Consider the following situations:

William Brain and Jane Brain were baptised at Littledean on 2 Sept 1821 and 27 July 1823 respectively. On parish records, the surname of the parents was shown as Brain and first names John and Susannah. Does this mean that the parents were married? In those days, before marriage certificates, would a church require evidence that a couple were married before baptising a baby? Susannah was not from the Forest but from ‘West Bromage.’
Would it have been socially acceptable in the Forest for a couple to live together and have a family in the 1820’s without being married? I am aware that ‘Victorian moral standards’ probably developed much later than this.

On 21 May 1826, Susannah married John Ruck at Lydney. On parish records, she is shown as ‘spinster’ but with surname Brain, the name of her former ‘partner.’ Does this indicate that she had never married John Brain or that they had been married but he had died or what? Before certificates, what evidence could anyone provide as to what their name actually was?

Susannah and John Ruck had a number of children including Mary Ann, baptised at Parkend on 10 Nov 1839. Mary Ann’s birth certificate shows the mother as ‘Susannah Ruck Late Brain formerly Clifton.’ Does this indicate that she had previously been married to John Brain?

On 12th Nov 1842, Jane Brain married Esau Harris at Newland. The marriage certificate shows Jane’s father as ‘John Brain, labourer.’ It does not say deceased. Does this indicate that John Brain was alive at that time and/or that he was present at the wedding?

I suspect that the answer to all these questions is ‘Not necessarily!’ But social historians might be able to give some answers.