HOW DID OUR OLD RELLIES MEET & WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT

[sheilajim]

Hi All

How did our Old Rellies meet, and what are the chances that they could be related to one another, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries:?:

At first I could see no relationship in the marriages of all my old rellies. Now I am not so sure. Just by chance I was looking at the Marriage Cert of one of my old cousins, James Scott, and noticed that his wife's(Margaret Towers) mother was named Agnes McDonald. James Scott's GGrandparents were my ancestors, Archibald McDonald and Chirstan Dun. I found 3 children born in Fintry to these ancestors and a possible two others born in Balfron, from parents of the same name. One was Agnes McDonald. I looked up the Death Cert for Margaret Towers's mother, Agnes McDonald, born in Stirlingshire, and sure enough, her parents are listed as Archibald McDonald & Christina Dunn. This seems to me that this Archibald McDonald & Christina Dunn are Archibald McDonald and Chirsten Dun of Balfron, and that James McDonald & Margaret Towers are second cousins, once removed.

I started looking through some other family members and some have second names that seem to connect them to earlier families, which before didn't seem at all related.

Has anyone else come across this sort of thing? Have they found any marriages where the couple is related? Was it common in Scotland to marry second or third cousins, especially in the 19th and 18th centuries?

Just wondering if our ancestors were more related to each other than at first seems. Would it be easier to get to know someone who was a relative than a stranger?

Regards

[LesleyB]

Hi Sheila
I won't mention any names, but I have a good number of cousins marrying cousins which at one point (well, Ok, three points... ) ends up with folk classed as "lunatics". It took me some time to work out all the connections, but I have documentary proof of all the cousin relationships now, with still some more suspected cousin & cousin marriages further back and unproven in the same line.

From what I know of that particular branch of the family (late 1700s to early 1800s) I suspect in this case it may have been to do with property & money and keeping what belonged to family, within the family, where possible.... they were not rich, but reasonably comfortable at the time.
Best wishes
Lesley

[Russell]

Hi Sheila

When ancestors used middle names and gave them for official documents it made things quite easy to trace these close relationships. When they didn't use, or have, middle names you have to trace every marriage of every cousin to find out.
I have a couple of early 1820's rellies who shared the same grandfather.
This level of kinship, as Lesley pointed out, can end up with inbred, undesirable characteristics emerging.
I think that small isolated communities had more examples than bigger, more industrialised ones with a bigger choice of potential partners.
The village I live in now was famed for its madness and suicide levels which must have been attributable partly to in-breeding.
In the UK they are now talking about not requiring the father's name on a birth certificate. I dread to think of the complications this could cause geneticists in the future.

Russell

[emanday]

I have one particular example of this that I couldn't quite work out till I realised that the son from a rellies first marriage married the grand-daughter from the second marriage!

When I opened the MC on SP I couldn't believe what I was seeing

I don't know about lunacy and such, but their offspring definitely inherited that twice married lady's tendency to "massage" their ages

[sheilajim]

Hi Leslie & Russell,

My old Rellies were not rich. I don't know about their mental state, but it could explain some mysterious disappearances.

Some of my old Rellies, usually men, were much better off than others. Men could become apprentices, then journeymen and finally masters of some trade, and make a pretty good income. These men,(at least in my family), usually married poorer, possibly related, women. Women didn't have such a choice. If something happened to the husband or father, things got tough even if the women worked, usually at some factory for a very small wage.

Russell, as you mentioned, in small villages, I suppose that over time, most of the people would be related. Now I have heard that the Roman Catholic Church wouldn't permit marriages between close cousins. I believe that only sixth cousins could marry. On the other hand, I understand that the Protestant Churches did allow marriages, between even first cousins. Maybe the only thing that saved society in Scotland, was the Industrial Revolution, that forced people to leave their villages and travel in search of work.

I still wonder how they met each other in those days.


Regards

[emanday]

Come to think of it, I do have a set of first cousins marrying! I am, however, relieved to say that they were related to my line only through a second marriage and not by blood .

Now this couple were from a fairly well off family of ship builders and owners, so probably a "keeping the fortune in the family" arrangement.

[sheilajim]

Hi Mary

Your Rellies and mine must be related! I don't think that I have come across one female relative between 18 and 60 who hasn't made herself younger on every census. Some of the men do this too. It is only after they pass 60 that they start to tell the truth.

Regards

Researching: Stirlingshire-McDonald, Kay/Key, Dunn/Dun, Edmond, Watson, Scott. Renfrewshire-McLaren, McDonald, Boyd, Kennedy. Argyllshire-Mull- McKinnon, Campbell, McLaren. Perth-Kay/Key. Northern Ireland- Kennedy, Boyd, McKee.

[Ina]

Hi,

I have a relative who married a first cousin. On her marriage certificate it lists them as second cousins. I know for a fact that the the brides mother and the grooms father were brother and sister.....making them first cousins.

My relatives came from a small island. Guess it was difficult to meet someone who wasn't related to you.

Both sets of my great grandparents mother's had the same maiden name, and they came from the same island. I suspect (but haven't proved it yet) that they were cousins, which I think would make my great grandparents second cousins.....and no I haven't found any madness in the family yet

Ina

[Muriel]

I'm trying to find one, in the Balfron/Drymen area too, where there are possibly 2 couples with the same names around. I have the marriage of an Alexander McAdam & Annabella (various spellings!) Mitchell in 1765 in Barony but her father is from Kilmaronock. Then in 1766 there is the birth of a child described in the OPR as the 8th child. Then there are 3 children born in the 1770s in Drymen to a couple with same names.

At first I thought the children all belonged to the same couple until I looked at the OPR. Now I wonder if the 3 later ones were born to a couple who were younger relatives of an older couple. Of course, it's always possible that the first 7 children were born out of wedlock & not baptised! All very puzzling & probably never to be solved unless the Kirk Session records turn up trumps one day.

I've also got at least one instance of someone marrying his dead wife's sister.

Muriel

[AnneM]

There are still communities now where everyone seems to be related to everyone else. The ramifications can be scary.

Anne