Deciphering residence at time of marriage

[silicondale]

Joseph Henley married Elizabeth Charlotte Jones at St Martin in the Fields in 1852. i have the certificate which confirms which of several possible Joseph Henleys this was. He was certainly in the service of the Duke of Bedford, as his entry in the probate register (only 3 years later) gives his address as Woburn Abbey - and his father George was watchman at Woburn Abbey. The Duke of Bedford was the major property owner in the Covent Garden area, so the marriage location is no great surprise. However, I'm puzzled by the Residence at the time of marriage entry. It looks like an abbreviation. "New St"? And what is "S.G" ? I would welcome any suggestions. The marriage was also by Licence - would the most likely reason for this be that they were not actually resident in St Martin in the Fields parish?

[BumbleB]

SG possibly St Giles.  The marriage licence image, on Ancestry, states that both parties are of the parish of St Martin in the Fields.

[avm228]

Yes I agree with New Street, St Giles, which had centuries earlier been developed by the Dukes of Bedford: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol20/pt3/pp123-124.

[silicondale]

Thanks, both - Of course, St Giles! Should have been obvious. Not sure why they'd have needed a licence rather than banns if they were both resident in the parish, though.

[Jool]

Not sure why they'd have needed a licence rather than banns if they were both resident in the parish, though.

Possibly to marry quickly or as a status symbol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license
A snippet from the England and Wales section:

"There could be a number of reasons for a couple to obtain a licence: they might wish to marry quickly (and avoid the three weeks' delay by the calling of banns); they might wish to marry in a parish away from their home parish; or, because a licence required a higher payment than banns, they might choose to obtain one as a status symbol."

[stanmapstone]

Thanks, both - Of course, St Giles! Should have been obvious. Not sure why they'd have needed a licence rather than banns if they were both resident in the parish, though.

New Street was in the parish of St Giles in the Fields, the marriage was in the parish of St Martin in the Fields. 
If it was a Surrogate's or Common Licence then the legal requirement is that at least one of the couple must be resident at a bona fide address within the parish where the marriage is to take place for a minimum of fifteen consecutive days immediately prior to the issuing of the licence, which is then valid for three months,  and that there is no lawful impediment.

Stan