More Marriage records

This post is nothing to do with the above posts, but I wasn't sure where to put it.

I have just found a very 'interesting' marriage / marriages.
My 3rd cousin 2x removed was born as George Fred Austen to mother Margaret Austen.
His mother married William Webb when he was about 2, but William died shortly after the marriage and Margaret went on to marry John Burgess when he was about 3.

In the 1881 census he is George Webb; in the 1891 census he is George Burgess.

Then in 1897 he joins the Militia and then the Army - as George Frederick Burgess, he has a long (22 years) career in the army earning several medals in the Boer War, but that is unimportant for this discussion.

On the 10 Feb 1904 he married Bessie Eliza Roberts at Enmore Green, Dorset (I have the marriage PR and the marriage GRO index) using the name George Frederick Austin and giving his father as William Frank Austin, deceased. Not unusual to 'make up' a father in his position, nor unusual to mis-spell his surname with an 'i' rather than an 'e'.

But his Army records state that he married Bessie Eliza Roberts on the 12 Dec 1905 at Boscombe, Hampshire - the GRO confirms this marriage as well, but as George Frederick Burgess.

My guess is that in order for the Army to recognise his marriage he had to re-marry using the name Burgess rather than Austin/Austen. I haven't got the marriage certificate for this '2nd' marriage, so don't know if he stated he was a bachelor or not, but Bessie uses her maiden name in the GRO for this second marriage.

Has anyone else come across this scenario? Would be interested in any feedback on this.
Thanks
Val

 

I have a family that swung back and forth between Shepherd and Hannah as a surname (and yes, they include a Hannah Hannah)...
But I think Val may be right in that it was regularising things for the Army - Bessie wouldn't get her wife's allowance if not in the name they were expecting.