Brother marrying sister?

[Joanna Walker]

I have recently acquired the marriage certificate for my gggrandfather, James George Burden.  He married Annie Burden in 1874.  I was surprised to find that they were listed on the certificate with the same residence at time of marriage, same father's name and same father's occupation (veterinary surgeon).  The birth certficate for one of their sons, Albert, also shows his mother as Annie Burden (formerly Burden).

Now you can't marry your sister (and James George didn't have a sister called Annie as far as I know).  It also seems unlikely that they could be first cousins as their fathers are listed with the same name.  So does anyone have other ideas as to why this information is shown on the marriage certificate other than it being a very large coincidence?

Before she was married, Annie is listed on the 1871 census in Basingstoke as a boarder, so this doesn't shed any light on her family.

Possible solutions to the problem gratefully received.

Joanna

[Hackstaple]

I do note that there were 3 Annie Burdens registered at Cricklade all in 1852. This is a high coincidence and one does have to think of first cousins.

[JeannieR]

I wonder if there is a list of Veterinary Surgeons in the area at that time, it may be there were two with the name, Burden.

This may be the coincidence that brought the couple together

Just a thought.

JeannieR

[JillJ]

I once knew a girl who married a very distant cousin with the result that her name didn't change on marriage.   

The other possibility which occurs to me is that she could maybe have been adopted by the Vet and given his name, but there would not, I presume, be any legal reason why she could not marry his son.

Jill

[gennig]

Hi Joanna

This is probably a long shot but I typed in Wootton Bassett (where Annie was born according to 1881 census) in Keywords and BURDEN for the 1871 census and got the following result.

Richard BURDEN Aged 45 Veterinary Surgeon and his family. (This is the Cricklade area)

With regards to James George BURDEN - I can find an entry for him as a Veterinary Surgeon in 1871 with father: James but James' occupation is a given as a Miller.

Genni

[Boongie Pam]

Just a thought - don't take the father's names as correct be open to the fact that the registrar may have been mistaken or confused by the maiden name being the same as the grooms.  He could have written the groom or brides father twice.

Just a thought.

Pam
 

[Hackstaple]

I don't see any way at all in which a registrar [at a registry office or church] would allow a marriage which was so clearly a "possible" for the degrees of incest prohibited. I am more and more sure we are looking at cousins or second cousins and it is the naming pattern prevalent in that family which has given the two Annies. In my own 19th century family I have not only 4 successive generations where the eldest son was christened Willliam Henry but the eldest son of younger sons also bore those names. This has meant elaborate checking to make sure I had the right guy each time.

[corinne]

I would go with the theory that they were cousins or unrelated with coincidental same names.  I think there is a strong possibility that the father's names and/or occupations have been written wrongly in error or confusion.

[Jane Taubman]

If you got your certificate from the GRO,    I would suggest writing to the Local registrar for the marriage with a copy of the certificate asking if it would be possible to check the certificate against the original marriage.

As long as you include an SAE I have found most registrars are happy to do this,  it is possible the matching fathers are a transcription error.


I have seen a couple of certificates which were clearly wrong from the GRO and checking them with the Registrars copies or the parish records is a good double check of the data.