Pris & TFDW 6: The Lookalike Family

[AlysonRR]

44 minutes ago, MamaJunebug said:

A friend is from a small town where, for a couple of decades, an annual assignment for 7th(8th?) graders is to make and share their family tree.  The results show how related they are to everyone in the town.  It's then explained and discussed how they will want to go outside the community to date.    

That is a pretty awesome idea! I wonder how many other small towns could benefit from such an assignment.

[Jana814]

45 minutes ago, AlysonRR said:

That is a pretty awesome idea! I wonder how many other small towns could benefit from such an assignment.

 

I think many can. Considering in some small towns families have been their for generations!  

[SoGladIWasCofE]

The "date outside your community" thing is particularly important when you consider the rates of paternal misidentification.  If your father isnt who you think he is, but is in your community, then it's really easy to accidentally sleep with a half sibling.

[JermajestyDuggar]

I don't think most areas of the country have to worry as much about that sort of thing anymore. Back 100 years ago, most people stayed in their area most of the time. People still do this today, but it's much less often. Online dating is very popular and it's easy to meet someone outside of your small town. If people are marrying distant cousins in her US these days, it's usually people who are trying to marry within a small religious or ethnic group. 

[EmiGirl]

5 hours ago, SoGladIWasCofE said:

The "date outside your community" thing is particularly important when you consider the rates of paternal misidentification.  If your father isnt who you think he is, but is in your community, then it's really easy to accidentally sleep with a half sibling.

I was adopted and never knew my biological parents, but knew that they were from our small town. I always blamed my lack of dating on being scared of dating a cousin. Lol. In truth it was because of my appearance, but it made me feel better to tell myself that.

[usmcmom]

My sister-in-law married a cousin. He was adopted but the details of the adoption are very fuzzy, so I've always wondered if he was the child of another family member who let an older relative adopt her baby. Anyway, my in-laws are always brushing it off with the "He was adopted!!" line. Still a little questionable to me. When their daughter took her new husband to two family reunions within a week (one for each side of her family) he came home from the second one and said "IT WAS THE SAME PEOPLE AT BOTH!!"  Um....yeah, it would be. 

My mother always joked that my husband married me because I was the only girl in our small town who was not his cousin. 

[Jana814]

The singer Richard Carpenter married his cousin she was adopted. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

Marry a cousin by itself isn't a huge deal. You most likely won't have any genetic issues. The problem is when cousins marry each other again and again in a family. Like in the royal families. Then genetic issues pop up all over the place.

[Flossie]

You mean like haemophilia or Habsburg Jaw?

[anjulibai]

6 hours ago, Flossie said:

You mean like haemophilia or Habsburg Jaw?

The hemophilia was not caused by inbreeding - that's a myth. It started as a random mutation in Queen Victoria and spread through her descendants in the same way it does in families that do not interbreed. 

The Habsburg Jaw, though, was caused by inbreeding. The Habsburgs wanted to keep their lands together, thus the marriage of cousins and uncles and nieces. It's really sad what happened to them. 

[Georgiana]

1 hour ago, anjulibai said:

The hemophilia was not caused by inbreeding - that's a myth. It started as a random mutation in Queen Victoria and spread through her descendants in the same way it does in families that do not interbreed. 

The Habsburg Jaw, though, was caused by inbreeding. The Habsburgs wanted to keep their lands together, thus the marriage of cousins and uncles and nieces. It's really sad what happened to them. 

Interesting tidbit about inbreeding though:

Although Charles II of Spain suffered from NUMEROUS deformities and disabilities caused by his inbreeding, his sister Margaret Theresa of Spain did not appear to suffer from any.  She experienced fairly robust health for the day, and was considered attractive, lively, and intelligent.  Her health did not begin to decline until after her marriage and 6 years of near continual pregnancy (4 living births, 2 miscarriages in that span), and it is not felt that the massive pedigree collapse of her lineage contributed to her decline and death.  

Inbreeding only increases the chances of issues in offspring, but it by no means guarantees them.  As seen with the Habsburgs, even at the end the same couple WERE able to produce a healthy offspring with no known issues, but they were only able to do so 1/5 times, which with the maternal/infant deathrate being what it was and the patriarchy being what it was, sealed their doom.  

[Hane]

Random recollection:  In one of Pat Conroy's books (was it "The Prince of Tides"?), he mentions pale blond "society" people who have married within their own group so much that spouses look like siblings.

[JermajestyDuggar]

When you look through all the royal families through out Europe and how many of their babies and children died, it's shocking. All of these quiverfull families like to talk about how big families have happened through out history. But what they fail to mention is that so many of those children didn't make it to adulthood. So yes a family might have 12 children, but only 6 or 7 may make it to adulthood.

[tabitha2]

And every single birth was a very likely agonizing  death sentence for the mother.  I have read in some areas  woman would have a shroud prepared. Motherhood and pregnancy was a woman's duty and purpose... to bare heirs(sons), to bare labor for your fields, to keep a royal line in the family, To breed new Christians Soldiers to war on the Heretics and infidels. But i guarantee it was not a joyous or beautiful event that any sane woman looked forward to with excitement. Esp after the 10th kid in 10 years.

If most of these Fundies had to give birth over and over in 1800 fashion  oh yeah they would find ways to limit. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

It seems like a lot of women died within a few days of giving birth. And the most common reasons were infection and blood loss. Two things the fundies can mostly avoid with hospital care. Jessa got a blood transfusion. If she had given birth to Spurg in 1700, she would be dead at 23 after only her first child. Jill needed an emergency csection so far she had lived in 1700, she might be dead after we first child as well. I see a lot of people talking about olden times but I NEVER want to live back then. Not for millions of dollars.

[tabitha2]

Let's see. If this was 1700 Michelle would be dead, Josie would be dead.  Jill and Jessa and their  babies would be gone.Jason would most likely have died when he had his accident a few years ago or been an invalid for life. And maybe half  of the kids would have died from whooping cough, Scarlett fever, diphtheria, Measles and so on.  

Good old days were rarely ever good for anyone.

Edited August 5, 2017 by tabitha2

[Georgiana]

Not only would Jill and Jessa likely  have perished, but Jinger and Joy would likely be living in mortal terror. That indicates that "poor birthing hips" might run in the family, so both married women would be aware that there was an elevated chance that pregnancy would mean death for them.  Many women were terrified of giving birth for the first time, especially when someone closely related to them had died birthing their own first.

[Carm_88]

Well Jill, Jessa, Jinger, and Joy wouldn't exist because Michelle would have died giving birth to Jana and John David. She had a c-section. 

[Ali]

31 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

Well Jill, Jessa, Jinger, and Joy wouldn't exist because Michelle would have died giving birth to Jana and John David. She had a c-section. 

Didn't she have preeclampsia during that pregnancy? She might have died or experienced a stroke before she went into labor had it been a hundred years ago.

[tabitha2]

If we are talking about 100 years ago a C section was certainly possible for a privileged woman. The Queen mother had both her girls that way. 

[Flossie]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

If we are talking about 100 years ago a C section was certainly possible for a privileged woman. The Queen mother had both her girls that way. 

So to paraphrase Mel Brooks "It's good to be the queen!"

But if you're not....

[Foudeb]

They didn't have antibiotics then though - the risk of infection can't have been negligible. 

[Gobsmacked]

5 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

If we are talking about 100 years ago a C section was certainly possible for a privileged woman. The Queen mother had both her girls that way. 

Really? I didn't know that. 

[tabitha2]

Yeah. They had chloroform and gas to sedate and  Doctors to the wealthy could perform  certain surgeries well enough.In 1812 future president Polk had Urinary stones successfully removed for instance (with no anesthetic  other than brandy ) The huge risk of infection afterward was the problem. 

[Gobsmacked]

Just back from googling. Yes, it appears that both the queen and her sister were born by C-section.  Both were long labours it would seem. 

There is also speculation on google that The queen mother was artificially inseminated with her husbands sperm. Hmm. Well that will never be proved.