Marriage Index Question

[DianaCanada]

Literally, in the past two days, I have come across two instances of this type of listing (FreeBMD):
Marriage (one in 1946, one in 1977, and I do know at least one couple, and likely both had been living together for decades):
Smith, Ann
Jones, Ann (surname from first marriage)
Smith, George
The other couple also listed, in the normal fashion.

Now, I do know that in the case of "Ann" her maiden name was "Taylor" and I have info. on the first marriage.
In the case below, Williams was her maiden name:
Oliver, Thomas
Williams, Mary
Oliver, Mary
 I have seen divorced women be listed on a second marriage with their maiden name and their first husband's surname
What I am wondering is the married name included (Smith, Oliver) because the woman had been using that name for many years? (i.e. "aka")

[KGarrad]

The names are taken from the Marriage Certificate.
When someone is known as  "Smith, formerly Jones" or "Smith, previously known as Jones", both (or all) names are indexed.

[DianaCanada]

The names are taken from the Marriage Certificate.
When someone is known as  "Smith, formerly Jones" or "Smith, previously known as Jones", both (or all) names are indexed.

So, in the case of these two women (one single, one previously married), who had been living with their husbands years before they married them, were known as Smith and Oliver, that was the reason for including the surnames (per usage rather than as married name custom)? 

[David Nicoll]

Hi, it would also depend which country you are talking about. In Scotland the record would normally be her maiden name even if previously married.

[KGarrad]

The names are taken from the Marriage Certificate.
When someone is known as  "Smith, formerly Jones" or "Smith, previously known as Jones", both (or all) names are indexed.

So, in the case of these two women (one single, one previously married), who had been living with their husbands years before they married them, were known as Smith and Oliver, that was the reason for including the surnames (per usage rather than as married name custom)?

Exactly.
Always per usage.

[DianaCanada]

Thank you!

[DianaCanada]

Now I am curious as to why they married decades after living together as a couple.  In one case about 27 years (and 9 kids) and the other almost 40 years.  In the latter case I suppose they might have drifted apart and got back together in their golden years.  I found them in the 1939 together and they married in 1977.
The couple (full disclosure, Thomas Oliver and Elizabeth Lois Foster, who lived in Sussex, believe all their children have passed away) might have thought Lois would not have inherited if Thomas died and she was not married to him.  Thomas was 72 when they married and Lois was 50.

[Mabel Bagshawe]

the usual reason is that one party wasn't free to marry - given the age gap it's quite possible Thomas Oliver already had a wife, even if they'd drifted apart before he and Elizabeth got together

[DianaCanada]

the usual reason is that one party wasn't free to marry - given the age gap it's quite possible Thomas Oliver already had a wife, even if they'd drifted apart before he and Elizabeth got together

That does not seem to be the case, no evidence of a wife or marriage (he had an unusual mididle name), and was with his mother in 1911, bachelor, 37.  In the 1921 he is with Lois and a baby daughter.  No evidence of a marriage in between.
In the other case I mentioned, this might be true.  Her husband had a common first and last name, and unless I ordered the marriage certificate I can’t pick him out of dozens with that name, so I can’t pinpoint a death.  They lived in south London so not as east to track as in a village.