Genealogy Chat

See below: In one branch of my family (in rural Suffolk, as it happens) there is the following sequence over 3 generations: 1) Two brothers marry two sisters, 2) their children, who are cousins twice over, marry, 3) and their son marries his cousin, the daughter of his mother's sister. The result is that that their daughter (4th generation) has only 8 distinct gt-gt-grandparents instead of the usual 16. Has anyone else found similar patterns of relationships? Peter

In one branch of my family (in rural Suffolk, as it happens) there is the following sequence over 3 generations: 1) Two brothers marry two sisters, 2) their children, who are cousins twice over, marry, 3) and their son marries his cousin, the daughter of his mother's sister. The result is that that their daughter (4th generation) has only 8 distinct gt-gt-grandparents instead of the usual 16. Has anyone else found similar patterns of relationships? Peter

This sounds like my husbands lot in Warwickshire, I kid you not. In the small villages, it was 'normal' for some families. My own lot did it but in much more moderation. (Im amazed my hubby hasnt got 2 heads lol.) In the small hamlets, it wasnt frowned upon I don't think. A nightmare putting it all on this site, as Genes can't cope with that!

Don't tell anyone Peter, but in rural Hampshire, my grand daughter's father's family have lived in the same village for generations - there's even a display case dedicated to them in the local museum. When my grand daughter was born I jokingly said 'Thank goodness we've got a varied background our side, and she hasn't got webbed feet'. Grand daughter's dad replied 'Two of my cousin's have'!!!!! The floor suddenly semed very interesting!!!! maggie

Peter Oh yes, this is nothing compared to my lot! At one point in this branch of tha family, where there should be 32 great great grandparents, there are only 19, and the previous generation for that 19, only have 13 parents between them! They all lived extremely long, and I presume healthy, lives and had hordes of children. I can go back to 1480 in this village, and I am related to everyone who ever lived there, in some degree or other. Mine were mostly farmers, and farmers tend to want to keep farms in the family, which may explain some of it. Lack of opportunity for meeting strangers explains the rest. OC

Lol Maggie!!

My partner is Irish(as it happens) and is one of the 7 dwarfs and they have 1 sister. ....Snow White? lol Family have owned the farm for God knows how long (his great great grandfather was born there) I think I have this right........(still trying to remember partners name! theres so many of them! lol) His grandparents(or maybe G.grandparents) were 1st cousins. Hence all 8 children have eye defects and are under Morefields Hospital London. 3 are now registered as blind. This is all because those 1st Cousins married. Over the hill and far away was a LONG way away!!!! (as the old saying goes) So YES Peter, it went on alot. No buses,no trains,no TVs, no Radio (unless you were rich) no telephones,no cell phones, no text messages....no dating agencies, NO COMPUTORS even!!! Just remembered...partners name..... Niall lol Gerri x

Gerri The eye defect didnt arise BECAUSE first cousins married, it must have already been in the family, but masked by a healthy gene. Nature doesnt punish you for marrying close kin, nature doesnt care WHO you breed with. OC

Technically OC it did. Both cousins carried the faulty gene that was masked... if they'd married others who didn't have the faulty gene they'd have been fine. However, they put two unhealthy genes together. That said, they weren't to know, I guess. And the mixing could have happened anyway in a couple of generations time. These things happen all the time even when people aren't related. You're right it's not nature punishing because it's incapable of thought or retribution, but it is an example of why you shouldn't marry close relatives.

A good eye opener there OC and Summer....Many thanks. (sorry about the punn/pun lol) Gerri x

Every animal including the human animal carries a genetic load of defects. When you concentrate the the number of genes by marrying within the same family your chances of the bad ones surfacing increase. But as was said previously the defective genes were already there. In OC's case perhaps with prolonged inbreeding the survival of the fittest had kicked in and many of the defective genes had already been eliminated.

Kerry Interesting though, that that side of the family suddenly started dying out for various reasons in the late 1800s - never married, or did marry but only had one, or no, children...I have often wondered if the gene pool finally reached its limits of survival! OC

Ummm! OC yes it definately could have been a factor as fertility can definately suffer with the close inbreeding of some animals species...until those affected specimen have been removed from the gene pool.

Absolutely!! Some of my grandmother's siblings seemed challenged in terms of reproduction and I often wondered whether the genes had finally decided that enough was enough and called it quits. From families with ten or more children some weren't able to have any. Incidentally, when I used to use the microfische for research I noticed that somewhere around the 1880s the whole year's births only took as many microfische as some years needed for a month or two. I often wondered about THAT. Any theories? Victoria

Hi You should see the Worners in Martock Somerset !! My ggg grandparents were second cousins once removed - her grandmother, and his great-grandmother were the youngest and oldest of the family, separated by 23 years. By the time they married, all the older people who knew were dead. Two of her first cousins married each other, as did one pair of their aunts and uncles. I don't know if the Somerset genes are stronger in our family because of doubling up !! Diane

I can say the same for the small 3000 inhabitants of Bures St mary Suffolk. I have Willinghams, Sealeys and Cardy's intermarrying regularly!!

Victoria Regarding the drop in fertility in the 1880s - I have read that it was because people started using contraception. I do not believe this for one minute! There was no reliable method of contraception for women and nowhere to get it if there was.Information about contraception was a closely guarded medical secret, frowned on by the Church and extablishment alike. And as we all know, men are rather inefficient at using contraception, lol. The only reliable method was abstinence, and this again seems unlikely in the extreme. The only difference I can see in MY family, is that they moved from a very rural setting, into the slums of Manchester and I have wondered if industrial pollution affected their fertility. And another thing - it is only when they start mixing with the 'outside world' in terms of marriage and beeding, that they started to die out! OC

Gerri, talking about the 'faulty gene' theory, one of my children has severe eye problems and is also under Moorfields Hospital, this is because unbeknown to my partner and I we both are carriers of the same' faulty gene'. To have this gene we both had to inherit it from one of our parents, and them from one of theirs and so on, its a million to one shot ,if we hadnt met and had a child together neither of us would have been any the wiser, my two other children from a previous marriage are fine, because obviously my ex didnt carry that gene . Nature can be very cruel, but I belive there are a lot of people out there who are carriers of various illnesss and diseases that dont rear their ugly heads unless they meet someone with the same problem. There is currently no test to decipher which parent my partner and I got this from, and quite honestly I dont really want to know anyway, it wouldnt help my daughter. Is this a result form wayback of interbreeding? who knows? we will probably never know. Nicky

Nicky You can inherit a faulty gene (obviously!) but the question of why that gene went faulty originally, is a complicated one, and there are many reasons why it did, not many of them to do with inbreeding. Genes which are dangerously faulty, occur in any generation, randomly, for unknown reasons. The sufferer usually dies before they have a chance to pass on the gene and that fault dies out. Other genes with less serious consequences (to survival, that is) are usually masked by a healthy gene, and there can be many generations of healthy individuals carrying that gene, only for it to pop up three hundred years later and cause havoc. Inbreeding will only enforce a fault which previously existed, and the lack of input form a 'healthy' gene pool, allows the fault to surface. Animal breeders have known for many centuries that you can successfully breed better and better specimens by selecting for certain characteristics, but that every so often, an animal will appear with 'faults'. The science of genetics is now providing the answer to the question 'why?' Fascinating subject! OC

OC Totally agree fascinating subject, we could mull this one over all week and still not have any answers, but a great thread still. Nicky