Why did my gg grandparents wait so long to get married?

[c-side]

Heywood is right - this has strayed a lot.

I only mentioned the 1921 Act because it might have answered the question 'was there any legislation which could explain why this couple did not marry until 1922'

The rest is interesting but not relevant to hsproutl.

But we could help more if we knew the names 

Christine

[hsproutl]

I didn't expect so many responses! Thanks.

I did a bit of a google around this earlier today and came across something called the Law of Property Act (1922). It allowed man and wife to equally inherit each others property and that of intestate children. May have something to do with it, may not, but it seems to be a little known piece of legislation someone else may find useful.

My relatives were:

Joseph Whitby, b. 1885 Thrumpton, Notts, d. 1936 Long Eaton, Derbys

Emily Marian Hill (variously named Emma, Emilie, Marion, Miriam, Maria) b. 1851 London? d. 1932 Long Eaton, Derbys.

No father listed for Emily on the marriage certificate, and both witnesses were their descendants so no hope of tracing her via siblings.

They were listed as husband and wife on the census's from 1881>

I had held off from giving their details because their early history is a bit long winded to explain.

Emily had her first child, Joseph Charles Whitby, in Princes Rd. Workhouse Infirmary, Lambeth in Jan 1875. The admissions records do not seem to exist for that period but in the creed register she is listed as Emily M. Whitby - not Emily Hill - and obviously they weren't married at that point.
Yet no father is listed on Joseph Charles Whitby's birth certificate.

All three are next found in Long Eaton in about 1877 at Joseph's christening, and they stayed there until their deaths. All subsequent children born to Emily have Joseph listed as the father.

What I don't yet know they answer to is, why did she take Joseph's name in the workhouse but not list him on the birth certificate? And then why, when they did live together, with children, did they not get married until 1922? Oh and also, who is she!!!??? 
 
It looks like the current options to explore are:
- Previously married
- Religious differences
- Parental disapproval
- Sudden change in circumstance/change of heart.

This family history lark is exiting but very frustrating 

Thanks again for your help!
 

[Mabel Bagshawe]

so I guess this is her birth - there's a  baptism matching on 30 March 1851, with mother Emily an unmarried woman

Emily Maria Hill
Q1 1851 Richmond (Surrey) Vol 4, p477

She appears still to be single in 1871

[hsproutl]

so I guess this is her birth - there's a  baptism matching on 30 March 1851, with mother Emily an unmarried woman

Emily Maria Hill
Q1 1851 Richmond (Surrey) Vol 4, p477

She appears still to be single in 1871

Yeah, she is a strong possibility.
It makes sense name and date wise, and especially since she has no father listed on her marriage certificate. Something I questioned about it was whether Richmond in Surrey could get confused with London - she listed her birthplace on the census' as London. I don't know the area well so this could be a common thing. 

Also did parents ever just register the first and last names of their child and not bother including the middle name, or would they always register a middle name if it was given?   

There are a few Emma and Emily Hills that would fit the bill if middle names were not always registered.

Thanks,
hsproutl

[pinefamily]

You probably need to find the earliest instance of your ancestor that has the middle name. In some cases, middle names were adopted later in life, for various reasons.
Regarding the late marriage, I have the exact same thing in my own family tree. My great-grandparents had 6 daughters from 1880 to 1901. Great-grandmother had been married to someone else, and had 3 daughters. Family legend has it that the first husband deserted her, that's why she couldn't re-marry. In fact, the first two daughters were registered under the first husband's surname, and the third not at all. The next three cam along a bit later, with the "new" surname. Only by accident, I discovered that in fact they did marry, in 1915, after the first husband's death. They would have been both in their late 50's. So it did happen.

[joboy]

May not relate to your needs however;
I have a branch in my tree where between 1893 and 1913 they had 11 children then they then married in 1915 and I think the reason was something to do with a pension when he was called up for military duty.
Joe

[carlineric]

I have an instance where they waited 15 years. I think the reason they finally got married was due to two of the husband's brothers. Despite coming from a mining family one had become a doctor and the other a minister. The wedding took place in the doctor's house and the ceremony was conducted by the other brother. I can imagine the arm twisting the brothers gave the other to be respectable.

Eric

[clairec666]

Re Emily's birthplace - outerlying parts of London were officially in other counties (such as Surrey and Kent), but were often just stated as "London" on the census.

As for why the marriage took place, I guess we'll never know, unless you're incredibly lucky and find some diaries or letters from the time. Some things will always remain a mystery! Lots of interesting suggestions from people - my hunch is that it was something to do with inheritance, but I'm not familiar with inheritance laws so it's just a guess.

If the birth that Mabel Bagshaw found is correct, it looks like Emily M Hill and Emily senior (age 25) are in Richmond district in 1851.

[lisalisa]

What I don't yet know they answer to is, why did she take Joseph's name in the workhouse but not list him on the birth certificate?

If she had gone into the workhouse as a single woman using her 'real' name, she wouldn't have been able to give the child the father's surname, the child would have her name.
If she is in the workhouse as a single woman then she wouldn't be able to put a father's name on the certificate.
At least this is my understanding of how these things worked back then.

So by giving the child that name she is possibly avoiding the stigma of illegitimacy later on for that child, if they all live together with the same name, then everyone would assume they are married.

Perhaps the people where they went to live would just presume that they married elsewhere.

Good luck with this mystery,

Lisa