Genealogy Chat

Would any of you luberlee lot know if it was against the law for my GGG Grandfather to marry his NEICE??? ( his brothers daughter )

A book we have here that was my great-grandma's (published about 1929) says incest was a misdemeanour which could be punished by 3 to 7 years in prison with up to 2 years hard labour.

The book also refers to a table of prohibited relationships in the Book of Common Prayer - it says that although it was then permissible to marry your dead wife's niece or sister (or your dead husband's brother or nephew) a clergyman would not be penalised if he refused to conduct such a marriage because it still went against the law of the Church of England.

Hope that makes some sense!

WOW ..... thanks for that Kate so it was AGAINST the law.......... they married in a church as well.

The marriage though does explain why 1 child died within a week & 2 born deaf & never reached adulthood whilst the 4th & last was a ok .......... just as were his other 7 children he'd had with my GGG Grandma before her death!!

What does 'luberlee'mean.....confused.

Luverley? (lovely)

Debi,
This was more common than you'd think, I have the same in my tree where the male married his sisters daughter. I was horrified at first but have been assured it was not in the least bit unusual.
Linda

Llamedos , luberlee does in deed mean , as Major says, Loverly in Debi Coone speak :))

Linda , I had been used to cousins within the family marrying so when this marriage cert popped up I. like you , was horrified at first........ once it sunk in ( which to be honest with my wee brain , didn't take long or much effort to do ) I was highly amused!! This side of my family are the ones with airs & graces LOL!! Awwwwwww bless 'em, it sure has put the zing back in my research thats for sure.

Much happiness
Debi -x-x

PS good luck all of you with your hunting :))

It was illegal then and it is illegal now. You closest relative you can marry in the UK is a first cousin.

I don't think that marrying your brothers or sisters or marrying their children is particularly common or normal. The evidence found in one persons tree does not mean it was common or regarded as normal - simply that it may have been common in certain families.

First cousin marriages have never been particularly common in the UK but were certainly not rare. They were not and still are not illegal.

I'm sure a lot of things went on and still does go on. People have families with their daughters and keep them in underground dungeons for instance but I really doubt it is common.

nutty bongo - have you published your research? how large survey was it? did you limit yourself to certain villages? I'd be interested to know more about it.

There would have been considerable inbreeding in many areas but not necessarily incest. The fact that people shared a surname does not mean they are close relatives in the same way that people not sharing the same name can be close

I am not clear why the OP thinks that her 3G Grandfather to married his brother's daughter. Was his brother still alive? Was the marriage by banns or licence, were they both of the parish?

What I was questioning in my post is the bland assertion that because someone says "I found this in my tree so it must have gone on a lot". I doubt it was common at all. Since it was illegal and frowned on by the church why did they bother getting married? It is hardly likely to be so that they can obey a social convention. How, in a small community, did nobody question it?

If anybody can point to some valid evidence that incest was rife then please do otherwise we should avoid the strange assertion that "it went on a lot".

If people find something that appears to be evidence of incest in marriage records I would certainly start by questioning whether this is really what you are looking at rather than jumping to any conclusion about it. Incest is going to be far more common outside marriage than within it.

It is NOT illegal to marry a neice.
The law requires there to be three bloodlines between parties marrying.
The first goes from the uncle back to his father, the second goes from his father to his brother and the third goes from the brother to his own daughter ie the niece.Uncle and niece are not within the prohibited degrees of relationship

I have just asked the website Any Question Answered.

This is the reply i got....

No,a man could not marry his blood niece in 1883 in England, but could marry his wife's siblings daughter, (non-blood niece) if his wife died.

Hi Debi, Thanks for the explanation of 'luberlee' -
think I need to get out more often!

I want to thank you all for your input & for making this a most interesting read/find.... I tried googling the answer to begin with & as you can imagine an awful lot of info was available , but like this thread it was diverse in opinion ......

Michael in answer to your above question:
"I am not clear why the OP thinks that her 3G Grandfather to married his brother's daughter. Was his brother still alive? Was the marriage by banns or licence, were they both of the parish? "

They were indeed of the same Parish, the marriage certificate I have records they were married in the Parish Church of Bishop Ryder in Birmingham, her father was still alive at the time of the marriage . My research vi census & birth certificates conclude that my 3 x Grt Grandfather did indeed marry his brothers daughter!!

Llamedos your very welcome always happy to re educate in the speak of Deb i :))