Genealogy Chat

Can anyone tell me if a marriage between first cousins would have been allowed in 1817? I appear to have a marriage like this and wondered if there would have to have been special dispensation or something for it to go ahead? Helen.

well!! i have a marraige between cousins in 1894 so guess it was ok then.i dont even know its prohibited now !!

Okay, just me being the prude then?!... mind you no one has seen MY cousins!! Lol! Helen.

There is a thread about restrictions to marriages you should read - it isn't illegal to marry a cousin at all. These days you need to consult a doctor to check family medical history to ensure your offspring dont suffer from any strange medical conditions or deformities. I have cases of cousins marrying in my tree. I also have two cases in my tree of men marrying sisters - when one died they married the younger sister. Then I have a lady whose Aunt married her husbands uncle!

Hi If you type in 'prohibited marriages' into the search box you come up with a thread that includes also between 1st cousins Bye Paul

My paternal grandparents were first cousins and they married in 1917. Wendy

I have four cousin marraiges in my tree. The earliest 1825, then 1848, 1875, and my great grandparents in 1926. So certainly legal in those times, and as far as I'm aware always has been. There's a long list of relations your not allowed to marry in the Book of Leviticus, which does not mention cousins, and presumably most Christian countries, where until fairly recently church and state were more or less one and same thing, would be basing their laws on that, so I'd be suprised if it ever was illegal in first place..though I could be wrong!

The British Royal Family pedigree is littered with cousin marriages.

Obviously marriages between people who are related increase the risk of passing genetic disorders down to their children. Those I'm aware of (not my family but acquaintances) are: Epilepsy (in both families) - the couple decided never to have children, just in case. Haemophilia - females are carriers, males (can) inherit the disorder. (Plot of 'Have his Carcase' by Dorothy L Sayers, drawing on the Russian royal family).

hi helen, my grandad married his first cousin in 1919abt,my mum had emphysema and a blood decease related to that illness, when the specialist found out about both haveing same last name, he didnt understand till we told him the story,he went mad, cousins should not marry he said, (to late for my mum) she died aged 54 , so now i have to keep an eye out for my children and grandkids haveing the same blood decease, as it may come out in another generation,its like a ticking bomb, jean

Hi All, this is why i started looking into my family tree as my son has friedreichs ataxia (his muscles waste away) the doctor told me it was through to close family members having children together,this gene has only just come out in our family, the doctors say it could of started 70 to 150 years ago!! Loren.

I've got one family where two sisters of one family branch married two brothers of another - they were 1st cousins. In other words, they all had one pair of grandparents in common. Not only that, but when their grandmother died, the grandfather then remarried - to his daughter's sister-in-law (i.e. an aunt of the brothers)! ...now try getting that little lot to link up correctly on the GR tree!! Richard

Marriage of first cousins has never been illegal in this country BUT, when this Country was Roman Catholic, the Church required that first cousins get a Dispensation from Rome for such a marriage. This of course, cost money. It is from this practice that the Urban Myth arose, that first cousin marriages are illegal - they are not, and never have been. My Ancestors, pre 1850, never married anyone other than a blood relative of some degree or other. They all had huge, long-lived families. They were financially interested in consolidating the family wealth (they were farmers) and I am sure this attitude prevailed everywhere in a rural area. It is true that close blood relations who marry, who ALREADY have some genetic defect, stand a larger chance of passing that defect on to their offspring. But Nature does not punish otherwise healthy people, by making their offspring 'defective', just because they married a blood relation. The Medical Profession have talked a lot of ignorant rubbish on this subject for centuries, based on their lack of understanding of genetics - which is, of course, a new science. Animal Breeders have known for centuries that if you breed from good stock, you will, 9 times out of 10, get even better stock. This often includes breeding from blood-related animals.And they have also known that you can improve poor stock, by breeding with better stock. And that, occasionally, very poor stock, breeding with very poor stock, will produce a magnificent specimen! As the combination of genes is a random thing at any conception, be it animal or man, there is always an element of chance. OC