OT: Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick married Anne Cheke

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

OT: Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick married Anne Cheke

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 22:27:02

They were first cousins !

Not removed, not step, just the plain kind.
His father and her mother were siblings.

Scandalous!

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: OT: Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick married Anne Cheke

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jun 2006 09:00:44

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

They were first cousins !

Not removed, not step, just the plain kind.
His father and her mother were siblings.

Scandalous!

Somehow, I doubt anyone was too worried about papal dispensations in
England in 1645...

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: OT: Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick married Anne Cheke

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 10 jun 2006 09:58:59

In message of 10 Jun, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

They were first cousins !

Not removed, not step, just the plain kind.
His father and her mother were siblings.

Scandalous!

Somehow, I doubt anyone was too worried about papal dispensations in
England in 1645...

True and I have seen records of quite a few first cousin marriages post
1600 or so.

Is there any evidence of any genetic problems resulting from such
practices?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: OT: Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick married Anne Cheke

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jun 2006 10:32:43

Tim Powys-Lybbe schrieb:

In message of 10 Jun, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

They were first cousins !

Not removed, not step, just the plain kind.
His father and her mother were siblings.

Scandalous!

Somehow, I doubt anyone was too worried about papal dispensations in
England in 1645...

True and I have seen records of quite a few first cousin marriages post
1600 or so.

Is there any evidence of any genetic problems resulting from such
practices?

James VI & I...

Leo van de Pas

Re: OT: Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick married Anne Cheke

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 10 jun 2006 12:02:02

----- Original Message -----
From: <mjcar@btinternet.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick married Anne Cheke


Tim Powys-Lybbe schrieb:

In message of 10 Jun, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

They were first cousins !

Not removed, not step, just the plain kind.
His father and her mother were siblings.

Scandalous!

Somehow, I doubt anyone was too worried about papal dispensations in
England in 1645...

True and I have seen records of quite a few first cousin marriages post
1600 or so.

Is there any evidence of any genetic problems resulting from such
practices?

James VI & I...

James VI-I was born before, nor after, 1600. But what was genetically

problematic "because of his parents being half-first cousins to each other"?
Aparently he had porphyria, which he could have inherited whether his mother
had married some-one else, or from his father whether he had married someone
else. I don't think the fact they were so closely related to each other
"doubled" the chances of inheriting porphyria. I think it is very difficult
now to establish that people had genetic problems because parents were first
cousins. I understand that it also depends on the genes involved, if they
had good genes nothing negative happened. I think the Spanish Habsburgs is
one of the few families we can be fairly sure that the close intermarrying
_for several generations_ may have been the cause of their male-line
extinction.

If you make an ancestor list for James VI, amongst the first 21 numbers
there is only one duplication, nr 11 and 13 for Margaret Tudor.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Gjest

Re: OT: Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick married Anne Cheke

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jun 2006 13:03:02

Good Morning Will et al,
I had just read your message and got a great chuckle out of it. Earlier
in the evening was putting together some photos of my family on the
Anderson side that go thru the Bloodworths/werts(photos of Peter and
his wife Juliana Bell) side and found that my great grandparents were
1st cousins! Peter and Julianas 2 daughters children, married each
other-my great grandparents.
Talk about scandal??! Tommorrow I will be going to the Lloyd family
re-union,hundreds of them will be there, my grandfathers family, from
Cardiganshire, Wales, staunch ultra religious types(very stiff-necked),
that married into the Andersons. Yep, e-mailed all the photos from
Peter and Juliana to the present, to everyone. My sister says they will
probably hang me from the nearest tree... altho I know the Lloyd
descents in Wales and they intermarried awhole lot more.
Let's see, My great grandparents in-laws, would also be their Aunt and
Uncles, my grand parents grandparents are not only their grand parents
but great aunt and uncles and my grandparents parents are not only
their parents but their 2nd cousins as well????!!! I think that is
right? anyway talk of syncronicity, I had no sooner sent the photos
then logged on and read your e-mail, Wow.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler




"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: <mjcar@btinternet.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick married Anne Cheke



Tim Powys-Lybbe schrieb:

In message of 10 Jun, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

They were first cousins !

Not removed, not step, just the plain kind.
His father and her mother were siblings.

Scandalous!

Somehow, I doubt anyone was too worried about papal dispensations in
England in 1645...

True and I have seen records of quite a few first cousin marriages post
1600 or so.

Is there any evidence of any genetic problems resulting from such
practices?

James VI & I...

James VI-I was born before, nor after, 1600. But what was genetically
problematic "because of his parents being half-first cousins to each other"?
Aparently he had porphyria, which he could have inherited whether his mother
had married some-one else, or from his father whether he had married someone
else. I don't think the fact they were so closely related to each other
"doubled" the chances of inheriting porphyria. I think it is very difficult
now to establish that people had genetic problems because parents were first
cousins. I understand that it also depends on the genes involved, if they
had good genes nothing negative happened. I think the Spanish Habsburgs is
one of the few families we can be fairly sure that the close intermarrying
_for several generations_ may have been the cause of their male-line
extinction.

If you make an ancestor list for James VI, amongst the first 21 numbers
there is only one duplication, nr 11 and 13 for Margaret Tudor.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Douglas Richardson

Re: OT: Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick married Anne Cheke

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 jun 2006 00:28:55

Dear Michael ~

I turned up a reference to a dispensation issued by the Presbyterian
Church in Montreal, Canada for the marriage of my
great-great-grandmother's sister to her near male cousin. The marriage
took place about 1850. I had alrerady suspected that the two parties
were near cousins from my earlier research in Scottish records. The
marriage record confirmed the near kinship.

DR

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

They were first cousins !

Not removed, not step, just the plain kind.
His father and her mother were siblings.

Scandalous!

Somehow, I doubt anyone was too worried about papal dispensations in
England in 1645...

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»