relationship

[louisa maud]

Although I have no documentary proof, I have a relationship  I can't fathom out, neither can my family tree programme.

Bride and groom marry
it is them discovered that the brides grandfather is her husband's father. deceased father's name used on his birth cert even though he had been dead some 2 years, (clever man!)

Perhaps someone can fathom this out for me please.

Louisa Maud

[casalguidi]

Hi Louisa Maud

Whose birth certificate had the name of a man who had been deceased for 2 years on it

Can you be absolutely certain that the named father was deceased

Casalguidi

[Arranroots]

Some names might make this condundrum clearer, but it seems to me that the marrying couple are not related, if their common ancestor was dead before the groom was conceived?

Or have I got that wrong?

kind regards, Arranroots  

[Gadget]

Not sure what relationship you need to know is but if he was as you say , he would be her father's brother or step brother, which means she might have married her uncle of step-uncle 

Gadget

oops - no relationship - read the death bit 

 but what about the mother - would she not be grandmother/mother?

[louisa maud]

To answer a few questions
The grooms father was deceased some 2 years before the groom was born , mother used his name on the certificate, 2 years after son was born  she then married a man who was the future brides grandfather, so surely, unless I am silly, (don't answer that), the bride and groom must have been blood relatives.

Grooms father deceased 1906
son born 1908 (deceased mans name on cert)
mother remarried 1910

It is interesting to say the least, it was just found out by accident.

LM

[Gadget]

Well if they shared the same mother/grandmother, the groom was the bride's uncle as I said at first 

Gadget

[avm228]

So...the *registered* father of the groom was in fact long dead and couldn't have been the real father.  And you suspect that the remarriage of the mother of the baby (future groom) was to the baby's natural father (albeit 2 yrs after baby's birth).  In which case the future groom and his future bride were related ...?

Is there any basis on which you can know for certain that  the man Mother married in 1910 was the same man who had fathered her child b 1908?

Anna

[louisa maud]

yes, all things seem to lead to the father being the same man she married, but no documentary proof but we do know they were related,

LM

[avm228]

I see.  How unusual!  If that's the case then bride and groom were half-niece and half-uncle to one another, by my reckoning.

Anna