Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

PalazioVecchio said:
In defence of Andrew, how would you yourself fare if you were not drawing from the different genes of 8 different Great-Grandparents ? that combined with a life of unaccountable-privilege ?

from AI ...."Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip were third cousins through their shared great-grandparents, Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, and second cousins once removed through their common ancestor King Christian IX of Denmark. They met in 1934 at a family wedding when Elizabeth was 13, and the connection made their union possible due to a limited pool of suitable royal partners at the time"


Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with third cousin marriage.

It's very different to first cousin marriage and I think it's important to state that as you seem to want to attack the British Monarchy on this ground.

You can attack away on other grounds but on this I feel some pushback is fair enough.

As you say, third cousin marriages involve people who share great-great-grandparents (that means sharing about 0.78% of their DNA on average). They are legal everywhere in the world (unlike first-cousin marriages, which face restrictions in some places...rightly due to increased birth defects), but importantly third cousin marriages carry no increased genetic risk of birth defects or recessive disorders compared to unrelated couples.

I don't think impugning that something was wrong about Elizabeth 2nd's marriage is fair.
 
Last edited:
Stirlingsays said:
There is nothing wrong with third cousin marriage.

It's very different to first cousin marriage and I think it's important to state that as you seem to want to attack the British Monarchy on this ground.

You can attack away on other grounds but on this I feel some pushback is fair enough.

As you say, third cousin marriages involve people who share great-great-grandparents (that means sharing about 0.78% of their DNA on average). They are legal everywhere in the world (unlike first-cousin marriages, which face restrictions in some places...rightly due to increased birth defects), but importantly third cousin marriages carry no increased genetic risk of birth defects or recessive disorders compared to unrelated couples.

I don't think impugning that something was wrong about Elizabeth 2nd's marriage is fair.
Click to expand...
yes, you probably are correct. Its just that the word 'cousin' is a bit of a trigger for me. But, as you say, a distant cousin is very different to a First cousin. Isolated communities, the World over, will have distant cousins marrying each other, often unawares. Isle of man, Nuuk in Greenland, the Faro Islands.

But you must accept that European royalty have all been quite inbred for nearly a thousand years. Perhaps they should arrange some marriages with royalty from faraway places ? Japan, Burma, Brunei ?
 
PalazioVecchio said:
yes, you probably are correct. Its just that the word 'cousin' is a bit of a trigger for me. But, as you say, a distant cousin is very different to a First cousin. Isolated communities, the World over, will have distant cousins marrying each other, often unawares. Isle of man, Nuuk in Greenland, the Faro Islands.

But you must accept that European royalty have all been quite inbred for nearly a thousand years. Perhaps they should arrange some marriages with royalty from faraway places ? Japan, Burma, Brunei ?
Click to expand...

We agree on first cousins and that marriages to close relations are rightly taboo for good reason.

We don't agree that European royalty should mix races and become increasingly non European.
 
Stirlingsays said:
We agree on first cousins and that marriages to close relations are rightly taboo for good reason.

We don't agree that European royalty should mix races and become increasingly non European.
Click to expand...
Harry & Megan did. If your national football team is multi-culti , then surely your monarchy should be too ?
A 1940s Royal Family does not represent the good people of West Croydon. Charles is a straight white man with blue eyes...........and seemingly not very popular.
But getting back to the OP, Prince Andrew is the King of gaffes.
 
Glazier#1 said:
When I was a lad, my mum loved Brentford Nylons - so easy to wash and dry - and bought me nylon sheets and pyjamas; it used to be like a firework display when I slid into bed heheh.
Click to expand...
Mine too. Nylon shirts weren't great either they might have dripped dry but they went a funny colour doing it.
 
PalazioVecchio said:
Harry & Megan did. If your national football team is multi-culti , then surely your monarchy should be too ?
Click to expand...

Do you really think that?

I certainly don't.

A football team designed to win matches is very different to a hereditary Monarchy designed to represent a people.

PalazioVecchio said:
A 1940s Royal Family does not represent the good people of West Croydon. Charles is a straight white man with blue eyes...........and seemingly not very popular.
But getting back to the OP, Prince Andrew is the King of gaffes.
Click to expand...

I don't care: many people in the country don't represent the British Monarchy.

Maybe they shouldn't be here in the first place.
 
Stirlingsays said:
Do you really think that?

I certainly don't.

A football team designed to win matches is very different to a hereditary Monarchy designed to represent a people.



I don't care: many people in the country don't represent the British Monarchy.

Maybe they shouldn't be here in the first place.
Click to expand...
again, you are probably correct. My opinion on the Royals is kinda irrelevant cos i am not British and i have a looney lefty President over here to fight with. Palestine flags and all.

and Andrew ? he seems to have shown a level of naivety that is beyond belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top