Now how to put this? I would go with the formaer marriage based on the fact that it is a transcription from the records. I never accept any entries by LDS members unless I can verify it in the records, you wouldn't believe the errors in their database! In the beginning all entries had to be twice verified, now they can put in anything they want which makes searching so tedious as you have to winnow through all that chaff! Yesterday I found an entry that had one of my supposed ancestors being born in 1725 and married in 1821, go figure! My favourite is my husband's maternal great grandmother who I'd given up on and then by chance I cane over with a last name of Konen; well anyone who knows Norwegian knows that means 'the wife' so her middle name was actually her last name! I mention this because I've seen instances of occupations being used as last names in the U.K. records which is understandable because the scribes did not put in a comma after the name and wrote the occupation with a capital letter as James Allan Smith and not James Allan, Smith... so keep this in mind; if you know the occupation you might want to search for that too as James Allan, Smith, Miller, Wright etc. It's cold here today in sunny Florida so I have time to ramble :) moira p.s. I feel uncomfortable criticising the LDS church because of their invaluable contributions to family history and to the availability of a Family History Center only 3 miles where I have the opportunity to pour through microfilms of the original records. For this I am willing to accept the above.