Degrees of Consanguinity
D. Spencer Hines
This question of "degrees of consanguinity" --- as a term of art --- and
what The Church did or did not approve seems to arise often in discussions
of Medieval Royal and Noble Genealogy and History. It had a marked
influence on many policy decisions affecting alliances of sovereigns --- and
therefore on the subsequent course of History and genealogical descents.
But, I've yet to see a really clear unfettered definition of what was
permissible and what was not.
Could someone please explain the "degrees of consanguinity" --- and which
were permissible in marriage partners and which were not?
Were there marked regional and temporal differences in these supposed
practices and "laws" of the Church?
Was there anything actually written in canon and/or civil law on these
matters --- or was it a matter of each Pope's --- or other important
cleric's --- discretion?
Thanks.
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "There are the solemn names of emperors, generals,
inventors of instruments of death, torturers and martyrs; alongside them
this one bright sound: Pushkin." --- Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Blok
[1880-1921]
Nathaniel Taylor
In article <661sm8$a...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "D. Spencer Hines"
<shi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Could someone please explain the "degrees of consanguinity" --- and which
>were permissible in marriage partners and which were not?
A fine exposition of the basics is found in Constance B. Bouchard's
article, "Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and Eleventh
Centuries," _Speculum_ 56 (1981), 268-87, especially at 269-71. To
quote:
"Roman civil law [which was the code adopted by the early Church] had
forbidden marriages within 'four degrees' and had computed degrees by
counting from one prospective spouse up to the common ancestor and then
down to the other partner.... Marriages of first cousins, those between
pepople related within four degrees, were forbidden..."
to illustrate:
2
___|____
| |
1 3
| |
ego 4
"But in the first half of the ninth century, both the number of forbidden
degrees was increased--from four to seven--and the method of calculating
degrees was changed. Now, rather than counting up from one spouse to the
common ancestor and down to the other, one computed degrees by counting
generations back *only* to the common ancestor..."
to illustrate:
x
|____________________
| |
x 1
|_________________ |
| | |
x 1 2
|______________ | |
| | | |
x 1 2 3
| |___________ | | |
| | | | |
x 1 2 3 4
|________ | | | |
| | | | | |
x 1 2 3 4 5
|_____ | | | | |
| | | | | | |
x 1 2 3 4 5 6
|__ | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
ego 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
[tables adapted from diagrams in Bouchard's article]
[NLT]: This method of counting remained in force through the Middle Ages,
though in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 the number of degrees within
which marriage was prohibited was again reduced from seven to four.
There remained some discrepancy in the methods of counting (including a
difference of opinion about how to measure people descended in an unequal
number of generations from a common ancestor). Many tables for use in
measuring the degree of consanguinity survive in medieval
manuscripts--often they are quite elaborate and beautiful. The best
representative sample and study of the tables is by Hermann Schadt, _Die
Darstellungen der Arbores Consanguinitatis und der Arbores Affinitatis:
Bildschemata in juristischen Handschriften_ (Tubingen, 1982).
Nat Taylor
D. Spencer Hines
<much good stuff snipped>
Nathaniel Taylor wrote in message ...
>In article <661sm8$a...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "D. Spencer Hines"
><shi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Could someone please explain the "degrees of consanguinity" --- and which
>>were permissible in marriage partners and which were not? [DSH]
>Marriages of first cousins, those between
>pepople related within four degrees, were forbidden..."
>
>to illustrate:
> 2
> ___|____
> | |
> 1 3
> | |
> ego 4
OK. That's clear enough.
>
>"But in the first half of the ninth century, both the number of forbidden
>degrees was increased--from four to seven--and the method of calculating
>degrees was changed. Now, rather than counting up from one spouse to the
>common ancestor and down to the other, one computed degrees by counting
>generations back *only* to the common ancestor..."
>
>to illustrate:
> x
> |____________________
> | |
> x 1
> |_________________ |
> | | |
> x 1 2
> |______________ | |
> | | | |
> x 1 2 3
>| |___________ | | |
> | | | | |
> x 1 2 3 4
> |________ | | | |
> | | | | | |
> x 1 2 3 4 5
> |_____ | | | | |
> | | | | | | |
> x 1 2 3 4 5 6
> |__ | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | |
> ego 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
>
>[tables adapted from diagrams in Bouchard's article]
This one may be a bit harder to follow. Are you saying that two folks who
had even one common 4th Great-Grandparent were proscribed from marrying
under this rule --- i.e., fifth cousins or closer --- because they would
fall within the forbidden seven degrees of consanguinity?
>
>[NLT]: This method of counting remained in force through the Middle Ages,
>though in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 the number of degrees within
>which marriage was prohibited was again reduced from seven to four.
But they left the method of counting as it was before, i.e., only up to the
common ancestor ["remained in force through the Middle Ages"] --- and not
back down? If so, this would seem to imply that marriages between third
cousins, or closer, were forbidden? Or, if they reverted in actuality to
the previous system, we would be back to the first cousin rule. Of course,
I suppose there may be other permutations of the rule.
>
>There remained some discrepancy in the methods of counting (including a
>difference of opinion about how to measure people descended in an unequal
>number of generations from a common ancestor....
What would you say, or more to the point, what did The Church say about the
impact of these limiting criteria on the marriages of Eleanor of Aquitaine
to Louis VII and Henry II?
Portculis
>
>What would you say, or more to the point, what did The Church say about the
>impact of these limiting criteria on the marriages of Eleanor of Aquitaine
>to Louis VII and Henry II?
>
>
As long as a dispensation was obtained, one could marry within the forbidden
degrees. It was sometimes, however, a convenient excuse for divorce.
This is actually very helpful in determining otherwise obscure ancestry.
Knowing a couple was related once in the third degree or twice in the fourth
degree, or in the third and fourth degrees, can be very helpful in places like
Yorkshire (many of the early dispensations for Yorkshire people are published
in the Sureties Society with Testamenta Eboracensia).
Knowledge of how a couple is related within the degrees of consanguinity can be
very helpful in English genealogy (it has been used in CP).
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Are you saying that two folks who
> had even one common 4th Great-Grandparent were proscribed from marrying
> under this rule --- i.e., fifth cousins or closer --- because they would
> fall within the forbidden seven degrees of consanguinity?
>
I would think that both medieval royalty, because of intermarriage, and
the peasantry, because of the lack of geographic mobility, would have
found it difficult to find someone who was NOT within the proscribed
limits, if only sixth cousins could marry without a dispensation.
Oh, wait a minute. Dispensations, of course, were granted by the church,
and, I imagine, a modest contribution to that noble institution made the
dispensation-granting wheels move a little faster and . . . .
I think I understand now.
John Steele Gordon
Grant Menzies
kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>D. Spencer Hines wrote:
I believe even Prots had to get permission from whatever local prince
constituted authority on such matters. My german grandmother's
ancestors were almost all related--from the time they were patricians
and, more rarely, nobles, down to the bourgeoisie and farming stock.
My great-grandparents could not have married in 1895, for example, in
their homeland of the Grand Duchy of Hessen, because they were third
cousins, sans permission from the Grand Duke--but no one stopped them
after they got to Minneapolis.
Grant
G M Menzies
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Navigare necesse est, vivere non necesse
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Nathaniel Taylor
>What would you say, or more to the point, what did The Church say about the
>impact of these limiting criteria on the marriages of Eleanor of Aquitaine
>to Louis VII and Henry II?
Louis VII's marriage to Eleanor was not thwarted by the Church, and may
have raised few eyebrows, as they were only related in the fifth degree
(in an unequal number of generations--4 and 5 respectively--from Robert
the Pious), and many churchmen at that time were arguing that 4 degrees
was sufficient prohibition (though this didn't become official again until
1215). Once Louis decided to repudiate her, he had an assembly of toady
bishops declare the marriage annulled at Beaugency on the Tuesday before
Palm Sunday, 1152 (18 March). The consanguinity was only made an issue by
clerics after it was the clear will of the king, who had begun preparing
for the divorce the previous autumn by removing troops from Aquitaine.
With Henry and Eleanor, who were also related in the fifth degree, the
issue of consanguinity never seems to have come up among the clergy
against Henry's will, though the chronicler Gervase of Canterbury reports
that Henry contemplated divorcing Eleanor in 1175 in the aftermath of the
rebellion. (For these data see W. L. Warren's _Henry II_ [Berkeley, 1973],
42-44, 601).
But even royal could not always contain clerical opposition to
consanguineous marriages. In two famous earlier cases, bishop Ivo of
Chartres and archbishop Anselm of Canterbury prevented Henry I from
marrying two of his illegitimate daughters to two individuals who were
related to her in the *sixth* degree (R. W. Southern, _The Making of the
Middle Ages_ [Yale,1953], 79-80).
Looking at it another way, I imagine that some actual medieval marriages
which are now known to be consanguineous, especially given the most
inclusive method of reckoning prohibited degrees, might not necessarily
have been *known* to be consanguineous by the parties involved. Seven
generations *in all lines* was probably beyond the capability of most
nobles (let alone others) in the twelfth century. I don't know all the
people who are potentially my sixth cousins (my wife turned out to be my
tenth cousin, but nobody but I would ever have known that).
At other times, I'm sure no one opposed known consanguineous marriage, for
political reasons, or because people who were living in consanguineous
glass houses of their own could not start throwing stones. Therefore I am
always leery of genealogical arguments of the form "X cannot be the
daughter of Y, because if they had been, then the marriage of X and Z
would have been canonically prohibited; but X and Z were married, and no
evidence of a dispensation survives for the marriage."
Nat Taylor
Edward Joseph Behrend
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Could someone please explain the "degrees of consanguinity" --- and which
> were permissible in marriage partners and which were not?
>
> Was there anything actually written in canon and/or civil law on these
> matters --- or was it a matter of each Pope's --- or other important
> cleric's --- discretion?
As far as I've found the best book on Medieval marriage is "Law, Sex, and
Medieval Society in Medieval Europe," by James Brundage. Canon law had a
lot to say regarding consanguinity. During the twelfth century canon law
was debated between several decretists. By the early thirteenth century
Gregory IX commissioned Raymundo de Penafort to summarize and organize
canon law, which resulted in the "Liber Extra," which remained the basis
for canon law until 1917.
The Church contintually contended with aristocratic marriage practices
that tended toward endogamy. According to canon law of the later middle
ages, a Christian was supposed to marry outside seven degrees. This could
be very difficult because these degrees included in-laws. In Spain, where
I've done most of my research, medieval synods constantly repeated these
restrictions. The question is, how much was the Church able to control
how people actually married? The nobility had the connections,
education and time to petition for dispensations that allowed them to
marry within their families, which is what Queen Isabella and Ferdinand
had to do before they could marry (they were cousins).
Ed Behrend Martinez
ebe...@uic.edu
Francois R. Velde
Edward Joseph Behrend <ebe...@uic.edu> wrote:
>As far as I've found the best book on Medieval marriage is "Law, Sex, and
>Medieval Society in Medieval Europe," by James Brundage. Canon law had a
>lot to say regarding consanguinity. During the twelfth century canon law
>was debated between several decretists. By the early thirteenth century
>Gregory IX commissioned Raymundo de Penafort to summarize and organize
>canon law, which resulted in the "Liber Extra," which remained the basis
>for canon law until 1917.
Just as a matter of accuracy, the Liber Extra is only a portion of Canon Law.
The basic collection was made by the monk Gratian in the 12th c. (the Decree, or
Decretum): he organized the vast collections of papal and conciliar decisions by
themes. Of course, popes continued to issue decrees after that collection was
formed. The Liber Extra is a later compilation of papal decretals, organized
according to the same structure as Gratian's work. Posterior decretals were
assembled in the Extravagantes of John XXIII and the Clementines. By early 14th
c. the body of Canon Law was fixed, and remained so until the 1917
reorganization. Another excellent book by James Brundage on Medieval Canon Law
(1995) gives more details.
>The Church contintually contended with aristocratic marriage practices
>that tended toward endogamy. According to canon law of the later middle
>ages, a Christian was supposed to marry outside seven degrees. This could
>be very difficult because these degrees included in-laws. In Spain, where
>I've done most of my research, medieval synods constantly repeated these
>restrictions. The question is, how much was the Church able to control
>how people actually married?
Presumably not much, given the hard time they had controlling the celibacy of
priests...
--
Francois Velde
ve...@mcs.nospam (replace by "net")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Reedpcgen
>Looking at it another way, I imagine that some actual medieval marriages
>which are now known to be consanguineous, especially given the most
>inclusive method of reckoning prohibited degrees, might not necessarily
>have been *known* to be consanguineous by the parties involved. Seven
>generations *in all lines* was probably beyond the capability of most
>nobles (let alone others) in the twelfth century. I don't know all the
>people who are potentially my sixth cousins (my wife turned out to be my
>tenth cousin, but nobody but I would ever have known that).
>
>
As a practical matter, for those interested in how this affected their English
ancestors, I have seen many times dispensations for relations in the third and
fourth degrees as the English clergy expressed it (counting back to a common
ancestor). I do not recall mention of relationships of higher than four
degrees in England ca. 1200-1600 (for commoners and nobles). But then it may
all be in how one counts the steps in the four degrees. What is considered
four degrees in England might be more on the Continent.
Gordon Johnson
port...@aol.com (Portculis) wrote:
>>
>>What would you say, or more to the point, what did The Church say about the
>>impact of these limiting criteria on the marriages of Eleanor of Aquitaine
>>to Louis VII and Henry II?
>>
>>
>
>As long as a dispensation was obtained, one could marry within the forbidden
>degrees. It was sometimes, however, a convenient excuse for divorce.
>
>This is actually very helpful in determining otherwise obscure ancestry.
>Knowing a couple was related once in the third degree or twice in the fourth
>degree, or in the third and fourth degrees, can be very helpful in places like
>Yorkshire (many of the early dispensations for Yorkshire people are published
>in the Sureties Society with Testamenta Eboracensia).
***I think this was meant to read SURTEES Society.
Gordon.
KinHelp - Scottish historical and genealogical services.
E-mail: kin...@wintermute.co.uk
Website: http://www.web-ecosse.com/genes/genes.htm
Mitch Gunzler
In article <663o08$6...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net> kabo...@worldnet.att.net writes:
>>
>
>I would think that both medieval royalty, because of intermarriage, and
>the peasantry, because of the lack of geographic mobility, would have
>found it difficult to find someone who was NOT within the proscribed
>limits, if only sixth cousins could marry without a dispensation.
More importantly, especially in Royalty, degree of shared blood isn't
simply a matter of finding the shortest/simplest path along the family tree.
What if we share blood from several common ancestors, or one common ancestor
in different degrees (he married his second cousin, whose offspring eventually
married "back into" this family tree).
Did anyone, at any point, consider using a purely mathematical model of
consanguinuity, i.e. I get half my heritage from my mother, who shares half
with her brother (one quarter through each parent), who shares half with
his daughter, whom everyone wants me to marry. This first cousin therefore
shares one-eighth of her heritage with me, which many rule sets consider(ed)
too close for comfort. However, if her father and my mother were only step-
siblings, it would be obvious how to calculate commonality, and we could
recognize that some noble marriages were between 3/32 commonality relations.
To the extent that incest taboos are aimed at the genetic risks of inbreeding,
this would correctly give the level of risk a marriage involves.
Nathaniel Taylor
In article <gunzlerE...@netcom.com>, gun...@netcom.com (Mitch
Gunzler) wrote:
>Did anyone, at any point, consider using a purely mathematical model of
>consanguinuity, i.e. I get half my heritage from my mother, who shares half
>with her brother (one quarter through each parent), who shares half with
>his daughter, whom everyone wants me to marry. This first cousin therefore
>shares one-eighth of her heritage with me, which many rule sets consider(ed)
>too close for comfort. However, if her father and my mother were only step-
>siblings, it would be obvious how to calculate commonality, and we could
>recognize that some noble marriages were between 3/32 commonality relations.
Not in the Middle Ages. This is getting off-topic, but there is an
intriguing statistical study of distribution of different modern American
conceptions of relative degrees of kinship, including traditional models
inherited from Roman-law countries and Germanic-law countries, the Canon
law system, and a modern system apparently affected by the popular
understanding of genetic inheritance; all compiled from data gathered in
telephone surveys conducted in the Phoenix, Arizona area in the late
'70s. See Bernard Faber, _Conceptions of Kinship_ (New York, 1981).
Nat Taylor
Portculis
I haven't checked Papal Registers, etc., but noted the following marriages in
CP (there were actually quite a few among the Geraldines of Ireland).
James "the Chaste" Butler, 2nd Earl of Ormond (ggs of Edward I) was related in
the 4th degree to his wife, Elizabeth Darcy, d. of John Darcy of Knaith by Joan
de Burgh. Joan's first husband was Thomas Fitz Gerald, Earl of Kildare. James
Butler's paternal grandmother was Joan, d. of John Fitz Thomas, 1st Earl of
Kildare.
William de Burgh, 4th Earl of Ulster (whose maternal grandmother Joan 'of Acre'
was granddaughter of Henry III) m. Maud, daughter of Henry, Earl of Lancaster,
grandson of Henry III. Their dispensation was dated 1 May 1327.
John, 2nd Lord Darcy, received a dispensation dated 7 Jan. 1344/5, as his first
wife Alianore de Holand and his second wife Elizabeth de Menille were said to
be related in the 3rd and 4th degrees (Pap. Pet. 1:1, 78; Pap. Let. 3:87, 165).
Gerald Fitz Gerald, 14th Earl of Kildare, m. by Disp., his cousin Elizabeth
Nugent (dau. of Mary Fitz Gerald, dau. of Gerald, 11th Earl of Kildare, s. of
Gerald Fitz Gerald, 9th Earl). The 14th Earl was son of the Hon. Edward Fitz
Gerald (b. 1527/8), s. of the said 9th Earl.
John Fitz Nicholas, 4th Baron of Kerry (s. of Honor O'Connor) received a
dispensation to marry his great niece, Honor/Margaret O'Connor of Thomond.
But the one I think most intriguing is James Fitz Gerald, 13th Earl of Desmond,
who married his great-niece, Joan Roche, his younger brother's granddaughter.
He eventually repudiated her (!) on the grounds of consanguinity and declared
all of her children to be bastards. One wonders if the old man wasn't rather
suspicious of the paternity of his young bride's children (what exactly did he
expect?).
Bolesbooks
I'm new to this thread and find it fascinating. Although several posts have
alluded to changes over time in canon law, none have directly addressed one of
D. Spencer Hines' original questions: "Were there marked regional and temporal
differences in these supposed
practices and "laws" of the Church?"
In particular, I am under the impression (correct or not) that intermarriage
among close relatives was much more common in the 10th and 11th centuries than
it was in the 15th. Might this reflect temporal change in how strictly canon
law was *applied* as opposed to what was promulgated? Knowing something about
such changes could be very helpful in deciding when to seriously consider
consanguinity prohibitions and when to ignore them.
David Boles
http://members.aol.com/Bolesbooks/Bolesbooks.html