Two separate marriages for what I am sure are the same two people

[Mart 'n' Al]

I have come across two separate marriages for what I am sure are the same two people.  Alfred George Ralph Loughborough and Edith Susannah Grange.  In 1909 and 1910.  AGR Loughborough was known as Ralph.  The following are from FreeBMD, but other sites report the same.  I can't make any sense of it.

Surname     First name(s)          District     Vol     Page

Marriages Dec 1909   (>99%)
LOUGHBOROUGH     Alfred G R          Hampstead     1a    1363
LOUGHBOROUGH     Ralph                  Hampstead     1a    1363     


Marriages Sep 1910   (>99%)
Loughborough     Alfred [CG] R          Rochford     4a    1279   

Likewise for Edith:


Surname     First name(s)          District     Vol     Page

Marriages Dec 1909   (>99%)
GRANGE     Edith Susannah          Hampstead     1a    1363     

Marriages Sep 1910   (>99%)
Grange     Edith S          Rochford     4a    1279   


AGR Loughborough had a brother nephew who married in Rochford, so there are family connections.

At the time of the 1911 census they were living with her parents, at Linden House, Chiswick.  On the 1911 census they describe themselves as having been married for less than a year.  Yet records show their first marriage was in 1909.  I'm totally convinced that these are the same people, but because they are quite distant in my tree I have not been able to justify the marriage certificates.  Would a church perform a second wedding possibly just because it was required possibly for social reasons?   Could the first wedding have been declared invalid for some reason?  I'm not aware of either of them being underage,  nor having previously been married.  Also I consider it highly unlikely that they would have got married in 1909, very quickly divorced comma and then remarried the following year.  I would welcome any feedback.

Perhaps I am missing something very obvious?  Brain cells?  Thanks in advance.

Martin

[KGarrad]

Presumably the first marriage was annulled for some reason?

One of the party a minor?
Soldier marrying without permission?

[carol8353]

Could it be illegal if they didn't read the banns correctly?

[Mart 'n' Al]

KGarrad, they were both of age, no previous marriage, he was a bank clerk.  At least you've given me things to check.  Thank you.

Carol, it's possible.  Was that common?

Martin

[Wred]

Perhaps the first marriage was a secret or runaway marriage (possibly registrar office) and second with permission or insistence of family, to keep things respectable and visible for the neighbours.

Not everyone told the truth on certificates in my family very few told truth.

[carom]

Was one of them Catholic?
 As  I understand it, unless there is a special dispensation, a marriage anywhere other than a Catholic church is considered invalid.

[carol8353]

I think the only way to find out for sure is to buy at least one of the certs.

We can all guess at scenario's that may or may not be the real reason,but without sight of the cert it will probably not be the ultimate answer.

 

Carol

[Mart 'n' Al]

Thanks all, for some good reasons.  It struck me as odd, but not worth paying to investigate.  I've never come across it before.

Martin

[Maiden Stone]

The marriages might have been on BMD pages of local papers.
Do you know if they were church or registry office weddings?
Are the marriages on FREE REG website? Transcriptions on that site might have a note.