RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: londonscorpion on Tuesday 27 November 18 18:01 GMT (UK)
-
I have two people who are related first as husband and wife, then as 1st cousins, and then again as 3rd cousins. As 3rd cousins there are two routes back to the common ancestor. The generations run from 1680 to 1850. If all the sources that link these two people through the generations are correct, would these two cousin relationships add weight to the connections that have been made.
-
What do you mean by "add weight"?
-
Add more certainty that the connections are right. For example, on old bmd records you may only have the year and so sometimes it's a bit of a guess
-
BMD records (that is Birth, Marriage and Death) are Civil Registration, and always show the full dates on the certificates.
Parish Records (CMB, or Christenings, Marriages and Burials) will also show dates.
Not sure where you have seen just a year?
-
Sometimes I have seen 'just a year' in very old parish registers K - usually where pieces of the page are missing due to damp, mice or just torn, and so all you can glean is an approximation of possibly the month, and usually can see which year it was.
Not sure if this is what the poster meant though.
-
I have two people who are related first as husband and wife, then as 1st cousins, and then again as 3rd cousins. As 3rd cousins there are two routes back to the common ancestor. The generations run from 1680 to 1850. If all the sources that link these two people through the generations are correct, would these two cousin relationships add weight to the connections that have been made.
If two people are husband and wife, then that is the significant fact confirmed with the marriage registration, and featured on the family tree chart. The cousin relationships are consanguineous relationships and there are far far more cousin relations between people who are not married to each other. Currently, some states in the US continue to have laws that would restrict first cousins from marrying each other.
Like others replying on this thread, I wonder what our OP refers to when using the expression :
would these two cousin relationships add weight to the connections that have been made
JM
-
How can they be 1st cousins AND 3rd cousins?
-
How can they be 1st cousins AND 3rd cousins?
Through a number of cousin marriages, I have someone on my tree who is a 3rd cousin to me, also a fifth cousin and a fifth cousin once removed.
I wonder what sort of match that would show up on a DNA test
-
For example ... 1st cousins share at least one grandparent; 3rd cousins share at least one great grandparent.
And don't forget that 1st cousins can share all four grandparents.... DNA could show them as siblings ...
JM
-
As goldie61 correctly comments old records are often, for various reasons, missing crucial date information, sometimes even names are spelt with differences. Sometimes a record would fit better if, with all other items being correct, the place were not 20 miles away. All of this can cast a shadow of doubt over a source which you might want to use to confirm a relative.
My point about cousin relationships adding to the confirmation process is that, having accepted such sources, I have a couple of these cousin relationships. I was under the impression that cousin marriages were rather more common (in smaller communities) than they are today and thus might add weight to acceptance of otherwise doubtful sources.
-
If I understand correctly, this is what you are asking.
You have a married couple, one of whom appears to be an ancestor of yours, but you aren't sure due to lack of paper evidence.
This person appears to be a first and/or third cousin of their spouse.
Does the fact of being a cousin make it more likely that this person is who you believe it to be?
I don't see why it would make it any more (or less) likely.
I suppose that, in the case of a first cousin, it increases the chance that they know each other, so there is an existing link there. I doubt whether many people know who their third cousins are, and in a small community, being a third cousin of your neighbour wouldn't be at all unusual.
-
Mike, If I am right, then both husband and wife in the married couple are ancestors of mine. In addition to being husband and wife they, themselves are also both 1st and 3rd cousins.
-
Where and when did this couple live and marry? What religion were they? How common was/were the surname(s) in their community/communities?
There are several cases of: spouses with same surnames; with same surname as mother-in-law's maiden name; cousins marrying probable cousins over several generations; brother and sister of one family possibly marrying sister and brother from another, sometimes possibly related family in my maternal GM's maternal lines. (Her paternal line was Irish so they probably did the same.) I don't know if and how the various spouses were related to each other prior to marriage. One line lived in a small town/large village, (pop. about 1200) which was off the beaten track until late 18thC. The other lived in a rural area. Both surnames were locally common, one was distinctive, and the families had been established in their districts since medieval times. They were all Catholic except one husband, so baptism, marriage and burial records are incomplete. The "town" families are listed in their households on 1767 Return of Papists. One family were yeomen and had their own businesses and are well-documented in the way of wills, leases, marriage bonds, poll books, newspapers, and even a contemporary book and a historical society journal from 100 years ago. Even with all that, I'm not sure who was who. The other family were ag. labs. so didn't leave an extensive paper trail. Both families suffered from a dire shortage of male forenames. One had a surfeit of females called Elizabeth or Jane.
I've wondered what DNA would show.
-
Mike, If I am right, then both husband and wife of the married couple are ancestors of mine. In addition to being husband and wife they, themselves are also both 1st and 3rd cousins.
Sorry Mike, I did not fully answer all your points.
I am pretty sure that the links are good. The fact that they are first cousins I think is a supporting fact as first cousin marriage was quite common. It's the 3rd cousin bit that is more unusual and that's where I think/hope extra re-assurance may be had. I did not contrive the link; it just fell out as it were.
The families were in Kent and Sussex, and all were protestant.
-
Thanks for explaining :D
So I think you are looking to get back earlier than 1680 in Kent and Sussex and as Protestants and hoping that because you can find 3rd cousin relationships, that will give you clues to the parents/grandparents for the 1680s ancestors...
I am not too familiar with Kent or Sussex history for the 1600s, but I do remember there was The Reformation, and an English Civil War, and a Republic, and The Great Fire of London... (Fingers crossed that's in the correct chronological order) ... So I wonder if there will be sufficient parish registers still extant to help you both confirm and also eliminate possible candidates ....
JM