When did marrying a cousin become socially unacceptable?

[LionBird]

I'm a big Agatha Christie fan and noticed there are quite a few references to cousins being in a relationship. I'm rereading Taken at the Flood currently, which is set in 1946, and the main character is engaged to her cousin and nobody seems to think it's strange! Obviously it was quite common in royal circles too in the 19th century but post-WW2 isn't that long ago so I'm not sure how and when it became unacceptable to have a relationship with a cousin - can anyone shed some light on this?

Well done Starmer!

Irrespective of if you believe it’s only a problem in certain communities , it’s still a good thing to make it illegal. Same with forced marriages.

It’s illegal in many other countries in Europe.

The figure about the average UK couple being 6-7th cousins is something I read in In the Blood by Steve Jones (which talks about genes, heredity and the like).

I'm confused as to why you think I am interested in justifying cousin marriages; my posts on this thread have literally argued very strongly that cousin marriages should be banned (probably first cousin and second cousin, actually, IMO). Rather, my point was that most royal families were probably only about as inbred as most of the families they ruled over; the Habsburgs were a spectacular case, but the British royal family, for example, has not had many marriages with close cousins.

I think Queen Liz and Philip were 3rd cousins, but the thing is, a fair few people in the UK probably have married 3rd cousins without being aware of this. Royal families by their nature tend to be much more aware of who their distant cousins are.

Why we’re having less sex with our (genetic) relatives This is very interesting: by the time you get to sixth or seventh cousins, the number of such cousins you have is pretty insane. No wonder loads of people have a spouse from among such a group - if you marry someone from your own town, it's likely to be the case.

However, relatedness has been going down in many countries, for a number of reasons.

Cousin marriages among people close enough to know each other as relatives (first cousins certainly, and probably second cousins) are completely different - it's not just the genetic stuff, it's also the fact that such unions promote clannish, insular and "tribal" attitudes towards life, in which people see themselves primarily as members of a particular clan rather than as citizens in a wider society of equals. It's why societies with high rates of cousin marriage invariably have lots of problems (widespread corruption, nepotism and lack of democracy).

This. It's not illegal but it's a bit weird because they'd share the same grandparents.

It's so interesting when you look at the laws by country. It really varies worldwide whether it's legal or not.
Personally I think in this day and age with contraception abd pre natal testing it doesn't really matter if you marry a first cousin.. or even a sibling I guess.. as long as it's consensual adults. It seems gross to me but there's not really a reason why..
I don't think people should suffer just because I feel a bit weird about their relationship. If someone happens to fall in love with their cousin good luck to them I say!
My cousin was grim and used to pull my hair. Wouldn't marry him if we were the last of the human race lmao!!

I really don't think it should be illegal. Forced marriage should definitely be illegal. But they ate separate issues. They need to be treated separately.

Royalty has done it since forever to keep the money in the family. That's why all the windsors look the same. Generations of cousins.

I thought it was a ‘webbed toes’ issue as opposed to social stigma etc. it is a chromosome concern.

Like the Hapsburg jaw 🙁
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/distinctive-habsburg-jaw-was-likely-result-royal-familys-inbreeding-180973688/

I know, it was a joke (bad one.)

The inbreeding started in the late 1800s when the children of identical twins married (cousins but would be the DNA equivalent of siblings).

I know the parents of the adults in the documentary were double first cousins, I'm sure there were other cousin marriages late 1900 and the 60s and 70s when the generation in the documentary was filmed.

I honestly couldn’t care less of kings and queens did it 500 hundred years ago.

And we don’t live in tiny villages anymore so people can look further a field.

This is a very real issue that’s happening now and it needs to stop.

These births impact on the Health Service, the families involved and most of all the children — who never asked to be born with such disadvantages. Muslims know about the genetics but are often powerless to stop the cousin marriages. This impacts the mothers too watching their babies die because of a marriage they didn’t even want.

This only started to be taken seriously in the 80s by medical professions but because of fear of racism accusations it’s mostly been kept from the public eye.

Many of these families - especially the women were/are uneducated so are told it’s Gods will or they are being punished for a sin.

This is in the year 2024

Do you know how much shared DNA you have if you are 7th to 8th cousins?! Clearly you don't.

It's been 0% and 1%. Most 7th to 8th cousins won't come up as matches if you do a DNA test for this reason. It's nothing.

First cousins share between 7.31%–13.8%. If you have a pattern of close intermarriage within a closed community this could be much higher though. This is where you start to get problems.

There's a thing called the genetic isotope point which means that if you go back far enough you have a common ancestors. This is why 25% of people of English ancestry are estimated to be cousins of Danny Dyer. (Descendants of William the Conqueror). I believe the genetic isotope point is around 1000 years ago for England which falls roughly in line this this. This means if you were born a thousand years ago you are either related to everyone or no one of English ancestry (because you either have descendants or your line died out).

Do you know how much shared DNA you have if you are 7th to 8th cousins?! Clearly you don't.

What does that have to do with anything, and do you have to express yourself in such an extremely rude manner?

I think you are under the impression that the point of my post was to minimize the impact of first cousin marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth; please read my other posts.

The point I made about the average UK couple being around 7th cousins on average, was in response to the other posts made by some posters about royalty being particularly inbred. My point was that most royal families, such as the UK royal family, have not actually engaged in much cousin marriage over the centuries, and a lot of the things that get pointed out - like the fact that Eliz II was a distant-ish cousin of Prince Philip - have to be seen in the context of the fact that everyone is related if you go far back enough. All this is very different to marrying a first cousin - which even UK royalty has not done within living memory.

Of course it should be illegal. The level of risk to the resulting children makes the practice morally abhorrent and beyond the legal approval of a civilised society.

Tbf @GreenTeaLikesMe your posts do come across if your justifying it or even playing devils advocate. That’s why you got the response I have gave last night. Almost as if ‘I don’t agree with it but look we’re also doing it too’

Random thoughts before work:
Some Royal families did marry with foreign royalty. Marie Antoinette I think was Austrian.
Queen Victoria's children married into other dynasties across Europe not just Russia. English aristocrats married daughters of the new 'millionaire' class in Regency and later years. 'Downton' and Churchills married American.
With the advances in medical science it is now possible to keep alive severely handicapped children. In earlier times with higher neo natal death rates many would have not been noted among the general deaths.

For people who think it should be illegal due to the potential genetic problems with the children.. can you answer why it isn't illegal for people with hereditary genetic problems to procreate? And do you think it should be? If not why not? Why only cousins? Why not anyone who has a high chance of passing on genetic issues to their children?

Because this is a social and cultural practice that engineers death and disability in children who wouldn't run this risk of death and disability if they weren't fucking their first cousins.

Yes totally random and not related to the thread at all.

This may have already been posted, I cannot read back so many pages but, if not, here is an article about consanguinity in the DailyFail which I just found online:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5927581/The-tragic-truth-cousin-marriages.html

Oh what the hell since when have we had to pay to read the mail online? @Thatcastlethere you really think it doesn't matter if someone married their SIBLING??
I mean I think cousin marriage should be banned and the only reason it hasn't is because it would be considered racist or targeting the Pakistani community some bullshit like that🙄
Life is not game of thrones

I read this morning that it was prohibited by the Roman faith until Henry VIII created the CoE in 1540, so presumably consanguinity was recognised as dangerous from way back. I think it should be illegal again personally as the risk of birth defects doubles in first cousin marriages.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14180917/NHS-midwives-specialist-inbreeding-babies-risk-Bill.html

Another article today which is free to read. I really do think that if a DM article is worth reading and considered important/pertinent enough to link to, then it's rather unfair to call it the Daily Fail. It's certainly one of a small handful of MSM outlets brave enough to approach subjects which are deemed 'culturally sensitive' with any honesty and depth.