Nice people thread part 8 - worth the wait

neverdespairgirl

Tell me when I get boring. Unless I already am, in which case, say so now.

zagubov

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

But first cousins more than once in a few generations must raise the risks, hence, I suppose, your reference to compound interest?

I think first-cousin marriage is illegal in many states in the USA, but I think it's not illegal now, in the sense of newly-so, rather that when we got rid of some of the closer prohibited degrees of affinity, the Americans kept them.

In medieval canon law, the Catholic Church banned marriage within the 7th degree - so 7th cousins or closer couldn't marry. Of course, that was accompanied by the possibility of a "dispensation", which meant forking over a hefty sum in cash to the Pope to be given permission to marry within the prohibited degrees.

The Catholic affinity didn't just apply to blood relationships, but also marital ones and godparent ones. So your godmother's child counted as your sibling, and your wife's sister as your sister.

You could get dispensations for marrying your dead wife's sister, though, or your step-sister, but very rare to have actual blood sister dispensations. So although legally "sister" and "wife's sister" were the same relationship, in practice, the blood link was recognised as a pretty bad idea.

I'd probably need to hire a private detective to find out if somebody was my sixth cousin! I suspect that the non-cousin marrying rule was an important one in a settler community where you'd get a genetic founder effect that leads to buildup of recessive disorders.

Some particular communities in the US have gene pool problems, e.g depression in some reilgious communities. I saw on telly that one of the religious communities that shuns technology till make exemptions for induction loops in thier churches as they have many members suffering from congenital deafness.

bugslet

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Tell me when I get boring. Unless I already am, in which case, say so now.

Will do. Long way to go yet!;)

neverdespairgirl

zagubov wrote: »

I'd probably need to hire a private detective to find out if somebody was my sixth cousin! I suspect that the non-cousin marrying rule was an important one in a settler community where you'd get a genetic founder effect that leads to buildup of recessive disorders.

Some particular communities in the US have gene pool problems, e.g depression in some reilgious communities. I saw on telly that one of the religious communities that shuns technology till make exemptions for induction loops in thier churches as they have many members suffering from congenital deafness.

Royalty was pretty good at tracking relatives, even in the Middle Ages.

Ashkanazi Jews have that to some extent - there are a couple of nasty recessive genes quite a few Jews have, including something called Tay Sachs. It's not that common a syndrome even among Jews, but virtually unknown in those who don't have a Jewish ancestor or two, I think.

From memory, about 3% of Ashkanazi Jews are carriers of the Tay Sachs gene, so it's not insignificant.

It's common in Israel, now, for potential spouses to have genetic testing for Tay Sachs, which is the sort of disease that starts soon after birth, and means the child dies before school age, 3-4 years old, I think.

zagubov

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Royalty was pretty good at tracking relatives, even in the Middle Ages.

Ashkanazi Jews have that to some extent - there are a couple of nasty recessive genes quite a few Jews have, including something called Tay Sachs. It's not that common a syndrome even among Jews, but virtually unknown in those who don't have a Jewish ancestor or two, I think.

From memory, about 3% of Ashkanazi Jews are carriers of the Tay Sachs gene, so it's not insignificant.

It's common in Israel, now, for potential spouses to have genetic testing for Tay Sachs, which is the sort of disease that starts soon after birth, and means the child dies before school age, 3-4 years old, I think.

There was an article about that, and the rather useful way they had of preventing it being a problem. It's a about fattly material building up in the brain and it's catastrophic.

An Ashkenazi community in the US set up an arrangement where before you start dating you get tested and leave the results with a community leader (usually a rabbi I think). Once you start dating (I think it's within a week) you send permission for the rabbi to check the results and they reply confidentially to both of you that it;'s OK (ie implying only one of you is a carrier but nobody's saying who, or neither of you is) or a bad idea (you're both carriers).

The couple can then break off the relationship before becoming too committed and can do so without revealing there's a genetic problem in their families.

Carriers are meant to be more resistant to TB which if you were forced to live in a ghetto, would have had enormous survival value. 100 years ago TB was one of the top three killers in the world.

lostinrates

I love the genetics talk.

I have mentioned before that equine colour genetics I find really complicated. One of the confusions is that there are many more colours than we are taught in the old system in uk, and we are taught them 'incorrectly'. Science has taken the American terms, where breeding for colour rather than health has been big money (a trend bringing increasingly popular here too). When I look at horses I find increasingly I am confused as to what colour it actually IS (as opposed to what its described as or what I might call it) and then what the breeding possibilities might be. I am funny about colours in a weird way. I like ones that are easy to keep clean and age well! Not a fan of pink skin either.

I have been half looking for a particular colour of a particular breed for a few years but the premium on them is ridiculous, and the ones that are vaguely affordable are really shoddy examples of horses. So I'm giving up I think. If otoh we win the lottery I can find a few I like for between 60 and 120k. Seriously, Spain and Portugal aren't suffering enough in this financial crisis as far as I have been concerned. I don't spend silly money on horses...not when the ones I've bought very cheaply have all become champions!

neverdespairgirl

PasturesNew wrote: »

What does annoy me about people who write genealogical things is how they sometimes ponce about unnecessarily. e.g. they might say "... and henceforth begat the lesser issue", when they could have said "They then had their youngest child".

Sounds as if they are frustrated Authorised Bible writers, as "begat a child" sounds very Biblical.

lostinrates

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Sounds as if they are frustrated Authorised Bible writers, as "begat a child" sounds very Biblical.

That's how we talk around here. Isn't it how everyone does?

The friend of dh's who visited recently and DH talk in Latin together sometimes. Sounds very odd, because they speak it so differently.

neverdespairgirl

lostinrates wrote: »

I love the genetics talk.

I have mentioned before that equine colour genetics I find really complicated. One of the confusions is that there are many more colours than we are taught in the old system in uk, and we are taught them 'incorrectly'.

Tell us more? What I know about equine genetics could be written on a stamp with room to spare. It sounds very interesting, though.

My siblings and I all have blue eyes - just as well, for the purposes of domestic harmony, as both my parents do, too.

Genetically, I reckon half mine and OH's children would have blue eyes - I do, so much have only blue-eyed genes. OH has dark brown eyes (gorgeous, like looking at melting milk chocolate, with long and thick eyelashes) but as his mother had blue eyes, OH must have one blue-eyed gene and one brown, AIUI.

Isaac has blue eyes, and fair hair. His skin is darker than mine, but OH's isn't very dark, and he freckles. Isaac's skin is much the same colour as my mother's and sisters' skin.


I know fairer hair is recessive, but from my family, it doesn't appear to be so. Only one of my parents and one of my grandparents had / have fair hair, and only one of my great-grandparents, too. My maternal grandmother was silver-platinum blonde, and she got that from her father (which was significantly held against her, because her mother and sister were dark, and her father abandoned his wife and two infant daughters. So taking after her father in looks was seen as a Very Bad Thing by my great-grandmother, and the fact communicated regularly).

neverdespairgirl

lostinrates wrote: »

That's how we talk around here. Isn't it how everyone does?

The friend of dh's who visited recently and DH talk in Latin together sometimes. Sounds very odd, because they speak it so differently.

Can I pre-empt PN by saying "Posh Alert!".

We do in my family sometimes, but only in a p1ss taking way. (Begetting, not Latin-ising).