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")

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

On 15/02/2024 17:38, 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.
For John Doe see the wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
which includes
"The names "John Doe" (or "John Do") and "Richard Roe" (along with "John
Roe") were regularly invoked in English legal instruments to satisfy
technical requirements governing standing and jurisdiction, beginning
perhaps as early as the reign of England's King Edward III (1327–1377)."
and for the 451 error see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451 which
includes
"After introduction of the GDPR in the EEA it became common practice for
websites located outside the EEA to serve HTTP 451 errors to EEA
visitors instead of trying to comply with this new privacy law. For
instance, many regional U.S. news sites no longer serve web browsers
from the EU"

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.