Genealogy Chat

Catherine, despite GR saying ages ago that they were looking at how to resolve this, the only way round it at present is to enter each cousin twice, and possibly some of their relatives too. I did this a while ago and it really doesn't matter apart from when viewing the actual tree --which obviously is inaccurate. Gwyneth, can you tell us what program it is you use? It would be a big help to me and Catherine!

Hi Angie, My friends always joke about the 'in-breeding' in my family too! Got even worse whem I told them I'd traced my family tree back to a certain area of the country where 'in-breeding' is rumoured to be rife...

More on Victoria's tree (because I'm bored and find it interesting!). Haemophilia is transmitted to males via their mothers, who don't manifest the disease. This is because it's transmitted on the female chromosone X and is recessive. In other words, males have XY and females have XX, so a male who inherits a haeomophiliac X will exhibit the symptoms, whereas a female who inherits will just be a carrier, because her other X is dominant over the recessive haemophiliac X. Victoria was a carrier and of her 9 children, her son Leopald was haemophiliac. Her other 3 sons were healthy. Of her 5 daughters, only one - Vicky, was definitely NOT a carrier. As I mentioned before, the last Tsar of Russia's son was haemophiliac. This was inherited because the child's mother was Alexandra (Queen Victoria's granddaughter), and a carrier of the gene. Haemophilia was also introduced into the Royal house of Germany via Victoria's decendants. Her eldest daughter Vicky had a son named Henry. He was not haemophiliac, as Vicky didn't carry it, but he married Irene who was his cousin - Vicky's neice, Victoria's granddaughter - a carrier. Irene and Henry had 3 sons, 2 were haemophiliac. The strange thing about this case, is that if Vicky HAD been a carrier, and Henry HAD been heamophiliac, then he and Irene might have had a heamophiliac daughter, by inheriting 2 recessive X chromosones. This would have been very rare.

My great grandparent's were first cousin's.They married in 1895, but sadly they get the blame for causing the bad gene's,just a family joke really.

I also think it's probably more common than people think. It used to be thought of as something the rich would do, to keep their bloodlines pure? But in small villages, I expect it happened, as otherwise there wasn't much choice of people to marry! The only example of problems I can think of that come to mind was with the royals, one of Victoria's children being a haemophiliac (sp?). The russian Tsar's son was also affected by this, and they were relations - cousins - of Victoria's family. In my own family, my uncle has a rare muscle disorder, a genetic condition in which both parents must be a carrier. So using this as an example, if I married a cousin I would have to be extra careful in checking neither of us carried the gene, as it would be more likely that we would. Also my sister married someone with the same surname as ours and he isn't related as far as we know, but I expect, as I keep going back, somewhere along the line I'll find he is! I don't see any problem with cousins marrying and having perfectly healthy children, in fact these days I'm sure it would be much easier as any genetic conditions that might cause a problem could probably be detected beforehand. It is hard putting them on the tree though, so GR please sort it out!

Hi Christine, The voice of reason! I agree with everything you said. My grandparents were first cousins, and I have had some very ignorant reactions from people when it has come up in conversation. There were no problems with any of their children, or their 6 grandchildren or their 3 great grandchildren. Of course my family was lucky not to have any genetic disorder risks that could be multiplied by this union, but the risk is there whether you are blood related or not. I suspect nowadays that blood tests would be advise--though it is my understanding that blood tests are required by some US states for all marriages anyway. It certainly has helped in my search for relatives! My family is huge but my research is considerably cut down by gran's mother and granda's father being siblings. As far as entering them on GR, GR told me about 18months ago that they were looking into a way around this, as it is a regular complaint. The problem is still not fixed. I entered some relatives twice in order to get around it--it causes no real problems as I know I've done it that way. Their are similar examples of difficulties--For example, in my Dad's tree, I have a father and son marrying mother and daughter! Sal

My maternal grandmother married her cousin. I haven't put his ancestors on here as the site can't cope. He is just entered by name, date and place of birth as her husband, so that the surname can be included in my names. The full picture is on our computer on a programme which can adequately show the details.

Hi I think the genetic problems are more likely to arise if the marriage of first cousins is a trend rather than a one-off - or if (see another thread) the parents are actually both siblings (i.e 2 brothers marry 2 sisters, or a brother & sister marry a sister & brother). It increases the risk of a nasty gene being able to show itself - it doesn't guarantee that it will. (Down to the probability-maths of it!). Christine

My father's parents were first cousins.[ Hawkins= Mersh]. Not only that, but grandfather's cousin [Hawkins] married grandmother's sister [Mersh]. Try putting that on a tree! Actually it works OK-- you just get the same great grandparents appearing twice!! Wendy

My grandparents were 1st cousins. They went on to have 6 children, all who were fit and healthy. I have only found evidence of one child, their 2nd, who seemed to have died young. Maggy

Weren't Victoria & Albert cousins?! My Mum and step-dad are first cousins too! More common than you think...!

I've got lots in my tree that married 1st cousins, i think it was quite common, and lots of them seem to have the wife as a lot older, perhaps parents wanted them married off and "arranged the marriages"! Kim

Thanks all for replying. My nan was the product of my great grandparents and there was nothing wrong with her, but my great grandparents did also have three other children who were disabled and all died young. Such a shame but as people have said you can be very unlucky when you marry your first cousin.

I have a lot of cases of first cousins marrying first cousins in one line in particular and some of these were really strong first cousins and would have shared a lot of genes as two brothers from one of my lines married two sisters from another, the first couple had a son who married the daughter of the second couple and they also had a daughter who married the son of the second couple. These first cousins went on to have large familys and none of their offspring seemed to have any problems mentally or physically (to my knowledge) and all married eventually and had children of their own. Shaz :-)

The Royal Family have done it for centuries. Does there seem to be anything wrong with them physically or mentally ??

Hi, my father's grandparents were first cousins. It cuts the family tree searching down a bit but it is impossible to add the whole story on this site. Fortunately my family tree programme will allow it and has a facility to supress the duplication in earlier years - saves on the printouts which become the same with their grandparents. Anne PS I have two eyes, ears, and the right number of fingers etc etc!!

Hi My husbands great grand parents were first cousins Margaretxx

My Father's parents were first cousins but I am not sure whether they married in Scotland or England. Nothing seems to have gone too wrong with the genes!

My husbands grand parents were 1st Cousins - however his father is the product of an affair of his father as the grandparents never concieved ( I wonder why lol ) much happiness debi

Because my direct family tree has "stuck" I have been going sideways and then backwards. This has developed into a one name study which goes way back. In 1549, one Robert Holden wished to marry his cousin Mary. He applied to the local Priest for a dispensation from Rome. The Priest (stupidly as it turned out) refused to forward the request to Rome as Robert was the child of first cousins, Mary was the child of first cousins, they shared both sets of Grandparents and had only two sets of Gt Grandparents. Robert was furious and turned Protestant so he could marry his cousin Mary and spitefully gave evidence against the Priest who had refused his request, which led to the Priest being arrested and imprisoned. Robert and Mary had at least nine children, all of whom married and had children. The Holden family in general make a nonsense of the idea that inbreeding is genetically wrong - as a previous reply said, they lived in an isolated community and married each other from a very limited gene pool for about 300 years with no ill-effects apparently.