Hi
As I said you can get very different names for death registrations. People are not necessarily at their best when registering a death and institutions can get it very wrong particularly if the person entered the institution in the name he/she was called by the family - the pet name which is this case might be Henry. Mary Ann just didn't like the name Albert? The example I gave was Mark who turned into Henry only after his marriage. I deliberate gave the Henry example having seen the only Kensington possibility for the death registration, but with a surname like Walker being so common and no other evidence of a pet name it looked a long shot and not spot on for the age either.
Working class people turning up at the registrar's office were not necessarily comfortable in front of middle class officialdom and it depends how officious and busy that registrar was, how strong the dialect/accent of the person concerned was, who might be able to read to a degree but probably was less competent at writing, whether they had a full set of teeth, particularly front ones and whether they were tired/rushed (registering if you were working would mean a loss of pay) or had popped into the pub to bolster their spirits, or were fabricating the information for their own reasons, weren't sure about the information, there is a misindexing in the index (no checks in the system), in the transcription......... really so many possible reasons why a registration might not be quite as expected.
On the marriage certificate you have, what information is given about Charles Hixon? Can we confirm that against the Charles Hixon we have?
The couple are not necessarily going to admit one of them is divorced unless they have to and if I remember correctly you have already stated Laura was illegitimate - again standard that illegitimate people do not admit their illegitimacy unless it is known and they have to. They fabricate fathers or give fathers the correct information, if they know it, except for their surnames which are the same as their own. In the case of a woman known as Walker amongst friends and neighbours for some years it may be just easier to go on as Walker for the marriage ceremony rather than complicate the issue. Marrying without all the strictly truthful details does not make the marriage illegal. You can be known by any name you like and Laura was free to marry.
The surname Hixon can be mispelt but in the actual spelling of Hixon there are relatively few instances of Charles Hixon as a name in FreeBMD. On that principle the odds are against a Charles Hixon marrying a Laura Walker in the right area and right time scale and being a doppleganger. If they are a doppleganger couple is there any evidence of their existance?
The only registration for a Laura Hixon either marriage or Death on FreeBMD after 1887.
Deaths Mar 1929
Hixon Laura 89 Kensington 1a 260
The only marriage or death registration for a Charles Hixon in London (1 marriage in Bedford, one in Wolverhampton, 2 deaths in Birmingham)
Deaths Dec 1901
Hixon Charles 76 Paddington 1a 45
I'd have thought with all the misindexing and incorrect information supplied on all the other records you have you would be approaching this possible marriage with a mindset of trying to prove or eliminate it not just discarding it straightaway because some of the elements don't fit the known facts (though different from trying to shoe horn something into place that doesn't fit because it is all that has been found). That is why I'm suggesting starting with Charles as he is less likely to have a reason to fabricate information.
Is he a widower, what is his age and what is his occupation? Are any of the witnesses Hixons? Is the address one of convenience?
Regards
Valda
