QUAKER-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > QUAKER-ROOTS > 1997-05 > 0862496745


From: Dan Treadway <>
Subject: Re: Relationships that would prevent marriage
Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 09:25:45 -0500


Heather Olsen wrote:
>
> I know that the Quakers did not allow first cousins to marry, but what
> other relationships would have been excluded? specifically, would first
> cousins one or more times removed fall into the excluded catagory? What
> about second cousins 2 different ways? (no grandparents in common, but 2
> sets of great grandparents in common) The reason I ask is that I'm
> trying to sort out the relationship between 2 individuals who were
> dismissed for marrying out of union and too near kin, and I want to know
> all the "possible" relationships. Also, can someone tell me whether the
> prohibition on cousins marrying was a part of Quaker doctrine from the
> earliest days of the society, or something decided later?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Heather Olsen
>

The short answer is, "It depends."

The rules for marriage were written in the book of Discipline. Each
yearly meeting had its own Discipline, and these were reweitten or
amended from time to time. So to find a certain answer, you would need
to find a copy of the Discipline which was current at the time and in
the area where your relatives were.

I have in front of me a copy of _The Discipline of the Society of
Friends of Ohio Yearly Meeting_, printed in 1863. It was a reprint of
the 1819 Discipline, but including such amendments as had been adopted
up to the time of printing. The following paragraph is labeled as
having been amended in 1859. I have no way of knowing what previous
versions of this paragraph said, if they existed at all.

>That the marriage of persons too nearly related may, as much as in us
>lies, be prevented, it is the conclusion of the Yearly Meeting that no
>marriage between any so near as fiest cousins, nor the children of half
>brothers or half sisters, shall be permitted among us; neither the
>marriage of a man to his deceased wife's sister, or a woman to a
>deceased husband's brother, are to be allowed amongst us.

I also have the following from _The discipline of Iowa Yearly Meeting of
the Society of Friends_ (There was a split in Iowa Yearly Meeting in the
1870s. Both branches continue to this day to use the same name. This
would be the Conservative yearly meeting.)

>It is directed that no marriage of first cousins, or of the children of
>half=brothers or half sisters, shall be permitted among us; and
>further, no Monthy Meeting shall grant the privilege of any marriage
>that may be proposed therein sooner than one year after the decease of
>a former husband or wife.

Since these two are so similar, perhaps these regulations were
widespread. I have no other Discipline that is less than fifty years
old, so I cannot make further comparisons.

I hope this helps.

--
Dan Treadway
505 8th #2, Ames IA 50010-6153
Email me: mailto:
See a list of my ancestors: http://www.netins.net/showcase/treadway

This thread: