From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Richard Smith   
    writes:   
   >On 16/11/2019 14:49, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >There's a third option, besides being an invention by the mother and a   
   >clerical error by the registrar.  Imagine the situation.  Mother goes   
   >to register the child's birth.  "Hello, I'm Jane Smith. I'm here to   
   >register the birth of my son, John."   
   >   
   >"What's the father's name and occupation", the registrar asks.   
   >   
   >"George.  He's a carpenter", the mother replies.   
   >   
   >The registrar just assumes the mother and father are married, and the   
   >mother doesn't think to volunteer that they're not, not necessarily out   
   >of any intent to deceive.  The registrar proceeds to write "George   
   >Smith, carpenter" in the certificate, and the mother doesn't notice at   
   >the time.   
   >   
   >Richard   
      
   A very plausible suggestion. Especially if the mother couldn't read (or   
   couldn't read upside down; not a lot of people can, especially   
   handwriting).   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   Can a blue man sing the whites?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)