ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2002-04 > 1019535865


From: "Noel Clark" <>
Subject: RE: Marriage Impediments
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:27:29 +1000
In-Reply-To: <MABBJNNIGEEOGINOHOHOEEHCCGAA.Ken@pudney.freeserve.co.uk>


In which case, Ken, almost no-one would have married at all.

Statistically, up until the mid-1800s it was virtually certain that your
spouse would be a fairly close cousin. This arose because of the small
local populations and the difficulty, for most people, in travelling
very far from their birthplace.

The further back you go on your family tree, the more certain it is that
more than one "ancestral position" on the tree will be filled by the
same person. This can be proved mathematically.

The reason that you do not detect this very often in family history is
because it is not possible in practice, for various reasons, to trace
all the "lines" back and forward in their entirety.

Let me assure you that anyone whose family stuck around in a particular
village for a hundred years or so was indeed very likely to be married
to a blood relative.

Regards,
Noel



-----Original Message-----
From: Ken [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:46
To:
Subject: Marriage Impediments

I would ban anyone remotely related from marrying.

I have a brick wall because my grandmother married her cousin. Matters
were
made worse by the fact that Grandfather was an 'orphan' and was brought
up
by my GGparents as one of their own...

Things could be worse though..... My wife's father AND his brother BOTH
married their brothers wives! She now has cousins who are also
techinically
step-brothers/sisters, an uncle who's her step-father and an aunt who's
her
step-mother!

Shouldn't be allowed :-)


Ken

______________________________


This thread: