From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Richard Smith   
    writes:   
   >On 16/11/2019 03:36, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >   
   >> Yes, I've got one of those (probably-fictitious first spouse with same   
   >> surname as mother's maiden name). [Unless it's incest, but (a) would she   
   >> admit that even to the registrar (b) I can't find a George in her near   
   >> family.]   
   >   
   >I've never thought either of these scenarios were particular likely. If   
   >the surname was fictional, surely they would have chosen a different   
   >name of the bride / mother.  There are plenty of common surnames to   
   >choose from.  And if it was incest, as you say, they're unlikely to   
   >admit it unless it was already so widely known in the area that they   
   >couldn't not.   
      
   The case I'm thinking of, the child was born before the first marriage I   
   know of, and the father is given as George x, where x is the same as the   
   (born) surname of the mother. (A _relatively_ uncommon surname.) I   
   cannot find a George among her near family. I therefore suspect that   
   George x, as such, might be invented. Whether the father was _actually_   
   called George (with a different surname), I'll (probably) never know.   
   >   
   >The two most likely scenarios seem to me to be that the registrar got   
   >confused and mistakenly wrote the same surname down twice, despite   
   >having been told the correct names.  If the people involved were not   
      
   Possible, as above. The person she _did_ subsequently marry wasn't   
   called George, though.   
      
   >comfortably literate, they may not have noticed, or felt comfortable   
   >challenging the mistake if they had noticed it.   
      
   True.   
   >   
   >The second possibility is that the names are correct, and the couple   
   >are either only distantly related or not related at all.  Bear in mind   
      
   Indeed. In other words, another family with the same surname but not   
   knowingly related. This is indeed common in many places, especially   
   smallish ones. (Ask me about the Weightmans of Shilbottle   
   [Northumberland], or the Neave/Neve/De Neves of a cluster of small   
   villages in Norfolk.)   
      
   >that since Tudor times, even first cousin marriages have been broadly   
   >acceptable – certainly they wouldn't be considered incestuous.  By   
   >the time you get to third cousins, there's a good chance the couple   
   >wouldn't have know of the relationship themselves, so they were   
   >effectively unrelated people.   
      
   Indeed. I'm still finding (mainly through DNA nowadays) third or fourth   
   cousins, one or two a year, I didn't know of; both my parents were more   
   or less only children, and I had little contact (no family feud or   
   anything - just geography and time) with my grandparents' siblings, let   
   alone further back: I expect this is pretty common, at least these days.   
   (Go back 150-200 years or so, things were probably very different, when   
   many people never moved more than 5-10 miles throughout their life.)   
   >   
   >Richard   
   John   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   (Incidentally, it was made in Spain so shouldn't it be a "paella western"?) -   
   Barry Norman [on "A Fistful of Dollars"], RT 2014/10/4-10   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)