I am hoping for someone to help me as my family tree can branch in 2 ways - the only problem is that if I follow a certain route it would mean a marriage between cousins - however, I thought this was frowned upon but I know it did happen:

I am looking to trace the parents of Mary Vaughan 1768/1769 from Ruardean - but there are 2 possibilities of her parents which leads to 2 alternative routes to follow:

1)If her parents were Richard Vaughan +Betty Gagg - their son John vaughan (born 1777) married Elizabeth Bennett in 1803 they had a child John Vaughan (born 1806) who married Elizabeth Thompson in 1834

Going back from Elizabeth Thompson - her parents were john Thompson + Mary Vaughan born 1768/1769....if Mary Vaughans parents were Richard Vaughan + betty Gagg......there would be a cousin marriage ie John Vaughan + Elizabeth thompson

2)If her parents were John Vaughan + Elizabeth then there is obviously no cousin marriage further down my line

Sorry it is confusing!

I have marriages between first cousins in my tree. I believe the concern was that there was double the chance of passing on any family health problems. It could also lead to mental & physical disabilities in their children.

It is believed that 20% of couples world-wide are first cousins! Stephen, I sent you a report of a recent study. In America, whenever there's talk of marrige between cousins, the music from the movie "Deliverance" usually comes to mind. The report is too lengthy for this forum, but if anyone else is interested, pls contact me directly and I'll send it to you.

BTW...I forgot to mention, the correct term is, CONSANGUINITY.

As always, with me, in genealogy one thing leads to another! I was attempting to find the correct pronounciation of, CONSANGUINITY, and found this interesting site. I hope you're able to link to it!

http://anthro.palomar.edu/kinship/glossary.htm

Hello,
Basically, it was illegal, both in the eyes of the Church, and until the 20th century, by Civil Authorities. However, many Incumbents, even when they knew that there was a relatonship, closed their eyes. Often you will find such marriages - and there were hundreds of them - took place outside both the bride and groom's parishes. It became more prevalent in the later 19th century when couples did not need to marry in church.

In the eyes of the Roman Catholic church (and until comparatively recently, the Church of England) it is still illegal to marry an inlaw or a cousin. This has to do with the fact that it is seen that when a couple marry, their families are joined as one, and therefore the perception is that it is incestuous to marry a sister/brother-in-law/cousin. It has nothing to do with the possible dangers of inbreeding of bloodlines although 20th century people have thrown this into the argument. It is a theological point. The rules today are still laid out in the Book of Common Prayer and are a bit laxer than they were latterly.

Yours
Sellwood

I'm sure it happened - sometimes by accident , but probably more often with full knowledge.

Prohibited degrees
The prohibited Degrees - The marriage of first cousins is not unusual and been legal since the 16th century. However, marriages between people who were related in some other ways (known as the prohibited degrees) were forbidden by acts of Parliament and ecclesiastical law. A marriage between two people within a prohibited degree required (and still requires) a private act of Parliament authorising that marriage.

The prohibited degrees have varied over time, but are explained in detail in Chapman & Litton "Marriage Laws, Rites, Records & Customs". (Lovchin Publishing 1996).

The present position is set out in the Marriage Act 1949, as amended in 1986, but for most of the period that you will be researching, the relevant rules (reached in about 1560 and confirmed by church laws, known as Canons, in 1604) were listed in the Book of Common Prayer of 1662.

The prohibitions prevented someone marrying his or her:
(a) brother or sister (or their spouse);
(b) parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, child or grandchild (or their spouse);
(c) niece or nephew (or their spouse);
(d) spouse's child, grandchild, parent, aunt, uncle or grandparent.

Statutes of 1907 and 1921 made an exception to the prohibition at (a) above, allowing people to marry the spouse of their brother or sister, if that brother or sister had died. Some further exceptions were made in 1931, 1949 and 1986 so that, for example, a man was allowed to marry his deceased wife's niece, aunt or widowed mother.

Notes are taken from "Ancestral Trails by Mark D Herber (ISBN 0-7509-1418-1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibited_degree_of_kinship

and discussed here

http://www.forum.forest-of-dean.net/index.php?mode=thread&id=12344#p12388

and a current view !
http://www.uk-civil-partnership-act-2004.co.uk/s-T

--
Ἀριστοτέλης A Gloster & Hereford Boy in the Forest of Dean ><((((*>

Very interesting, "Slow"! As an Episcopalian I had know idea that our Mother Church spelled out the rules so clearly! I just perused my BCP and couldn't find anything, but it's still early, for me! Perhaps, because of our American ideal of the separation of Church and State, the law of the land, would always take precedence, so the Church would have no need to comment. Thanks.

I am interested in this discussion as my Aunt, (who was born at Walford) according to the 1911 census had been married for 3 years and had 1 child. She went on to have 2 more children.
I am now in possesion of a copy of her marriage certificate for June 1915 where she marries a man of the same surname as her first husband.
But I think he may have been the first (husbands) brother.
She gives her maiden name on the marriage certificate and states that she is a spinster!!
I was wondering if this was to get round the law or perhaps she was never married to the father of the children.