 |
| All Saints Church, Little Canfield, Essex |
John Doe (b. ~1730 in Great Canfield) and Jane Brand (b. ~1732 in Little Canfield), a pair of my 6th Great-Grandparents, married at All Saints Church, Little Canfield on 1 Oct 1750 to become John and Jane Doe.
After the requisite pause for giggling at this unlikely combination of names, I wondered when and where the custom had began to call people who you couldn't identify, either John or Jane Doe, depending on gender. We mostly tend to hear the term when an unidentified corpse turns up in a US crime drama, but in fact, the origins are in medieval English law, beginning perhaps as early as the reign of King Edward III (1327–1377): "Originally, John Doe was a sham name used to indicate any plaintiff in an action of ejectment (a legal action to regain property) in civil court. Richard Roe was the counterpart, to indicate the defendant. These fake names were used in delicate legal matters, a practice that was abolished in English law in 1852. Since then, John Doe has been used to indicate any man of unknown name, with Jane Doe used for females." - The Old Farmer's Almanac. Quite why these particular names were picked, however, is lost in time. It may have been simply because they were among the most common names in use at the time.
It would appear that John and Jane Doe had four children (or at least there are records for four), all baptised at St Mary's Church, Great Canfield:
It would appear that John and Jane Doe had four children (or at least there are records for four), all baptised at St Mary's Church, Great Canfield:
- Henry Doe bap. 19 May 1754
- Elizabeth Doe bap. 23 Apr 1758
- John Doe bap. 20 Sep 1760 (Presume buried 14 Nov 1761)
- John Doe bap. 20 Dec 1761
There had also been a burial of a John Doe in Great Canfield on 7 Mar 1756. This doesn't mention the age of the deceased and there is no corresponding baptism, but this could have been a further child of this family. The burial, at St Mary's, Great Canfield, on 14 Nov 1761, is clearly stated to be for that of a John Doe 'Infant'. One must, sadly, assume therefore that the subsequent child was named John, immediately after his brother had died.
There was a burial of a Jane Doe in Great Canfield on 18 May 1768 and another in 1803. Either could relate, but there are no ages listed on the transcriptions to give any clues. There was another burial of a John Doe in Great Canfield on 10 Mar 1805. Again it does not mention an age at death, so we cannot be certain, but this could relate to John Doe Snr of this family.
Back in 1731, at this same church, there was a burial of a 4 year old John Doe, listed as 'son of John Doe'. These could simply be just very common names - all the more spectacular to be able to trace them back so far - or, I suppose one must entertain the idea that, once upon a time, there was a parish foundling, who the overseers named John Doe, whose descendants thereafter followed the common tradition of naming son after father ...
