Does canon state that Gilderoy's parents were married? They are never referred to as "Mr and Mrs Lockhart". It may be possible that:
- Gilderoy's parents were married and that one took the other's family name.
- Gilderoy's parents were married and both kept their birth namess (Canon example: Minerva McGonagall)
- Gilderoy's parents were not married but had children, in which case they would be called Mr X and Miss Lockhart, and they would have have had the option of giving their children their mother's name.
There is a similar case with the Kettleburn family.
- It's a simple matter of applying Ockham's razor. Since Rowling gives us no reason to believe Gilderoy was raised in other than a traditional family (i.e., married parents; family name passed through the males by birth and marriage) we go ahead and presume that. The Lockharts are fairly minor in the Harry Potter canon to make that assumption an abusive one — and if Rowling ever gives us reasons to believe it might be, then we go ahead and change it, and there will be little harm done to our Harry Potter insight.
- Note that presuming Gilderoy's mother married into the Lockhart family is also more convenient, because if that is the case (and there's a strong likelihood there is), then we have something relatively simple and to-the-point to call the family by ("Lockhart family" instead of "Gilderoy Lockhart's father and/or mother's family"). -- 18:00, January 31, 2014 (UTC)
Rowling had this to say on Gilderoy Lockhart's name:
"Gilderoy Lockhart isn't his pseudonym. Gilderoy Lockhart is his name and I think that says something about his mother who was very ambitious for her son and encouraged him in the belief that he was a remarkable person." (source here)
While the line at the end "Gilderoy is quite a flashy name I think" seems to make it appear as though Lockhart is the family name and she only picked Gilderoy, is it perhaps possible that Lockhart's mother simply picked a random, flashy surname for her son and that nobody in the family was a Lockhart? I know this is extremely, extremely unlikely, but I also think it ought to be at least considered. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 21:28, April 6, 2014 (UTC)