1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SOC.GENEALOGY.BRITAIN

  • How common was "John Doe" in *England"?

    From J. P. Gilliver@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 14 22:59:12 2024
    I know "John Doe" is common for an unknown person in USA legal usage.

    I'm looking at the marriage of Richard Amery and Mary Brown, in St.
    Oswalds, Cheshire, 1760-May-7. (I think St. Oswalds is in Chester.)

    On two of the documents - a marriage bond specific to them, and what
    appears to be a register of such bonds on which they're the top line -
    the oath and bond appear to be given by Richard Amery and John Doe.

    I'm surprised: usually the bond is given by the groom or his father, and
    the bride's father. Given that the nominal purpose of the bond is to
    forfeit some ridiculous sum (in this case 100 pounds, an unheard of
    fortune in 1760) if the marriage does not happen, I wouldn't have
    thought an unknown person would be named on it - but I am not aware of
    anyone in either family with the name Doe. In addition, it seems to be
    written a lot more faintly on the specific bond (than everything else on
    the page, e. g. Richard's name, the date, and so on).

    Any idea what's going on?
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    "quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive if you say it in Latin")

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tahiri@21:1/5 to J. P. Gilliver on Thu Feb 15 11:09:34 2024
    On 14/02/2024 22:59, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    I know "John Doe" is common for an unknown person in USA legal usage.

    I'm looking at the marriage of Richard Amery and Mary Brown, in St.
    Oswalds, Cheshire, 1760-May-7. (I think St. Oswalds is in Chester.)

    On two of the documents - a marriage bond specific to them, and what
    appears to be a register of such bonds on which they're the top line -
    the oath and bond appear to be given by Richard Amery and John Doe.

    I'm surprised: usually the bond is given by the groom or his father, and
    the bride's father. Given that the nominal purpose of the bond is to
    forfeit some ridiculous sum (in this case 100 pounds, an unheard of
    fortune in 1760) if the marriage does not happen, I wouldn't have
    thought an unknown person would be named on it - but I am not aware of
    anyone in either family with the name Doe. In addition, it seems to be written a lot more faintly on the specific bond (than everything else on
    the page, e. g. Richard's name, the date, and so on).

    Any idea what's going on?
    Why should it be an unknown person? I would have said it was quite
    normal for one of the bondsmen to be an apparently unrelated person,
    probably a friend of the groom.
    Taking a sample from 1840-1850 Freebmd has 25 births, a similar number
    of deaths and 10 marriages in the name of John Doe. They are found predominantly, but not entirely, in the southeast of England.
    Having said that, if the name was indeed inserted at a later time then
    it is possible someone had forgotten the correct name.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver@21:1/5 to tahiri on Thu Feb 15 14:27:23 2024
    In message <NMecnXJcQrBzbVD4nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Thu,
    15 Feb 2024 11:09:34, tahiri <tahiri2@tanygraig.force9.co.uk> writes
    On 14/02/2024 22:59, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    I know "John Doe" is common for an unknown person in USA legal usage.
    I'm looking at the marriage of Richard Amery and Mary Brown, in St. >>Oswalds, Cheshire, 1760-May-7. (I think St. Oswalds is in Chester.)
    On two of the documents - a marriage bond specific to them, and what >>appears to be a register of such bonds on which they're the top line -
    the oath and bond appear to be given by Richard Amery and John Doe.
    I'm surprised: usually the bond is given by the groom or his father,
    and the bride's father. Given that the nominal purpose of the bond is
    to forfeit some ridiculous sum (in this case 100 pounds, an unheard
    of fortune in 1760) if the marriage does not happen, I wouldn't have >>thought an unknown person would be named on it - but I am not aware of >>anyone in either family with the name Doe. In addition, it seems to be >>written a lot more faintly on the specific bond (than everything else
    on the page, e. g. Richard's name, the date, and so on).
    Any idea what's going on?
    Why should it be an unknown person? I would have said it was quite
    normal for one of the bondsmen to be an apparently unrelated person,
    probably a friend of the groom.

    Makes sense; I just have been watching too many US crime series ...

    Taking a sample from 1840-1850 Freebmd has 25 births, a similar number
    of deaths and 10 marriages in the name of John Doe. They are found

    ... and didn't realise it was a valid name.

    predominantly, but not entirely, in the southeast of England.

    Still seems a coincidence though! (-: (Mine is in Cheshire.)

    Having said that, if the name was indeed inserted at a later time then
    it is possible someone had forgotten the correct name.

    Ah, so it _is_ used as a placeholder here as well as US?
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Who is Art, and why does life imitate him?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From knuttle@21:1/5 to Peter Johnson on Thu Feb 15 11:47:46 2024
    On 02/15/2024 11:38 AM, Peter Johnson wrote:
    On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:27:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
    <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:


    Having said that, if the name was indeed inserted at a later time then
    it is possible someone had forgotten the correct name.

    Ah, so it _is_ used as a placeholder here as well as US?

    Is it? I was about to query that. When did John Doe for an unknown
    person become commonplace in the US?
    In the UK we don't seem to have the need for a John Doe or equivalent.
    If you can believe Google:

    https://www.news-journal.com/features/answer_line/answer-line-john-doe-centuries-old/article_810318de-0eeb-11ed-a01d-d35472020063.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Johnson@21:1/5 to G6JPG@255soft.uk on Thu Feb 15 16:38:51 2024
    On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:27:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
    <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:


    Having said that, if the name was indeed inserted at a later time then
    it is possible someone had forgotten the correct name.

    Ah, so it _is_ used as a placeholder here as well as US?

    Is it? I was about to query that. When did John Doe for an unknown
    person become commonplace in the US?
    In the UK we don't seem to have the need for a John Doe or equivalent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver@21:1/5 to knuttle on Fri Feb 16 01:25:20 2024
    In message <uqlf7i$3cv1a$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:47:46,
    knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> writes
    On 02/15/2024 11:38 AM, Peter Johnson wrote:
    On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:27:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
    <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

    Having said that, if the name was indeed inserted at a later time
    then
    it is possible someone had forgotten the correct name.

    Ah, so it _is_ used as a placeholder here as well as US?
    Is it? I was about to query that. When did John Doe for an unknown
    person become commonplace in the US?
    In the UK we don't seem to have the need for a John Doe or equivalent.
    If you can believe Google:

    https://www.news-journal.com/features/answer_line/answer-line-john-doe-c >enturies-old/article_810318de-0eeb-11ed-a01d-d35472020063.html

    I've not seen one of these before:

    451: Unavailable due to legal reasons
    We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country
    belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which
    enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore
    access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact newsroom@news-journal.com or call 903-757-3311.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 16 08:34:19 2024
    T24gMTUvMDIvMjAyNCAxNzozOCwgUGV0ZXIgSm9obnNvbiB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gVGh1LCAx NSBGZWIgMjAyNCAxNDoyNzoyMyArMDAwMCwgIkouIFAuIEdpbGxpdmVyIg0KPiA8RzZKUEdA MjU1c29mdC51az4gd3JvdGU6DQo+IA0KPiANCj4+PiBIYXZpbmcgc2FpZCB0aGF0LCBpZiB0 aGUgbmFtZSB3YXMgaW5kZWVkIGluc2VydGVkIGF0IGEgbGF0ZXIgdGltZSB0aGVuDQo+Pj4g aXQgaXMgcG9zc2libGUgc29tZW9uZSBoYWQgZm9yZ290dGVuIHRoZSBjb3JyZWN0IG5hbWUu DQo+Pg0KPj4gQWgsIHNvIGl0IF9pc18gdXNlZCBhcyBhIHBsYWNlaG9sZGVyIGhlcmUgYXMg d2VsbCBhcyBVUz8NCj4gDQo+IElzIGl0PyBJIHdhcyBhYm91dCB0byBxdWVyeSB0aGF0LiBX aGVuIGRpZCBKb2huIERvZSBmb3IgYW4gdW5rbm93bg0KPiBwZXJzb24gYmVjb21lIGNvbW1v bnBsYWNlIGluIHRoZSBVUz8NCj4gSW4gdGhlIFVLIHdlIGRvbid0IHNlZW0gdG8gaGF2ZSB0 aGUgbmVlZCBmb3IgYSBKb2huIERvZSBvciBlcXVpdmFsZW50Lg0KDQpGb3IgSm9obiBEb2Ug c2VlIHRoZSB3aWtpcGVkaWEgYXJ0aWNsZSANCmh0dHBzOi8vZW4ud2lraXBlZGlhLm9yZy93 aWtpL0pvaG5fRG9lDQp3aGljaCBpbmNsdWRlcw0KIlRoZSBuYW1lcyAiSm9obiBEb2UiIChv ciAiSm9obiBEbyIpIGFuZCAiUmljaGFyZCBSb2UiIChhbG9uZyB3aXRoICJKb2huIA0KUm9l Iikgd2VyZSByZWd1bGFybHkgaW52b2tlZCBpbiBFbmdsaXNoIGxlZ2FsIGluc3RydW1lbnRz IHRvIHNhdGlzZnkgDQp0ZWNobmljYWwgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGdvdmVybmluZyBzdGFuZGlu ZyBhbmQganVyaXNkaWN0aW9uLCBiZWdpbm5pbmcgDQpwZXJoYXBzIGFzIGVhcmx5IGFzIHRo ZSByZWlnbiBvZiBFbmdsYW5kJ3MgS2luZyBFZHdhcmQgSUlJICgxMzI34oCTMTM3NykuIg0K DQphbmQgZm9yIHRoZSA0NTEgZXJyb3Igc2VlIGh0dHBzOi8vZW4ud2lraXBlZGlhLm9yZy93 aWtpL0hUVFBfNDUxIHdoaWNoIA0KaW5jbHVkZXMNCiJBZnRlciBpbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24gb2Yg dGhlIEdEUFIgaW4gdGhlIEVFQSBpdCBiZWNhbWUgY29tbW9uIHByYWN0aWNlIGZvciANCndl YnNpdGVzIGxvY2F0ZWQgb3V0c2lkZSB0aGUgRUVBIHRvIHNlcnZlIEhUVFAgNDUxIGVycm9y cyB0byBFRUEgDQp2aXNpdG9ycyBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIHRyeWluZyB0byBjb21wbHkgd2l0aCB0 aGlzIG5ldyBwcml2YWN5IGxhdy4gRm9yIA0KaW5zdGFuY2UsIG1hbnkgcmVnaW9uYWwgVS5T LiBuZXdzIHNpdGVzIG5vIGxvbmdlciBzZXJ2ZSB3ZWIgYnJvd3NlcnMgDQpmcm9tIHRoZSBF VSINCg==

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Charles Ellson@21:1/5 to peter@parksidewood.nospam on Fri Feb 16 22:18:09 2024
    On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:38:51 +0000, Peter Johnson
    <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:

    On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:27:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
    <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:


    Having said that, if the name was indeed inserted at a later time then
    it is possible someone had forgotten the correct name.

    Ah, so it _is_ used as a placeholder here as well as US?

    Is it? I was about to query that. When did John Doe for an unknown
    person become commonplace in the US?
    In the UK we don't seem to have the need for a John Doe or equivalent.

    It has possibly fallen out of favour in English Law because it is a
    real name (192.com indicates there are 161 records for the UK) which
    "persons unknown" certainly is not. For other uses it is not
    inherently a unique identifier for e.g. the unknown male in your
    mortuary.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)