Pedigree Collapse

[Bob Spiers]

I found myself recently answering a question from another Researcher carrying out a one-name “R” study asking which of two Mary Ann Witts’ both in my line and both shown born 1842 in the same town was the one connected to his ‘R’ study. I answered there was a convoluted connection with one and a straightforward connection with the other.

The one most closely connected was the 1842 Mary Ann daughter of Henry & Mary Witts (1814/1817) who had married an ‘HR’ (1841). The other was the daughter of Henry’s older brother John Witts (c1800) married to Emma(c1811) and she had married ‘EC’ (1839) and therefore outside of his study line.

However he should not overlook that Henry Witts’ son John (1844) – the brother of the Mary Ann Witts (1842) who had married ‘HR’(1841) - had also named one of his daughters’ Mary Ann (1865) and she in fact married her first cousin ‘HR’ (1865) named after his father ‘HR’(1841). This made two 2 HR x MAW connections.

I pointed out that later the confusion was helped somewhat when the son chose to style himself Harvie whilst his father remained Harvey. All the Mary Ann’s were cousins, either first or first once removed and of course the two HR’s were father and son! As for inter-relationships down the line these will have to wait for another time.

 

[canadianbeth]

In my husband's tree there is at least one sets of first cousins marrying; they were first cousins 3x removed. They were the first generation in Canada and at least three different families did a lot of intermarrying. I believe there was a second one as well.

And there is a case of one branch coming together later - the Nutbrown's. I have that line back to Anthonie Nutbrowne in 1586 but very little info apart from one son to the next in the first few generations. His many-times grandson William was my husband's 2nd great-grandfather, while another son George's daughter Hannah married a Stevens (one of the three families mentioned earlier) who was my husband's 1st cousin 3x removed, as was Hannah, although they were not related.

And his step-mother's son was married to another of my husband's 3rd cousins, once removed, which we learned only after she married my father-in-law. Interesting how the lines intertwine.

 

[peter]

In my husband's tree there is at least one sets of first cousins marrying; they were first cousins 3x removed

Do you mean that they were 1st cousins, but that their relationship to your husband is 1st cousin 3 times removed?

 

[emjay]

I'm curious what "Alarm Bells" does it set off. I wasn't aware I'd programmed any audible alerts Seriously though there should be nothing unusual about having non direct lines in your tree nothing that FTAnalyzer would get upset about. If it is then it could be a bug that needs fixed?

Sorry Alexander,only just spotted your response. Actually not so much "Alarm Bells" as my dismay at being confronted with lots of red coloured sections. Caused by MY not having done in-depth research on such lines.

But back on topic,I have come across an instance of 1st cousins marrying in my wife's family (19th century)

 

[canadianbeth]

Oh, they were first cousins, but to my husband both were 1st cousins 3x removed. Sorry, I should have worded that a bit differently.

 

[peter]

Oh, they were first cousins, but to my husband both were 1st cousins 3x removed. Sorry, I should have worded that a bit differently.

Thanks for the clarification. Incidentally, it's worth pointing out for the benefit of others reading this discussion that it would have been possible for your husband to have been related to only one of the cousins who married.

Whilst on average we'd expect to be related to both cousins only about half the time, in practice it's less likely that we'll be aware of cousins marrying when we're only related to one of them.