RootsChat.Com

Under common law there is a presumption of paternity within a marriage so that is what allows a married woman to register her child and have her husband entered as the father on the entry without him having to be present to agree ( as an unmarried father would).

If a married woman does name her husband as the father knowing that to be false, or impossible, then she would be committing perjury.

Thanks, Antony, I didn't know that.  So if a married woman goes to register the birth of her child, and names a man who is not her husband as the father, what information is entered in the register, if he is not with her?
In 1916 would the index  still show her married and maiden names?

Ancestry don't seem to have St Neots baptisms from before 1690, so I can't look at any original registers for 1660-80.
I do have transcripts of earlier records. These are patchy, and I don't know whether this is because pages are missing, or just illegible.  There are no baptisms shown between 1625 and 1661.

Wright baptisms from 1663/4:

4 Mar 1663/4 Luke s/o Richard
28 Jun 1668  Marie d/o Richard  gent.
4 Mar 1669/70  Darcia  d/o Wm.
19 Aug 1671  Barbra d/o Richard  gent.
23 Aug 1672  Richard s/o Robert  gent
7 Aug 1674  Maria d/o Robert  gent.
13 Mar 1674/5 Susanna d/o Richard  gent.
Dec 1675  Barbara and Elizabeth ds/o Robert  gent.
18 Mar 1675/6 Anna d/o William
9 Jul 1677  George s/o Robert  gent
18 Jan 1677/8 Rebecka d/o Richard  gent.
27 Jun 1679  Elizabeth d/o Robert  gent

No more until 1690, when a John Wright begins having children baptised at St Neots.

In my transcript, the only child of Francis Turner born after his marriage to Susan is a boy named Richard, baptised 13 June 1705. Buried 12 August 1705.  Maybe her father is Richard?

I can't see a burial of a William Wright, or a Richard Wright recorded in St Neots in the right time frame.  However, people who lived in this area didn't always use St Neots parish Church.  For instance Francis Turner jnr and his wife Elizabeth had their children baptised at nearby Eynesbury.  The parish registers of Southoe, or Eaton Socon, just over the county border in Bedfordshire might also have relevant records. 

I have a list of Huntingdonshire marriage bonds and allegations [which used to be online, but I can no longer find it]. 
Susan Wright and Francis Turner (both of St Neots) were married by licence in 1704. Although Ancestry has St Neots registers, the 1704 pages seem to be in a bad condition, and there are no marriages indexed.
Cambridgeshire Archives should be able to supply a copy of the bond - I'm not sure of their current prices, but if you email your request, I have always found them very helpful.

There is also a bond for a marriage of a Francis Turner and Elizabeth Triston (both of St Neots) in 1715, but in this case the marriage doesn't seem to be in the St Neots register, although the page for 1715 is clear.

A Francis Turner, baker was buried at St Neots on 14 October 1732.

Have you tried local newspapers for a report of the divorce?  By the '60s, a divorce would have become less newsworthy than in earlier times, but that would depend on the circumstances.

Also, before the Divorce Reform act of 1969, (which came into force 1 January 1971), only the 'innocent' party could petition for divorce, so if either of the couple you are looking at had a spouse who didn't wish to cooperate (for a while at any rate), they might have gone to live together elsewhere before they were free to marry. 

If electoral registers and telephone directories are available for the relevant areas you might be able to tell how long they were still at the address where they lived with their first spouses, and when they start appearing in the place where they married.

Not especially helpful, but in 1881 on the same page as some of their neighbours in 1891: Peter and Ellen Forster; Josiah and Elizabeth Birchall; Joseph and Margaret Boyers and James and Elizabeth Broadbent, there are three properties recorded as 'uninhabited'. 

I think that the 'U' written there only means that the house was empty on census night, so possibly one of the three was the Ashcroft house, but the family were away for some reason.

Do you know of any relatives they might have been with? Or perhaps they were travelling, and not recorded at all.