Genealogy Chat

Today, about 2% of marrs in England are between first cousins.
The rate has been the same for over 100y.

I read a paper on medical ethics a couple of years back.
I think it was for kidney transplants where family members give the best match.
About 3.5% of UK fathers who volunteered were found not to be genetically related to the child. The paper's author contacted similar euro hospitals and found their rates ran between 2 - 4%.. None of the fathers knew this, so the ethical problem is how fully should their "not really a close enough match" result be explained.

Hi Joonie, your more likely right , there was probably a lot of cohabiting within family's
as was the case in both our forebears, makes one wonder just how prevalent it was
back then :-) , it would be interesting to find out how common it was, probably never
know : :-(

Anyway thank you for sharing that with us

Hi Robert, I just thought I'd add about the marriage prohibition, since seeing it in action can help.

My grx3 grandparents - about the most "respectable" in my tree, him a prosperous tradesperson - never married. She was the widowed sister of his deceased wife, so they could not marry. (This was in about 1820.)

I descend from the second "wife", and I have been in touch with a descendant of the only child of the first wife, who provided me with this info back before things were available on line. Unlike most second-family situations, he and I have the exact same ancestral lines, since our female ancestors were children of the same parents. :-)

(As it happens, the two women and their numerous siblings were the last people born in England with their surname. The surname became extinct when their brothers died young without offspring.)

Funny how in some cultures, it is considered an obligation to marry a widowed relation, but here it was prohibited. To ward off convenient accidental deaths and suicides, I guess!

Recap- all five children born to Huby- Father, Goodliffe, between 1928 and 1936.
now established birth records have Huby or Goodliffe on them.
No marriage evident between Huby and Goodliffe.
Huby/ Christal marriage London 1948.

With the above now resolved, thanks to all those who very kindly help in sorting it out,
I can attach these leaves to my expanding tree,
:-D

Again I would Like to thank you all for your input

The lady that married Mr Christal was still down as single in 1939 and not with any Goodliffe.

She wouldn't have needed a birth certificate to get married!

But may be they were going "abroad" for a honeymoon.

on the 1928 index the entry 'see M48' is handwritten indicating it was added at a later date.

Presumably she needed a birth certificate before she married

I assume you know that the G in Pauline G Huby stands for Goodliffe - full name shown on lancashirebmd

The 1948 records referred to against the 1928 birth, which, as you will see on freebmd, has no Vol & Page details

Births Mar 1948 (>99%)

Goodliffe Pauline Huby Blackpool 10b 660 Scan available - click to viewAssociated System Entry related to this entry - click for more information
Huby Pauline Goodliffe Blackpool 10b 660 Scan available - click to viewAdditional information available - click to view
Huby Pauline Huby Blackpool 10b 660

#COMMENT Entry reads Goodliffe or Huby for mother's maiden surname

Sylviain,
Thanks for that info, but it still leaves the door open, so to speak , but as you say
it happens .

mgnv,
Hi, confusing somewhat :-( but def sure of dates (1928) which is the important bit, and I am 110% on the "no marriage" stakes, only wish I could move my birth date on 20 years, live my life over again :-D GREAT

Any way thank you for "OO" looking, more eyes the better.

The birth was initially rego'ed as:

Births Sep 1928 (>99%)
Huby Pauline G Huby Fylde 8e 818

The birth was rego'ed in the Blackpool North subdistrict of Fylde.
I'm not sure of dates of these changes, but initially I think both unwed parents of a child had to jointly appear before the registrar for the fathers name to appear on the b.cert.Later this was relaxed so the father could appear at any rego office, then later still, could send in a notarized statement. Both these latter changes still required the mother's agreement.

When our kids left home, we gave them their b.certs. Maybe this is what happened here, and it was then noticed her dad wasn't on the b,cert, so it was reregoed to include him.
By this time, Blackpool RD had been created (in 1936q4) and Blackpool RD got the old Blackpool North subdistrict rego's from Fylde. The birth was re-rego'ed in Blackpool North and the GRO index was amended for 1928 to point to this re-rego. Of course, someone looking for this child's b.cert won't be looking at 1948, so this amendment appears in the 1928q3 index.

Robert


it might have been unlawful to marry your deceased wife's sister ................. but that does NOT mean that it did not happen!


I think we have all found examples where wife died, her sister moved in to look after the widower and the children, and then a marriage took place some time later. The other alternative of course is that the sister and widower lived together as if married (common law), and had children.

I certainly have found several examples of one or other of those events happening over the almost 15 years that I have been helping others on GR.

Kay

thanks for confirming "marriage act" lots of hidden potholes to look for isn't there
another chestnut put to bed

:-D

Kay

your explanation is spot on, I have found four entry's for Pauline 2 under Goodliffe
& 2 under Huby

Thanks for steering me in the right, appreciated your help

Un-wed parents was just as common then as its always been.


Yes, unitl the marriage act change it was unlawful to marry a deceased wifes sister.

Kay
You have put

"The other births are also under both surnames indicating the birth parties at that time there was no marriage."

The other or subsequent births are under the name Goodliffe not both!

Hi Kay yes the birth year is correct 1928

sorry for any confusion should have added:-

this extracted from another forebear of mine, took up with the younger sister of his
wife after her death

Robert which birth year is correct?if 1928

perhaps in 1948 a birth certificate was needed for some reason and things came to light.or corrected.

The other births are also under both surnames indicating the birth parties at that time there was no marriage.

another conundrum am I correct with the following info, ? read it somewhere or other


Henry then married ( or we think he did) Louisa younger sister Ann Mary Hirst, around the time of Louisa death, 1873, unable as yet to find details of this marriage record----- for the record it was illegal to marry ones wife's sister (see forbidden marriage laws implemented by the C of E in 1560 until the 1907 marriage act revoked this)--problem resolved, never married..

Chris thanks for that info, must remember that :-)