Problem is, our fascination with unique names is very recent. Our forebears were highly unoriginal with names, language barriers (including illiteracy + accents) would sometimes unintentionally see a person get a slightly different name in a new town. She had a guy with three names, and a suspicion that when he disappeared that he didn't die in a ditch, but instead finally changed his name on purpose.
Looking through my mother's research, I found what I thought were first cousins marrying, so I backed away slowly. Genealogist saw this a lot. Just mark it done and don't think about it any more.
After some more time with genealogist I finally looked at it more closely. This guy found himself a wife who was six days younger than his paternal cousin of the same name, from an unrelated family. Apparently nobody in this fucked up little town could figure out how to name their kids. Everyone named a kid after grandma, or married someone with grandma's name, and half of them had a sister named after her. Nine. There were nine women, by birth or marriage, in 3 generations, with the same first name, in the same town. I can't imagine family gatherings.
Ever wonder how you get 'Peggy' from Margaret? I don't anymore. Somewhere there was Grandma Margaret who just wanted to nap in peace and so she nicknamed her granddaughter Peggy so people would stop yelling her name.
This was and, to an extent, still is quite normal, so I'm not sure why people have such an issue with it. Genetic issues build up if you keep doing it for generations, but unless the first cousins were raised together there is none of the power imbalances at play. Those who were raised together have an effect kick in so that they see each other as siblings and don't marry.
Even though in your case it didn't happen, it isn't something worth worrying even had it occurred.
We don't have the people around anymore to corroborate. Just the records. And those are tiny little vistas into the lives of billions of people.
This is simply not accurate. Or rather, it's partially accurate, and it's only part of the story. The increase in risk isn't huge, and the amount it happens effectively leads little to be concerned about.
"Contrary to widely held beliefs and longstanding taboos in America, first cousins can have children together without a great risk of birth defects or genetic disease, scientists are reporting today. They say there is no biological reason to discourage cousins from marrying."
"'In some parts of the world,' the report says, '20 to 60 percent of all marriages are between close biological relatives.'"
"Dr. Motulsky said researchers did not know why marriage between cousins was viewed with such distaste in the United States. He said some of the revulsion might have stemmed from the eugenics movement, which intended to improve the human race by deciding who should be allowed to breed. The movement flourished in this country early in the 20th century." [1]
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-...
Probably isolated areas, like small islands or remote settlements in the wilderness where there is not much to choose from.
I've lived a year in such a place and, while there weren't genetic illnesses that I was aware of, I wouldn't use that place as evidence of how inbreeding is innocuous. Let's leave it at that.
So you... didn't see any genetic issues, thought that they were sub-par humans, and are blaming inbreeding? That's not a great look on your part.
I suggest we stick to studies and data, and leave it there instead.
But that's only relevant to the immediate offspring. A single generation of outbreeding reduces the level of inbreeding to zero. So if you see a cousin marriage several generations back... so what?
I see that as a common claim, but given the lack of similar concern to non related individuals with recessive genetic disorders, even in cases where both parents have it, or in cases where parents have dominant genetic disorders, I find myself seeing this as a more after the fact rationalization than the actual reasoning. And as for the actual increase it risk, it seems quite minor compared to many other behaviors that increase risk which society doesn't frown upon nearly as much (with drinking and drug use being the notable exceptions that are routinely condemned).
Nope, if both parents have the gene and neither has the disorder (e.g., both are heterozygous), offspring will get the disorder 1/4 of the time, be a carrier half of the time, and be clear 1/4 of the time.
If both have the disorder, the child will also have the disorder, but that's usually not the concern.
The nickname "Peg" was chosen as a rhyme to the more obvious (also extant) nickname "Meg".
I know they do auto-generate some tree information which can be incorrect, but that can largely be ignored or used as hints, etc.
I get the sense that not many people realize just exactly how much stuff they have actually accumulated. It's truly amazing for the areas that I've been looking at which are primarily US, Canada, Britain and Ireland.
I tend to think of it as one of the pillars of online data collections along with things like, archive.org and, say, Google Books. It's incredible the amount of material that is at our fingertips now.
The one biggest missing pieces for me is the staggering number of microfilmed historical newspapers that have yet to be digitized. I know the library of Congress has put a lot on line but there are still 10s of thousands of rolls of microfilm that haven't been processed and I'm not sure if there is any push to do it.
Blackstone just bought the best resource for this, newspapers.com
Costs between $8 and $20/month.