief had remained substantially unchanged for three centuries prior to this amendment (which, as the name suggests amended rather than comprehensively changed relief viable up to that point).
Most people are at least aware of the concept of workhouses, due to exposure to literary texts such as Dickens and Gaskell; however there are some very substantial social histories that investigate the availability and distribution of poor law relief. Although the Workhouse Act (1723) provided for workhouses to accommodate the poor it has been suggested that, in many areas, the Act was not implemented wholesale due to the cost involved in building workhouses.
Instead, many parishes provided “outdoor relief” – but a significant factor that needs to be taken into account was the extent of industrialisation and urbanisation taking place in the late 18th century and the first half of the 19th. Some social historians have pointed to the inequities (and iniquities) of poor law relief – particularly the focus on the worsening conditions of agricultural labourers and their families. And don’t forget that party policy was determined, or was at least contingent, upon a substantial vested interest – that of landed aristocracy. Whilst provision for outdoor relief did go some way to offset the problems resulting from changing agricultural practices, especially in the south of England – for example as exemplified by “liberal” reforms such as the “Speenhamland” and “Roundsman” system. But these reforms did almost nothing to address those problems resulting from the migration of “surplus” labour from rural to industrialised areas – and the growth of urban populations
The poor law, whilst woefully inadequate, would have prevented some families from starving – for example in times of failing or poor harvests – although it has been argued that outdoor relief was better suited to the relatively industrialised regions, for example in the midlands and the north of England. What poor law relief didn’t address was cyclical, let alone structural, unemployment and underemployment. Laisser faire economics meant highly fluctuating trade cycles with attendant peaks and troughs - an economic depression, structural change in economic sectors, or a poor harvest would tend to throw large numbers of workers out of work – mostly for a relatively short time but often for good. Whilst industrialisation meant work for surplus labour - technological change and labour productivity often worked in the opposite direction – throwing workers into inactivity or pricing them out of work.
There were a number of short term provisions to offset some of the worse effects of economic change and potential social unrest – which ought to be addressed on a forum of this sort but perhaps not here. Needless to say that the investigation into poor law relief undertaken to support legislative change in 1832 took into account many factors – but IMO reform was not driven by the necessity of providing for the poor. We need to remember that there were no major reforms in "our period". However, the threat of invasion up to 1805 and the necessities of providing for a much larger standing army and militia than had hitherto been the case from 1805 to 1815 would have been two factors that were borne in mind at the time driving temporary socio-economic reforms - I will look these up if you’re interested.
So the short answer is: 1) many men must have been married or "married" at the time of enlistment, but exactly how many it would be great to know … and 2) the majority of women of married men who enlisted (especially those with children) became destitute, starved or worse.
Hope this helps
Ant