Nice people thread part 8 - worth the wait

LydiaJ

PasturesNew wrote: »

Mine, so far, on my mother's side are all Ag Lab, but the area covered a huge area and there was a train running along the edge of one village to the nearby big town, so they seem spread between 5-6 hamlets and a village on the edge of the big town. Not seen one inter-marriage yet, but only got 200 people in the chart. A lot emigrated, Canada seems popular, so I suspect 1-2 went as it was "the local thing to do", then they returned and told others, who also went. Some stayed out there.

No inbreeding in my genes

Have you traced back to before the building of the railway yet? I understand some friend or relative of my dad's traced his family back quite a long way, and found that before the local railway was built, almost everyone on the family tree had married somebody who lived within 10 miles of their home. Once the railway came, they married people from all over the place much further away.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It's a serious problem in British people of Pakistani descent. There is a fair bit of inter-marriage in Pakistan, and for various reasons, it's become even more prevalent in British-Pakistani families. I remember reading a while ago the % of the population of Pakistani ethnic origin, and the % of babies born with genetic problems who are of Pakistani origin, and the latter figure was horribly larger than the former.

I believe it's quite a problem in some rural areas of the US, too, and most particularly among fundamentalist polygamist mormons, who have large numbers of siblings and half-siblings, and almost entirely marry within the particular sect, which may constitute a very small gene pool.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Perhaps worse - the children of identical twins marrying. Two men, identical twins, married sisters (not twins). The girl from one marriage married the boy from the other, so the couple were related far, far too closely for safety I think.

Would they have the same average genetic relationship that half-siblings have? Or worse, half-siblings whose non-common parents were siblings as well?

Yes, I think so - sort of three-quarter siblings, as it were. Very very unwise relationship from a genetic PoV.

LydiaJ

So, did we decide who's going to be starting NPT9 when the time comes? Or did we get sidetracked by the gender discrimination issue?

lostinrates

We didn't decide.

I can never remember who has,

NDG have you started one yet?

neverdespairgirl

Happy to - when will it need doing?

LydiaJ

When this one gets to 10,000 posts.

lostinrates

Super, sorted. Thank you NDG.

lostinrates

Sorting through clothes (again)

I'm guessing those skirts we used to make out of Levis and Levi cords are never going to come back in fashion and if they do I am going to be too old to wear them? Earring in mind my waist was the size of one of my legs now I could do something novel and turn them back into trousers....but with each leg of a different pair of trousers.....:(.

In the future my nieces might want this stuff....maybe?

PasturesNew

LydiaJ wrote: »

Have you traced back to before the building of the railway yet? I understand some friend or relative of my dad's traced his family back quite a long way, and found that before the local railway was built, almost everyone on the family tree had married somebody who lived within 10 miles of their home. Once the railway came, they married people from all over the place much further away.

No, only discovered at the weekend there was a railway; it's gone now. but, there do seem a lot of one name in the village, so maybe they did all inter-marry before.

My lot, from about 1850-1900, were spread across a few hamlets, just just 5 miles from the nearest town, with the handy trainline. So, while, today you'd think "not living there/middle of nowhere", at the time it would have been a well connected spot. The village was on a line that used to run between Oxford and Cambridge.

PasturesNew

LydiaJ wrote: »

So, did we decide who's going to be starting NPT9 when the time comes? Or did we get sidetracked by the gender discrimination issue?

I never do "new starts". Always cross my name off the list. I dislike the limelight and pressure

zagubov

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Imagine if that's true, and we actually have far fewer idiots now...... Oh dear!

It's a serious problem in British people of Pakistani descent. There is a fair bit of inter-marriage in Pakistan, and for various reasons, it's become even more prevalent in British-Pakistani families. I remember reading a while ago the % of the population of Pakistani ethnic origin, and the % of babies born with genetic problems who are of Pakistani origin, and the latter figure was horribly larger than the former.

I had a client a while ago, who had married her first cousin. Both his parents and her parents were also first cousins. The genetic diversity there is scarily low.

Perhaps worse - the children of identical twins marrying. Two men, identical twins, married sisters (not twins). The girl from one marriage married the boy from the other, so the couple were related far, far too closely for safety I think.

Would they have the same average genetic relationship that half-siblings have? Or worse, half-siblings whose non-common parents were siblings as well?

I remember reading someone pointed out that marrying your cousin raised the risks by only 1% ( so from 1 to 2%). But that's double the risk.
BTW I think it's illegal (now) in many parts of the USA.

One in three genetic birth problems are in first-cousin parents.

I felt like I needed to explain that that was a one-off and have you ever learnt about compound interest?

That blue-skinned family I posted about in the last thread had an unusual family tree.

Deffo not legal anywhere now.

Supposedly in the UK we rarely marry anyone much closer than a sixth cousin now.;).

An uncle or aunt would have about a 1/4 of their genes in common with you and a cousin would have about 1/8th.