From: G6JPG@255soft.uk
In message , Ian
Goddard writes:
>On the whole my reaction would be that assuming the vicar knew his
>flock he wasn't going to let siblings or half-siblings marry.
Mine too. I'll revisit that line again sometime, maybe using different
sources (currently using mainly FMP, with some Ancestry - and on FMP,
parish registers; I'll have another look with maybe the bishop's
transcripts, or wills if they have any, or maybe familysearch).
>
>It's very likely that Owen was well established as a family name and
>used in many branches and generations. It makes sorting them out very
>difficult.
Could be. When I let FMP's search have "variants", it also brings up
John as an alternative to Owen, though I think that's unlikely in this
case as there seem to be both in the family and fairly well
distinguished.
>
>It's also possible that brothers were given the same name. It could
>happen if the godfathers were given free reign, probably not so much at
>that period but I've come across a record of /twins/ being given the
>same name.
>"10,090. Richard sone of Mr. Richard Horsf:dl bapt xxviith day
> 10,091. Ricard sone of the said Mr. Richard Horsfall and the
>latter borne beinge twindles bapt same day."
Some people are a glutton for punishment! Unless it really was Ricard
and Richard, though even that would be confusing.
>
>From Collins, Kirkburton PRs vol 1. April 1644.
>
>Ian
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"You realise, Fraser, that what happened between us can never repeat itself.
Unless, of course, the exact same circumstances were to repeat themselves." "By
exact same circumstances, sir, you mean: we would have to be aboard a train
loaded with unconscious Mounties, that had been taken over by terrorists, and
were heading for a nuclear catastrophe?" "Exactly." "Understood."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
