identity theft

[dawnsh]

If my theory of the boy being AWOL from the Army (not proved) is correct then he would have been using the false name to elude the Army Police authorities.If his dob is also false then he may have been underage at marriage as well. I don't know if there were any Banns beforehand.

The legal age for marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys until the 1929 Age of Marriage Act.

Dawn

[Mike in Cumbria]

As I keep saying: under English Law you have the right to call yourself anything you like, just as long as there is no attempt to defraud or deceive.

Getting married under an assumed name does not fall into either category!

In years past, there was even less need to provide proof of identity.
E.G. very few people had a passport, or driving licence, or even knew where there birth certificate was!!

It's a good point and well made. There are lots of non fraudulent reasons for wanting to change your name. I knew a family of Longbottoms who, fed up of teasing in each generation, changed en masse to call themselves Long when a new baby was born. There was also a family of Saxe Coburgs who started calling themselves Windsor for some reason or other.

Mike

[KGarrad]

And I know personally of a family called Crapper, who changed their name!
They didn't want their son getting called names at school!

[rogerlewis]

You mean don't mention the War?
Roger

[rogerlewis]

But to reply to KGerrard....Yes...I understand what you are saying.I can call myself Sambulthrance if I want to or anything else using words.That does not make it my legal name though...otherwise there is no point in having birth certificates.One either has a legal name or one does not.Which is it?
Anything other than the name on a birth certificate is not your real name.(Actors and Actresses do it all the time)I agree one can call themselves anything they wish using words but it is still not their legal name.If you give someone a different name than on your birth certificate when asked,then you are telling a lie for whatever reason.Face it.It is known as a lie!...even today.Proof of identity also has nothing to do with the question either.
In the end I am not really interested in what everyone "thinks" or "says" about this.What I really would like is to know what the Law said about it in 1895.(Not what it doesn't say)I simply don't know.
Roger

[Mike in Cumbria]

.One either has a legal name or one does not.Which is it?
Anything other than the name on a birth certificate is not your real name.(Actors and Actresses do it all the time)I agree one can call themselves anything they wish using words but it is still not their legal name.If you give someone a different name than on your birth certificate when asked,then you are telling a lie for whatever reason.Face it.It is known as a lie!...even today.

Sambulthrance

No. It's not a lie. Here is the legal position: 
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/relationships_e/relationships_birth_certificates_and_changing_your_name_e/change_of_name.htm

[KGarrad]

Thank you Mike!

Exactly what I have been trying to say - but couldn't find that site!

Of course, the situation in 1895 was even less cut-and-dried.
Without passports, driving licences, etc., it was difficult to "prove" who you were.
You just needed someone to say that you were who you said you were!!

[dawnsh]

And information from the National Archives

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/change-of-name.htm

[Mike in Cumbria]

And information from the National Archives

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/change-of-name.htm

Great link, Dawn.  The most relevant phrase being "Contrary to popular belief"