Giving false info to census 1901

[Nick29]

It's also faintly possible that the marriage took place twice - once in 1898, and once in 1903, and you only found the second one.  No rules against marrying the same person twice.  Sometimes people would have a second ceremony because they couldn't afford a 'big do' the first time around.

Case dismissed, due to lack of evidence, me lud ! 

[andycand]

Blimey. I don't know why you think it's such a mortal sin that she lied that you are all bending over backwards to convince me that she did not. You don't even know her.

I'm not saying she was a mass murderer, I am saying she lied, which she did, on two censuses

It is not a case of trying to convince you she did not lie. You seem determined to prove she lied, and it's quite possible she did, but in order to do so you need to look at all the facts.

Looking at the 1901 census first, the only source is the Enumerators book, there is no indication as to who supplied the information nor what was supplied so it is difficult to prove beyond doubt that she lied. Also, the 1901 census asked the marital status, if she answered married and her first husband was still alive then she didn't lie. If she called herself Mary Bloggs and that was the name she used then that's not a lie so unless there is something else then the 1901 census information is not a lie.

Out of curiosity when did she marry her first husband, if it was 1897-1898 then one thing to be aware of is that the question on the 1911 census seems to have caused some confusion, whilst the years married and number of children related to the womans current marriage, comments on various forums suggest that quite a few people seemed to have misunderstood the question and included all marriages and in some cases the male answered the question.

Andy

[Galium]

I would think that if a couple were living as man and wife, and were generally believed to be married by their neighbours,  they would have been unlikely to give information to the contrary on their census form.

 The enumerator was quite possibly someone who knew them (enumerators were usually local to the area they covered), and even if he (usually it was a he) didn't, they might have been afraid that he would tell people that they did know.
 
The fear of being exposed to the neighbours as 'living in sin' could easily have been greater than any worry about a small chance of being fined.