Pedigree Collapse

Cousin marriage is given the side eye these days but it was a relatively common thing for our ancestors. It seemed to happen a lot with the Wrefords in Devon, and the Buchans in North East Aberdeenshire, but I’ve actually only been able to find it once in my direct ancestral line (so far).

Way back in the mid 18th century, my 6th great-grandparents, Sarah Wreford and John Wreford, married. Sarah and John were 1st cousins – their fathers were brothers.

This kind of situation leads to what is known as ‘pedigree collapse’.

A typical pedigree assumes each set of parents are unrelated to each other and each generation doubles (since each person has 2 parents).

Pedigree collapse occurs when two people who share ancestors reproduce.  

This is demonstrated in the pedigree of Sarah and John’s son (and my 5th great-grandfather), John Wreford:

Instead of having four distinct sets of great-grandparents, Sarah and John’s children had only three.

Their children had only 6 great-parents instead of 8; 12 second great-grandparents instead of 16; 24 third great-grandparents instead of 32; and so on. (The number of ancestors lost each generation doubles: 8 -2; 16 -4; 32 -8; etc.)

This got me wondering. What knock on effect would 2 less ancestors have on my overall ancestor count?

My pedigree is typical until the 11th generation, where I lose 2 8x great grandparents. So instead of 1024 8xGGP, I have 1022; instead of 2048 9xGGP, I have 2044 ; instead of 4096 10xGGP, I have 4088; and so on.

My ancestor count (so far) looks like this:

Generation Relationship Typical Number My Number Ancestors Lost
1 Me
2 Parents 2 2
3 Grandparents 4 4
4 1x Great grandparents 8 8
5 2x Great grandparents 16 16
6 3x Great grandparents 32 32
7 4x Great grandparents 64 64
8 5x Great grandparents 128 128
9 6x Great grandparents 256 256
10 7x Great grandparents 512 512
11 8x Great grandparents 1024 1022 -2
12 9x Great grandparents 2048 2044 -4
13 10x Great grandparents 4096 4088 -8
14 11x Great grandparents 8192 8176 -16
15 12x Great grandparents 16384 16352 -32
16 13x Great grandparents 32768 32704 -64
17 14x Great grandparents 65536 65408 -128
TOTAL 131070 130816 -254

Further calculations will need to be made if/when I find more kissing cousins.

Five Men Drowned – Connections and Corrections

After beavering away at St Combs connections recently, I discovered that an error had been made in the previous post.

Father and son, Alexander and Andrew Strachan, were presented as connected to me via Elizabeth Buchan (b1874). Elizabeth was shown as a granddaughter of John (Park’s Jockie) Buchan (b1792). However, it turns out that her father was not Peter Buchan, the son of ‘Park’s Jockie’, but actually Peter Buchan, the son of ‘Park’s Pet’. ‘Park’ was a tee-name for their father, Peter Buchan.  (If you’ve never heard of tee-names, Ian Kenn gives a good explanation on his site Portal to Portlethen.)

The following updated chart shows the closest way the five men were connected to me (based on current knowledge):

genealogical chart showing connetion
Closest Connections of the ‘Five Men Drowned’ to me (click to enlarge)

(Note: Andrew Bruce was the nephew of Charles Bruce but he’s more closely connected to me through his wife, Ann Buchan)

Posts in this series:

Five Men Drowned – Connections
Five Men Drowned
Five Men Drowned – Two Recovered
Five Men Drowned – Three Buried at Sea
Five Men Drowned – One Survivor

Grace Brock

I’ve had a lot of trouble finding a marriage between John STILING and Grace FREED and thought it was due to the lack of  Devon records on the IGI.  Thanks to the selection of Devon Parish records on findmypast, I find it’s possibly because it was mistranscribed or that Grace FREED is actually Grace BROCK:

I can imagine how Brock and Freed could look similar in faded, pre-regency period handwriting. This was one of three John STILINGs that came up in the search but the only one with a Grace for a bride. Their oldest child was born in 1811 so the dates also fit.

Oh, how I wish I could see the original record right now.

My Genius Has Been Recognised!

Top genealogy site awards
Yay! GeneaGeek is one of MyHeritage’s top 100 genealogy sites of 2010!
Click on the award above to see the list.
I’m off to find new genealogy blogs to follow – maybe you should too.

Antenuptial Fornication

A post by The Professional Descendant reminded me of my own ancestor’s indiscretion.
It’s easy to think that people were more chaste in the past.  This may be true, but a journey through the parish records shows that people back then also indulged in sex before marriage or as the Victorians preferred to call it, ‘antenuptial fornication’.
Whilst looking through the Dunscore parish records for births and marriages, I found an entry for James BROWN’s proclamation of banns, for which he paid 3 shillings on June 10, 1827. (James was originally mentioned in this post).
James BROWN & Janet CURRIE’s marriage proclamation – Jun 1827
I believe the next entry for June 16, shows his marriage although the bride’s name appears different.  In January the next year, the couple were blessed with their baby girl, Jane.
BROWN, Jane [Legitimate Daughter] of James BROWN & Janet CURRIE, Whitecairn. Born 11th January 1828.
Someone must have done the maths though, because two weeks later James paid 3 shillings and 6 pence as a fine for antenuptial fornication.
James BROWN’s fine for antenuptial fornication – Jan 1828
Janet would have been about 2 months pregnant when they announced their intentions to marry back in June.  It is possible that Janet did not know she was pregnant but I think they were both aware when they decided to marry.  I wonder what must have gone through their heads – were they fearful of their secret being discovered?  How did their families react? Apart from the church fine, did they suffer any other repercussions or did it not matter now the child was legitimate?