Pyrrhos: his son and daughters married?

[Sumskilz]

No, it doesn’t produce retarded offspring, but it does increase the likelihood of them receiving genetic illnesses caused by recessive traits. Most genetic illnesses are caused by a mutation at a specific allele. For example, if a random mutation occurs at a specific allele in a royal bloodline, it isn’t really an issue as long as each individual has at least one good copy of the gene, but inbreeding increases the likelihood of having two copies of the bad gene and thusly the disease.

[Pontius Pilate]

No, it doesn’t produce retarded offspring, but it does increase the likelihood of them receiving genetic illnesses caused by recessive traits. Most genetic illnesses are caused by a mutation at a specific allele. For example, if a random mutation occurs at a specific allele in a royal bloodline, it isn’t really an issue as long as each individual has at least one good copy of the gene, but inbreeding increases the likelihood of having two copies of the bad gene and thusly the disease.

yes, about the gene thing. an example is that I have heard that due to inbreeding Charles V holy Roman emperor, had a slightly deformed/protruding chin that he and some of his predecessors carried.

In all fairness, it's not fair to judge ANY culture by the norms of one. Just as we may find some cultures past and present barbaric and uncivilised, they may think the same as us.

The things that seperate different cultures are their values and morals more than anything else. Just because Incest is consider heinous now doesn't make it so then.

I couldn't have said it better myself. We really don't have the right to judge what people thousands of years ago did, and whether it was right or wrong. We would just be implying our own modern ideas and morals to them, and twisting the image. I like to view the past and history in general, as it was then, with no bias or bull in it. You also, have to remember, Pyrrhos lived in a time before Judeo-Christian beliefs were dominant in the west. It was a whole different world back then.

[machinor]

Yeah, but desert is right. Incest was not accepted back then either. Since such weddings among brother and sister did not produce any outrage, I think one can surely say that those marriages were only political in nature.

[Recoil]

too true there PP, it's kinda stupid when people read about incest/ homosexuals or other "odd" things in the past and get all creeped out by it. after all, times have changed, so have morals and such

[Dutchhoplite]

yes, about the gene thing. an example is that I have heard that due to inbreeding Charles V holy Roman emperor, had a slightly deformed/protruding chin that he and some of his predecessors carried.

Charles II of Spain was even worse:

Charles II was the last of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty, physically disabled, mentally retarded and disfigured (possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism — he was unable to chew). His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled. He may also have suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly. He was treated as virtually an infant in arms until he was ten years old. Fearing the frail child would be overtaxed, he was left entirely uneducated, and his indolence was indulged to such an extent that he was not even expected to be clean. When his half-brother John of Austria the Younger, a natural son of Philip IV, obtained power by exiling the queen mother from court, he insisted that at least the king's hair should be combed.

Poor guy :(

[Gleemonex]

The gizzer named Noah

Poll: Typo or best pun ever?

(Sorry, it was stronger than me.)

-Glee

[Dodge_272]

Charles II of Spain was even worse:



Poor guy :(

Ferdinand I and Charles II are my favourite Habsburgs.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Hatshepsut (sp) anyone? Or the Bourbonic dynasty of Spain?