My great uncle married his cousin?

Question

One of my great-uncles decided he wanted to get married after he got back from serving in WWI - preferably to a cousin - which he did. He had migrated to Australia prior to the war, and after the war went to England and married a cousin in 1919. He and his wife returned to Australia and had 2 kids.

Why did he prefer to marry a cousin over someone else? Was that acceptable back then - or was my uncle just a bit strange?

Answer 1

He was a bit strange.
But then again with him living in Australia could be the reason why he went a bit strange.

Answer 2

Yes, it was very acceptable in generations past to marry a cousin. Often, the first wife died and the widower was left with children to raise. The man often took a cousin -- 2nd or farther removed -- as his wife.

One of my great-great uncles married his niece! He told people she was his cousin, because marrying a cousin was acceptable and normal. In preparing for a family reunion about a year ago -- a family reunion had not been held for 70 years -- some of my cousins and I figured out that our great-great uncle's second wife was his niece, not his cousin as had been written in family journals and passed down from generation to generation.

No one living has the exact answer to your question, and we can only surmise these two things: 1) a blood relative will take better care of children than a stranger, and 2) maybe not in 1919, but in the 1800's, there weren't a lot of choices because there just weren't the masses of people as now, at least in rural communities.

Answer 3

Do the numbers: every one has 2 parents; each parent had 2 parents, and so on. By the time you go back 30 generations, it would take more people than are on the earth today, meaning that people married first cousins, second cousins, gals married their uncles, etc.
In the 1960s, it was still legal in the State of New York to marry a first cousin.
Lots of wealthy families do that to keep the money in the family. Of course, there are many other "reasons".

Answer 4

It was, and still is, legal to marry a first cousin in the UK. As a result, there aren't the same taboos attached to it here as in America (and I imagine other countries where it is illegal).

It might be seen as a little unusual, especially as many of us grew up with cousins... but I suppose that's not much more strange than someone marrying a childhood friend, but no-one would be horrified by it even today.

It also does not pose the degree of risk of hereditary conditions that other nations perceive, though if a series of generations did it, the risk of this may be increased.

Answer 5

Just a final thought to the great information provided by earlier answerers....

While genealogically "cousin" has a very precise definition, in common usage, it is kind of wide open and is often used to refer to virtually ANYONE in an extended family except direct blood relatives (parents, grandparents, etc.) and usually a relative with a specific title like Uncle, Aunt. (And in truth they are usually some nth cousin mth removed).

BUT it is also a term common used for unrelated family members. A woman marries your UNCLE. She is your uncle's wife (not related to you). In a familial usage, common usage, HER family, if close with your family, are often considered cousins - just as she, though not genealogically related, is often considered your Aunt.

Cousin can often be a wide open term, even applying to someone not related in any way - but considered part of the extended family.

Answer 6

It is far more common than people think, especially in rural areas of the US. Why? well, one would hope that it was a case of hopeless romantics. Another possible reason, if you can verify the specifics of the marriage date and children, she MAY have been in an indiscreet position, and the marriage (and move to Australia) could have been a means to "save" her honor and reputation.
It's one of the most intriguing aspects of research.. opening to things being different culturally and in different locations. Many persons in British royalty are related, and nothing is thought of that. I had a huge laugh when I learned that my current husband and former husband are distant relatives (making my husband a step father to my children as well as a literal cousin). When I started researching my son in law's ancestry, sure enough... I ran into him having a ancestor in common with my daughter. The common ancestor is way back in the 1700s. Thus, their children are not just their children but distant cousins to their own parents.
Uncle was hopefully a great guy, who just wanted to stay in his comfort zone.

Answer 7

Assuming your great uncle is his grandfather then Yes. Your great uncle would share a set of parents with one of your grandparents meaning you and this person would have Great grandparents in common making you 2nd cousins. Relationships between 2nd cousins are legal in all states and distant enough not to cause problems. If your great-uncle is not his grandfather you are not related.

Answer 8

If you know of your great-uncle's intentions, you've struck genealogical GOLD. Most of us record BMD dates and census entries and wonder why our ancestors picked the partners they picked.

Marrying a cousin was more accepted back then than it is today. In the USA, in some of the frontier counties, if you wanted to marry a white woman it was a cousin or nothing.

Cousins have some advantages. They are usually from the same class, race, religion, socio-economic level you are, and your parents know theirs. If you have hemophilia or about 12 other genetic problems in your family, it isn't so good, but otherwise it can make for a comfortable match.

People thought about "suitable match" back then more than we do, and less about love striking like a lightening bolt across economic, religious, racial, cultural and national differences.

They wanted a wife who would not embarass them, either by being used to more than they could provide, if they married "above" themselves, or one who didn't know which fork to use for the truffles, if they married "below" themselves.

Answer 9

Australian Law does not allow you to marry your first cousin. This has been law here since 1901 the year Australia was Federated. Prior to that each state had it's own laws and I can tell you that we didn't have laws allowing it then either.

However, I would check to see if they were married on route between the UK and OZ. I would suggest that they were.

For those that think it's funny suggesting Aussies are strange please leave off the dumb comments.

Answer 10

I doubt that your uncle was "a bit strange." Marrying one's first cousin is still legal in many American states, and it was certainly legal and socially acceptable in England in previous centuries. At least two of Jane Austen's charactrers did it. And in France, Louis XIV married his ,double first cousin--they shared all four grandparents. To get back to your uncle, it could be that he was simply homseick, and marrying his cousin was a way to take a piece of home to Australia with him. And they very likely loved each other!

Answer 11

Back in the 1880's and earlier, it was more acceptable, but in the early 1900's, not so sure if it was or not, and plus being in Australia, the culture at that time might have been accepting of the marriage and not thought of it as a big deal. There also might have been a shortage of available women in the area at that time, and if he wanted a wife, maybe he knew that his only options was to ask family and go back to England to find a wife.