Consanguinity mentioned in marriage record

[Wexflyer]

Since I posted earlier on this thread, I have been told that 4th degree of consanguinity meant the marriage mates were first cousins. you count yourself as 1, your parent = 2, their sibling = 3, their child = 4.
The person who told me was making an educated guess, but it fits better with the records I have seen.

No, no no!

First cousin marriages were almost non-existant.  Requiring actual Papal dispensation, which would be noted. I have only ever seen one.

[Wexflyer]

Some registers have a note "paid the bishop".

I think you will find that in most cases, registers with this notation were mensal parishes. That is, the bishop was (theoretically) the parish priest (PP), and his administrator (Adm) was paying the bishop, in his role as PP.

[oldohiohome]

Since I posted earlier on this thread, I have been told that 4th degree of consanguinity meant the marriage mates were first cousins. you count yourself as 1, your parent = 2, their sibling = 3, their child = 4.
The person who told me was making an educated guess, but it fits better with the records I have seen.

No, no no!

First cousin marriages were almost non-existant.  Requiring actual Papal dispensation, which would be noted. I have only ever seen one.

then what are they?

[Wexflyer]

I think the second Latin word is salus, which can mean a variety of things, including safety, salvation, and well-being. I think the priest is indicating that they were dispensed, even though not technically required, to be "on the safe side", so to speak.

[Wexflyer]

Since I posted earlier on this thread, I have been told that 4th degree of consanguinity meant the marriage mates were first cousins. you count yourself as 1, your parent = 2, their sibling = 3, their child = 4.
The person who told me was making an educated guess, but it fits better with the records I have seen.

No, no no!

First cousin marriages were almost non-existant.  Requiring actual Papal dispensation, which would be noted. I have only ever seen one.

then what are they?

As already indicated by others, 3rd cousins.

[oldohiohome]

then maybe the priest couldn't count, because the bride's father and the groom's mother had the same surname, married in 1869, in a rural area.

I've also seen a 1st cousin Catholic marriage in America. the couple were married in a different legal jurisdiction because their home area legally forbade 1st cousin marriage. But they were married by a priest, with a note in the record from a priest back home. I doubt they got a papal dispensation since they were as poor as dirt.

[Wexflyer]

then maybe the priest couldn't count, because the bride's father and the groom's mother had the same surname, married in 1869, in a rural area.

I've also seen a 1st cousin Catholic marriage in America. the couple were married in a different legal jurisdiction because their home area legally forbade 1st cousin marriage. But they were married by a priest, with a note in the record from a priest back home. I doubt they got a papal dispensation since they were as poor as dirt.

The marriage in question is in 1836, so just how the bride and grooms parents married in 1869 escapes me.

Authority to dispense could be delegated in remote mission territories. But that was not Ireland.

[oldohiohome]

I should have said I was referring to a different 1st cousin marriage I came across.

[Billyblue]

One of the reasons for the consanguinity prohibition, is to guard against unfavourable genes being passed from both parents to any resulting children.

This is practised even in some indigenous tribes, where their custom prohibits 'marrying' anyone in the same tribe.

Dawn M