Author Topic: Was this Illegal?  (Read 5423 times)

Offline Guy Etchells

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,632
    • View Profile
Re: Was this Illegal?
« Reply #9 on: Saturday 16 September 06 14:21 BST (UK) »
As our farming ancestors knew there is a risk when breeding from close relations but there is also the good possibility of improving the stock.
That is one way they improved herds.

Let us not forget that lines may be improved by close genes.
Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline trish251

  • RootsChat Leaver
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *
  • Posts: 9,156
    • View Profile
Re: Was this Illegal?
« Reply #10 on: Saturday 16 September 06 16:31 BST (UK) »
Father's sister's husband was allowed by the 1949 Act as long as the sister was dead and not simply divorced.
Cheers
Guy


Interesting Guy, as my marriage was 1939 - but it was in Australia & we probably had our own laws by then; the formation of the Commonwealth separated the state and the Church so I would assume we weren't then governed by the rules of the C of E, but I really have no idea as to Australian Laws on these issues.
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline bow didley

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Was this Illegal?
« Reply #11 on: Monday 18 September 06 22:02 BST (UK) »
Hi,
 Back in 1898 my Great Grandfathers brother married their sisters daughter  {their was around 6yrs age difference} and they had 5 or more children.I cant see that was legal, but they got round it some how.
   

Offline corinne

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
Re: Was this Illegal?
« Reply #12 on: Monday 18 September 06 22:56 BST (UK) »
From what I can find out, I don't think that marriage of 1st cousins has ever been prohibited.  The main prohibitions are those in a direct line, all the relationships within the second degree (ie closer than 1st cousin), brothers and sisters whether full or half blood, and also people acting in place of parents.  This last one is definitely current now, though I'm not sure how long that has been in, as things do change. 
In my family I can find three marriages of first cousins in a fairly small chunk of the tree (19th century), and I know of first cousins who married about 25 years ago quite legally.


Offline Guy Etchells

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,632
    • View Profile
Re: Was this Illegal?
« Reply #13 on: Tuesday 19 September 06 07:07 BST (UK) »
Under Catholic law marriage was frobbidden up to the 4th degree and even in some circumstances up to the twelth degree.
However due to the records kept in those days determining such relationships was almost impossible for most.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) restricted consanguinity as an impediment up  to the fourth degree
Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline Nick Carver

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,318
    • View Profile
Re: Was this Illegal?
« Reply #14 on: Tuesday 19 September 06 07:21 BST (UK) »
Certain families in my village have a high incidence of Huntingdon's Chorea as a result of generations of inbreeding (allegedly). So although the good aspects may be a benefit, the downside can be pretty grim.
E Yorks - Carver, Steels, Cross, Maltby, Whiting, Moor, Laybourn
W Yorks - Wilkinson, Kershaw, Rawnsley, Shaw
Norfolk - Carver, Dowson
Cheshire - Berry, Cooper
Lincs - Berry
London/Ireland/Scotland/Lincs - Sullivan
Northumberland/Durham - Nicholson, Cuthbert, Turner, Robertson
Berks - May
Beds - Brownell