Marriage Conundrum, Knapman or Satchell?

[RodChasH]

On the 2nd. Nov. 1867 my great grandparents Thomas Henry Whitehouse and Louisa "Knapman" were married in Battersea. Trouble is my mother is convinced her grandmother's maiden name was Louisa Satchell. There is no record of a Louisa Knapman anywhere else but a Louisa Satchell was born in Newport, Monmouthshire on the 18 July 1850. we know Louisa came from Newport and we know Louisa had a brother James Satchell who was later living in Battersea/Wandsworth.

There is no record of a Louisa Satchell either getting married or indeed doing anything after 1867.

My view is that she was married under an assumed name, presumably being only 17 this was because her parents objected. The marriage certificate gives her age as 18 and lists her as a spinster.

My question is: would this have been possible? Would she not have had to prove who she was before the marriage? Was the marriage actually legal? Or does anyone have anything else to say on this. My mother remembers her as a dear old lady who could not possibly have been involved in such subterfuge!

Many thanks.

[stanmapstone]

She would not have had to prove who she was before marriage, and marriages of minors, i.e. under 21, without consent after banns were valid, unless the banns had been forbidden by parents or guardians openly and publicly in church at the time of publication.

Stan

[jennifer c]

Have you got your grandmothers birth certificate for mothers maiden name?

Jennifer

[RodChasH]

Thanks Stan, so if the banns had been properly read and no one objected then the marriage was perfectly legal.

Thanks Jennifer, I believe my uncle may have it, will be seeing him at Christmas.

[lizdb]

Here is the Louisa Satchell (bn 1850) in 1851. She does indeed have a brother James

1851
Dolphin Street, Newport
John Satchell 39 masons labourer bn Coombemartin Somerset
Eliza 35 bn Temple Somerset
Elizabeth 20
Isabella 8
John 5
James 3
Louisa 8 mths    children all bn Newport

the large gap between Elizabeth and the rest suggests maybe Eliza was a second marriage for John?

[RodChasH]

My late sister did a lot of research some years ago, I have been trying to check through her notes. They were a slightly odd family it would seem, can't recall the details at present but Eliza used her maiden name at times or even a completely different one. My sister believed that the youngest child was actually the eldest daughter's, can't remember why now but I'll come across soon I hope!

edited to say: cancel that, I think it was a generation further back!

[stanmapstone]

Thanks Stan, so if the banns had been properly read and no one objected then the marriage was perfectly legal.

The names on the marriage certificate are those by which the couple are known by, and also what they gave to the priest or registrar, who would have no way of knowing what the names were on their birth certificate. It is not necessary to give a formal and written consent to a marriage. In the case of marriage after banns, consent is always presumed in the absence of any notice or expression of dissent by the person or persons, required to give consent.

Stan

[lizdb]

1861 does indeed add confusion!

Eliza seems to have remarried to a younger man.

Newport
John MArsh  36 blacksmith bn South Molton Devon
Eliza 45 bn Temple Somerset
Isabella Satchel 18 step daughter bn St Wools

that is the bottom of the page. Next page however, does not continue on, the schedule number on the left is not the next one, the road is different, and it is the middle of a PAyne family.

so annoying, cant see if Louisa is still with them.

[lizdb]

I see on her marriage Louisa gave her father as John Knapman, a mason.  Same Christian name and occupation as John Satchell.  Maybe the name alternatives start a generation further back, with him.