A few days ago this story appeared :

BBC NEWS | UK | Parted-at-birth twins ‘married’

A pair of twins who were adopted by separate families as babies got married without knowing they were brother and sister, a peer told the House of Lords.

A court annulled the British couple’s union after they discovered their true relationship, Lord Alton said.

The peer - who heard of the case from a judge who was involved - said the twins felt an “inevitable attraction”.

Now that the tabloid headlines have died down some questions are being asked :

Jon Henley questions the marriage of twins separated at birth | Family and relationships | Life and Health

Assuming your brain is still functioning like the well-oiled piece of precision engineering it is, your response would, I trust, be: “That’s a wind-up if ever I heard one. Think about it for a minute - you mean these two meet by accident, discover not only that they were both adopted but were born on exactly the same day in exactly the same town, and still never pause to wonder whether they might be related? Pull the other one. What did it say on their birth certificates?”

Whilst over at Heresy Corner The Heresiarch has an interesting analysis of the story and the care and research that news organisations paid it and makes the following point :

Heresy Corner: Lord Alton’s Tall Story

Surely, though, they should have treated it with an ounce of scepticism. The story hangs by a single thread, the credibility of Lord Alton himself, and his claim, which he quickly retreated from, to have spoken to the judge involved. Is the mere fact that he is a member of the house of lords enough to verify a tale that has all the hallmarks of an urban myth? Has no attempt been made to find an independent source?

Not that it matters now. The story made it onto the top read and top mailed articles on the BBC News site, it was all over the tabloids, it ran without question and now has become an urban myth. Another example of fine journalism …