1939 Conundrum.

[brentor boy]

The birth of Mary Cowling was registered in Tavistock in December quarter 1909.
Her marriage to Donald Nicolson was registered in Bridport September quarter 1944.

In 1939 she was recorded as Mary Nicolson, living in Torbay. Alternative surnames "Cowling" and "Nicholas" are also shown.

It seems that Donald died in Torquay in 1975 and Mary, as Mary Nicolson, died on Merseyside in 2004. These two events have not been confirmed conclusively.

How could she have been recorded in her married name in 1939, 5 years before her marriage?
What meaning can be attached to the inclusion of the name Nicholas?

[wimsey]

... so you're saying that Nicolson was the FIRST surname entered, with Cowling and Nicholas clearly added later ? That certainly sounds strange.

[emeltee]

Have you looked at the image of the original page? I think you ought to because it is slightly different to the info given in the Preview. I can't go into detail because of fmp's Ts &Cs.

Emeltee

[janbooth]

I think this is just an instance where whoever entered the details made a complete mess of it rather than anything else. The first original entry is unreadable and crossed out and her correct maiden name then entered. This in turn has been crossed out and the other surnames you mention have been entered. As emeltee has stated, we cannot go into any more detail because of FMP's Terms & Conditions. The only marriage I can find for Mary COWLING on the GRO Index is the one to Donald NICHOLSON in 1944. The 1939 Register is no more perfect than any other census records and mistakes were made as I have found in my own research.

Janet

[Pam Downes]

The 1939 was used as a basis for the NHS until 1991 so when a woman married it was noted in the Register. FMP seem to index such changes by using the married surname first, and then other (maiden, second marriage) surnames in brackets afterwards. It doesn't matter which surname you use for your search as it will show the entry.
Provided you get the town correct. Mary was living in Torguay, not Torbay.

When the name change was noted in the Register the date of change was usually noted as well, so you can have a fairly good idea of when someone married.
I would suggest that you look at the actual image (if you haven't already done so) and you should see Cowling crossed out and Nicolson written somewhere in the box, with a date pertaining to the marriage.
Then I further suspect that Nicolson has been crossed through with a date of the amendment to Nicolas.

But have a thorough look at the image, analyse every little detail, and then come back to the thread with findings.
Then I'll give you my opinion. (Though not until after 4pm as I have to go out.)

Thank you to Emeltee and Janet for their correct answers regarding the need for the original poster to look
at the image.

Pam

[brentor boy]

Thanks, everyone, for your responses and providing an answer to my first question.

Clearly to resolve the second issue I have to get back to basics and original source. Unless the Nicholas connection is simply the result of a confusion with Nicolson, or some similar erroneous recording, I shall have to have a rethink..