Name used for marriage after divorce

[AntonyMMM]

The simple answer is that any registration information is always recorded using the name the person "uses or is known by" at the time of the event. Marriage has no automatic effect on the name a woman has to use, nor does divorce, so it would be whatever name the woman was using in her life at the time.

Previous names may be shown (and historically normally would be), as "formerly x" but they don't have to be, and if a person is known by more than one name at the time of the event then "otherwise y", but again don't have to be.

In cases of divorce, previous partners were once named as part of the "condition" column  - so it would read "the divorced wife of X...", but that is no longer the case.

One of the most common misunderstandings is  that children were given a surname at registration - that was not the case (in England and Wales) before 1969. Children were never registered as "SMITH" or "JONES", only their first names are recorded. The surname used in the indexes is that of the parent(s), depending on their marital status, not the child.

[CarolA3]

In cases of divorce, previous partners were once named as part of the "condition" column  - so it would read "the divorced wife of X...", but that is no longer the case.

I retained my first married surname for convenience after divorcing, and I married again in 2009 using that name.  Under 'Condition' the certificate simply states 'Previous marriage dissolved'.

Having my ex-husband's name on there would have been a grim reminder of unhappy times, rather like being haunted by a malevolent spirit

Carol

[AntonyMMM]

Having my ex-husband's name on there would have been a grim reminder of unhappy times, rather like being haunted by a malevolent spirit

Many people feel the same, which is why the inclusion of previous names e.g. "formerly xyz" isn't insisted upon.

I think the change to just "previous marriage dissolved" for a divorced person dates to around about 1950 - probably in connection with the 1949 Marriage Act (but it could have been slightly earlier).

[BumbleB]

I've got a re-marriage - 1872 - where the bride has reverted to her maiden name, and "condition" is Divorced Woman.  There is no mention of the previous husband's name (divorce obtained in 1871).

Oops, should have added:  Divorced husband also re-marries, in 1873, as "Widower"

[ThrelfallYorky]

I've "got" one, fortunately not on my side of my research, but a "married in", where a woman, Mary, maiden name "Smith", shall we say, had a son, registered his birth in 1867, as "Jeremy Fred" and the certificate gives his father as "Harrison", and her details as "formerly Smith". We've never ever managed, despite diligent searching, to find a marriage....
Then mother and son vanish from the small area they were both born in!
After spending nearly a year following up every likely "Jeremy", Jeremy Fred" and "Fred" born in the right area at the right time in 1871, '81 and '91 censuses, with mother Mary, also born in the right area. I narrowed it down to one. But she was with a chap named "Peter Brown" in 1871, 81 and 91,in an area neither seemed to have links with, and again I could find no marriage. They had another son "Eggbert". Nor could I find Mr Brown in any censuses for 1861, 1851 or even 1841, with his consistent age and birthplace......
Time passed, and I kept worrying at it. I followed this family through to the point where young "Jeremy Fred" married - and had a son "Henry".... oops, back to one of the surnames on his birth certificate! Interesting.
Mr "Brown" in time also died, about 1899. He was buried ... under a different surname, "Mike Wilkinson", by "Eggbert" - who at that point, reverted to the surname "Wilkinson" ... and then, I found Mr "Brown" in the earlier censuses, under "Wilkinson", and with a wife and children....
So younger son at least must've been told of Daddy "Brown"'s secret...  "Eggbert" married and his family used "Wilkinson" from that time onwards.  Mary's son had married under his original surname... well, not quite.... he married under "Smith", but after that consistently used "Harrison", and of his four children, the eldest started off with "Smith", but adopted "Harrison, the next two used "Harrison", and the final one had "Smith" as a middle name, followed by "Harrison"!
I was hardly surprised, when Mary died, that she was merely mentioned, on "Peter Brown / Mike Wilkinson"'s gravestone as "also Mary, his wife, died 1900 buried Bloggsville" - no surname at all hinted at! The grave the stone was on also contained "Eggbert" and some of his family, so it seemed likely that "Eggbert" had decided - diplomatically - to avoid the issue.
I've never found Mary's death, under any name, myself, nor have I been able to pin down "Jeremy Fred"'s stated real father, Mr "Harrison" after 1871, although I'd tidied him neatly back to Cumberland, as the child of a woman who - yes, you've guessed, later had other children with, and adopted the surname of a man she was not married to!
I can, I think, see why Ms "Smith" and Mr "Brown" may have felt a name change and a move to a different area of the country was a good idea, to evade his legal wife and family ... even though as both of the eloping pair, , and young "Jeremy Fred" were totally consistent about ages and birthplaces, all through, once you'd actually ferreted out the connection, it was not all that difficult to check it all out ... but oh, the complications by people assuming different surnames and even first names..... I hated them all by the time I'd solved it all and proved it!
(All names have been changed, to protect the guilty)

[Flemming]

I hated them all by the time I'd solved it all and proved it!

  Know the feeling. I want to go back in time and ask them 'what was all that about, then?' Perhaps the more people who do DNA, the more we'll find out and get our own back 

[ThrelfallYorky]

Fortunately, not my own line, but OH's. I've often said to him that my paternal mob were so considerate, hatched, matched and despatched in the same parish, with a not-too common surname, but some of his were really dodgy!

[jksdelver]

I have one who was married three times under her maiden name.

[BushInn1746]

I hated them all by the time I'd solved it all and proved it!

  Know the feeling. I want to go back in time and ask them 'what was all that about, then?' Perhaps the more people who do DNA, the more we'll find out and get our own back 

Hello

I think the more DNA that is done, the more research we'll soon have!

I hear DNA has highlighted 1,000s of potential matches in a single sample        , for one individual to look into! Also having to bring all her family lines forward (not back into history) and some of the DNA links are found to be other family born and their (unknown) childrens children born and now DNA Testing, since she was born.

Our DNA
We have found a DNA link, but only to unknown Grandchildren of my Mother's Uncle's family, who had 13 children and many of them have had children and those have had children, who are having/ had children too!

DNA Still Requires Methodical Research Too
Therefore, DNA still relies on precise methodical paperwork research by both the parties e.g. yours and the other person's/s DNA being compared with, to see where the link/s might be.

I hear DNA'ers are having to thoroughly and methodically check the potential matched donors Trees too, for possible errors.

Researchers Burden of Proof Differs
Some online Trees are sadly inaccurate, a researcher's burden of proof differs, some will spend decades looking for one link, whilst another guesses that a Baptism or Birth must be the one, but not everyone Baptised their children either and many children died too.

Trees That Claim Children Who Died at Three Years Old Had Children
One recent Tree linked to a Birth, but thorough research indicates that child died at 3 years old. Therefore it was no good assuming the other research was correct, it wasn't. A child cannot have children before his death at 3 (three) years old.

With DNA you will likely still need a throroughly well methodically researched and documented tree or line using documents and manuscripts at each step as well and likely do more research to work out how and where one's DNA links to the other.

 -----------

In answer to your original question, you have to be prepared to look at both/all surname possibilities when a person marries a subsequent time, obviously trying their surname at divorce first, or surname when they became Widows etc.

Childrens Birth Certificates
If you are working backward, surely the Mother's Maiden name is on the Child's Birth Certificate (1837 onward)? Most of the time the parents are both named and this should help you to narrow down the Marriage?

Three Marriages with Same Surnames Around Same Time Period
Don't accept or assume the first Marriage either, as I found 3 separate families in a 10 year period (19th Century), all the Birth surnames and the Mother's Maiden surname were the same, suggesting 3 separate Marriages, all using the same surnames.

Birth Certificate
Again the researcher really needs the Birth paperwork listing the parents names / surname and a methodical approach.

Coincidences
The harder I look 200 years ago to prove a link, the more coincidences I'm finding, so assumptions can't be made either.

Siblings Births
I'm discovering that searching for Mariners (who rubbed or might have rubbed shoulders with my known documented family), then not every child's Birth (in the Census) was registered from the start of Civil Registration in 1837. Siblings can often be found in the Census and their Birth might be registered (for possible clues).

Wills & Probate at Death
Don't forget Wills at an ancestor's death (if any listed on the Probate Registry) these help to build up the wider family sometimes surviving at death.

Being Stuck, No Marriage Over 200 Years Ago
After all this, my Father has said not everyone married, only a Feast to celebrate the Union (I'm stuck with a fully documented line to a Marriage of 1815 and a lot of side branches), but a 20+ year mystery continues.

In Scotland, the occasional Union was by Habit and Repute and one has to look for grave Memorials too.

A Dean family member said in the newspaper their Men Saluted to the Woman. His housekeeper accepted and agreed to getting together romantically as a couple and they were man and wife.

I have found the odd reference in 19th Century newspapers to couples, only marrying before death, having already been living together or having a family for some decades. Due to this being rare back then, a Marriage should always be earnestly looked for.

Happy hunting, Mark