Wedding Date Help

[Kit]

I have a large family wedding photo of a double wedding when my Dad was about 10yo.

He can identify his grandparents, parents and a cousin in the photo. I can identify his grandmother's brother, George, as well. Dad has no memory of being at the wedding but a surname keeps coming to him, which would be one of the grooms, although he can not identify anyone in the bridal party.

Looking at FreeBDM 2 of George's daughters married in the same year, same district and fits in with the grooms surname Dad has. However the page numbers for the registration are 1 different. Is there anyway to work out if one is the last entry on one page and the other the first entry on the next page, without buying the certificates?

Also how likely in 1950 would it be that the mother of the brides didn't wear a hat? I'm just trying to identify George's wife but the most likely contender, the woman between the brides, looks old enough to be George's MIL, unless the wife aged badly. The woman next to George is beaming but has no hat and her age is hard to define.

[Merry]

Is there anyway to work out if one is the last entry on one page and the other the first entry on the next page, without buying the certificates?

Also how likely in 1950 would it be that the mother of the brides didn't wear a hat?

As far as I know there's no way to work out if the two marriages were consecutive from the index.

Your other Q is a difficult one - many women wouldn't have left the house without a hat in the 1950s, never mind go to a wedding without one, but on the other hand there would always be a few who refused to wear one! I presume it's a church wedding though? Hats even more expected in church!

[Phoenix]

I have been fooled before now, relying on an earlier number to indicate an earlier date. It could be a different subdistrict.

[kiterunner]

If the marriages were in a county or area covered by a local BMD site, you could check the references on there.

[Kit]

Your other Q is a difficult one - many women wouldn't have left the house without a hat in the 1950s, never mind go to a wedding without one, but on the other hand there would always be a few who refused to wear one! I presume it's a church wedding though? Hats even more expected in church!

I don't know if it was a church wedding, although I assume it was. The group photo is outdoors, there are 50 or more people in the photo though so they could easily have walked out of the church to an open area to have the photo.

If the marriages were in a county or area covered by a local BMD site, you could check the references on there.

It was the Surrey North Eastern district so I'll see if they have a local office. Thank you