1939 - what have you found?

[rosie99]

I have one lady (although her husband would question that description!) who had only her first married name and her second married name, no maiden name. 

What dates did she marry 

[BumbleB]

If she was already married to her first husband by the time of the 1939 Register then her maiden name will not be listed.  Only if her first marriage was post-1939 Register date would her maiden name be shown.

[Sloe Gin]

Does anyone know how consistent they were with updating to add married names? 
If a young unmarried woman has had no new surname added, can we conclude that she did not marry?  or maybe emigrated and never came under the NHS system.

No, you can't conclude she didn't.  If she was young, there's a good chance she was in the NHS system from birth. So check the GRO index, that could tell you if she married, but the marriage may not be where expected. Look through the emigration records. If she's not there, she may have married in Scotland. Look at the probate calendar for a will for her parents and siblings, to see if she's an executrix (I've found a few marriages that way). Finally look for a death for her from the time she was included in the National Register onwards.

After all that, she may have lived with her man as though married but without having a little piece of paper saying so.

The person in question is 16 at the time of registration.  I found two marriages in the GRO index in the 1940s which match her name and middle initial and are in the right district, so I guessed that one of these is hers.  I did not find a death that matches her maiden name.  Of course it needs further research, but she is not a close relative and I am just curious.

You can only conclude that the Register was not informed of a name change. It is most likely that the person did not marry, but the other possibilities are; that the person did not notify their doctor of their name change; the doctor did not pass the information on to the NHS Register; she married but did not change her name; she moved out of England and Wales. Up to 1952 when National Registration was still in force it was a legal requirement to notify all changes of name or address, after that is was just another bit of admin. So you can expect the information in the Register to be pretty accurate up to 1952, rather less so after then. I have seen the record of a woman who married in 1944, showing her new surname, but she married again in 1958, and the new name does not appear. 

Do not forget systems were far more relaxed in those days, identity was more about recognising people (patients) by sight and many people only visited a doctor occasionally. Many were used to having to pay for medical treatment and so did not visit a doctor for years at a time.
If a doctor knew the person in the community rather than as their doctor he/she may not think to amend ther medical notes, I believe this to be the case with my brother as we lived in a village where everyone knew everyone else by sight.

Thank you, Mean Genie and Guy, I think this explains it.
She is someone of whose existence I was previously unaware.  I expect I will get to the bottom of it eventually.

[LizzieW]

I wasn't surprised to find that my aunts who married in 1940 had their maiden name lightly crossed out and their married name written in the column, but what did surprise me was to find my cousin, who must just have been visiting my maternal gran and my parents on the day of the registration and was at school at the time, had her maiden name changed too.  She didn't marry until 26 March 1955 and her record was altered on 6.9.1956 - the date is by the side of her married name.  As her first child was not born until 23 June 1957, I wonder why someone decided to show her married name, long before she would have gone to the GP about her pregnancy.

[StevieSteve]

That would be her first child born alive, not necessarily her first child.

Sorry if tactless, but it is a possibility. If I opened up my own mother's record, it might show something similar

[msr]

Surely you can't presume that it was just because of pregnancies that the records were added. 

Whilst rationing was in force it was necessary to know how many were in a household, and after the formation of the NHS (Long may it continue) any visit to a doctor would have been recorded, and it follows that if the NHS were using the register it would be incumbent on them to update it as instructed.
I'm not stating this as absolute fact, simply how I interpret what I have heard and read.

My own mother has 2 dates recorded.  One a few months after she married, and one 6 years later, although I haven't worked the latter out.

[msr]

Took 3 times before that posted.    The server is very busy apparently.   Good news for RC.   

[LizzieW]

That would be her first child born alive, not necessarily her first child.

As I was 14 when she got married and 15 when her married name was added, I'm sure I would have known if she'd had a miscarriage, unless it was very early.  Her mother would have told my mother and that would have been that.

[Mean_genie]

The date that appears next to a change of name is simply the date when the change was noted in the register. This is usually soon after the marriage, but could be some time later for a variety of reasons, most of them fairly uninteresting.