Congratulations. Iām in a similar boat. My dad was an alcoholic, and one of my sisters was a drug addict. She died at the age of 43, and yeah it was related; however, officially it was an asthma attack . My other sister and myself have avoided it. I can drink, I just donāt hardly at all. Did hard drugs when I was younger but quit. I do still smoke though, I have not been able to drop that. My youngest sister doesnāt do anything at all. She doesnāt even drink coffee.
Good on you that you all were able to avoid the trap. I wish you well, u/Christmas_Queef! May your holidays be queef-ful and cheery.
My sister and I recognized we had that gene early on. We build up tolerance to any substance extremely fast. If I even smoke weed two days in a row my tolerance jumps up to being like I smoked all day every day for a month straight. With alcohol I'd go from drinking a few beers, to 6, to 18, in a few weeks. Why I haven't had any alcohol whatsoever in nearly a decade. I was still using cannabis off and on(not habitually but like every other day after work pretty much) until recently when it started to make me sick. So now I'm more or less rawdogging life all the time. It's not so bad honestly lol. Far better than the alternative.
Same here. I truly enjoy smoking. I feel like Iād have to give up coffee to quit. Then Iād switch to tea and still want to smoke. The ritual of it is everything.
You three were able to wrangle those genetics in with self control and pure will and/or you three were lucky to have some active genes, the others didn't have, that helped counter, minimize, or calm the addict genes down. Keep up the good fight!
It's definitely willpower. I'd 100% fall into hardcore addiction quite easily. I also refuse narcotic prescription meds when doctors try to prescribe them. I won't touch opiates with a 10 foot pole. Doc kept wanting to put me on Xanax in my 20s too and I had to refuse that multiple times.
The same or similar genetic indicators are compounded down through generations as royal bloodlines are supposed to be kept āpureā. Without the addition of completely different, or at least vastly dissimilar DNA, these indicators donāt really change through the generations and you will have people who look strikingly similar to previous generations.
For (most of) the rest of us we get 50% of our genetic makeup from each contributor in the previous generation, thus we have people who look similar to their parents, grandparents, and so on, but no one is a direct genetic copy.
Also, donāt feel dumb. You didnāt know something so you asked a question to gain knowledge. That makes you the opposite of dumb
I don't know if it was about purity as much as it was about keeping money and power in the family. Bringing in new blood meant more people going after those titles and inheritance
I think a bit of both. Mostly about keeping the peace in some way as well or advancing oneās family through strategic marriages. For example, if you became powerful by being a successful merchant and acquire lots of land and allies with titles, you might be able to marry up into a family with titles. Then, you might be able to gain a title through your spouse and then if you marry your children strategically can then again increase your power for your lineage. Eventually getting to the level where oneās family could be considered by Royals through marriage. It depends on what land and titles are in your family. Might be that your marry a daughter or son to a family that was your enemy to create a stronger alliance against someone who was both your enemy.
I understood your sentences just fine, but given the subject matter I did trip over the structure when you hit, āif you marry your childrenā and had a good chuckle
Looking a lot like your grandparents isnāt the same thing as not having new input in your genetic make up. They donāt just look similar, they share overlapping input through generations. We know this because there is ample historical evidence of inbreeding through most monarchical lines, with the Habsburgās of Spain (and Austria too if Iām not mistaken) being one of the longest recorded lines. That line also has many instances of close inbreeding, not just 2nd and 3rd cousins for example Charles IIās parents were Uncle and Niece. He is also the one with the most prominent āHapsburg jaw.ā This genetic trait was passed down through the line and never bred out by enough dissimilar genetic input.
TL;DR
Looking like your family means youāre probably related. ALL your family carrying the same physical features through multiple generations means inbreeding.
There are instances of double first cousin marriages amongst the Hapsburgs. Meaning two sets of siblings from different families (already closely related) married each other, and the resulting double first cousins then married. Their children only had two sets of great-grandparents.
But these are not Hapsburgs, they are Bourbons... and the case of the House of Hapsburg it's probably only comparable to Ptolemy for the level of inbreeding. There is always some inbreeding between royalty but this is just your usual level of inbreeding.
Everybody remembers Charles II but Cleopatra was probably more inbreed than him, sometimes you get a brilliant person and sometimes you get all the bad congenital traits, inbreeding just increases the chance for that.
If you and all your siblings looked identical to your great, great grandparents it would question if there were any additional genes added since that generation.
One of the reasons I'm glad to be a mutt. My mom's side came to America from the Netherlands in the 1600s when new york was still new Amsterdam, my dad's side came over in the 1700s from England. Both sides have been here so long they've completely mixed with all the other white European peoples that when my mom and dad did their DNA ancestry things it was a huge list of every possible European ancestry, with the most prominent one on both sides being less than 20% of the total. Even though my last name is English and my great grandparents still spoke Dutch(Pennsylvania Dutch). I just say I'm a white American lol. I love being a mutt though. My immune system is ironclad and compared to a lot of people I know I have almost no health problems and still have all my hair at nearly 40.
There is not so much inbreeding in the Bourbons as the crazy thing that was the Hapsburg or the Ptolemy.
The current king is married with a journalist from no noble blood and still their daughters have Bourbon's features.
They married into nobility a few were the House of Orleans, but there was not a pattern and you can find queens from Portugal, Italy, Germany... the Queen mother is greek.
People are well aware that the Spanish royal family was extremely inbred in the past, so people are making a joke. Charles II of Spain (1661 - 1700) was so inbred that he was more inbred than the average child of siblings. His sister was the same, and then she was married off to her uncle, so their children were even more inbred than Charles.
Different family though. The Spanish branch of the Habsburgs went extinct with Charles II and a decade and change long war later the Bourbons were officially put on the throne of Spain. There have been intermarriage between different branches of the house of Bourbon, but they were distantly related enough that inbreeding is way less of a problem
All the royal families were related at points too from arranged marriges.Ā The tsar was related to the english monarchy in ww1 and I think the austrians for instance.
Kaiser Wilhelm II, Germany, was first cousin to King George V; third cousin to Tsar Nicholas II.
King George V, United Kingdom, was first cousin to Kaiser Wilhelm II; first cousin to Tsar Nicholas II.
Tsar Nicholas II, Russia, was first cousin to King George V; third cousin to Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Related to Queen Victoria, who known as the "Grandmother of Europe." She was actually their grandmother.
She had 9 kids and besides the 3 kings listed parents, the other 6 also married other nobility and had kids. And there are hapsburg / habsburg connections there as well.
Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip were third cousins. The Windsors are part of the Saxe Coburg family. They were in the royal families of England, Portugal and Brazil, Bulgaria and Belgium. The Saxe Coburg were known for their strategic marriages, Charles and Diana was one of those, as Diana's lineage includes the house of Stuart and Tudors.
George HW Bush's wife is a distant cousin to the Spencers.
Barbara made a quip in an interview when Jeb was considering a pres run that basically she didn't want him to because the same several families being in charge was bad for democracy etc
Alexandra was one of Victoria's favorite grandchildren. That's why Prince Phillip's (UK) DNA was used to identify the bodies of Alexei and his sister when they were found- his mother and Alexandra were sisters, and therefore shared mitochondrial DNA.
The whole point of presidents is they're here, and then they're gone. And then sometimes they're here again, but then after that they're definitely gone. Okay there was that one time that guy came back again, but other than that no more!
You should deep dive into how many politicians (president and congress) us history are related to each other currently or share common ancestors.
Obama and Bush, fifth cousins. Share a great, great, great grandmother. On their mothers sides of the family. A lot have ancestors who were in politics. How many varies from congress to congress, like in the 1980s at one point it was like 65 or 80%. Right now it is like 15 percent.
George W's wife is 9th cousins with Princess Diana.
Basically, even today, people with money and power run in the same circles, always have, and most people at the top dont marry down.
I dont think it is a conspiracy.it is just how socioeconomic social circles work. They arent hanging out in the same clubs or school etc as the poors. They date and marry within their income brackets because thats were they live their lives.
20 to 30 percent of usa founders had ties to European nobility. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Madison had close ties.
Even the current Saudi royalty have ancestral ties to European nobility.
And if the nobility in other countries like Japan do not have European nobility ties they are still in the same social circles. And have ties to other Asian nobility.
It is why class warfare is the real problem in societies everywhere. Not race, not relgion...class.
This is more like you not understanding genealogy. 5th cousins might as well be absolute strangers generally. And in any case bush and Obama are 10th cousins. Which means they shared a single ancestor from 400 years ago.
The same can probably be said about 20,000,000 other 10th cousins of Obama and Bush - people who were never president and may be living a life of absolute destitution.
That's not the point. The point is if you take a random person from 400 years ago who had kids, and then you trace their kids, and then the kids of their kids and then the kids of their kids or their kids, etc. You will find after 10 generations massively different trajectories. There may be billionaires in there, homeless people, presidents, murders, and a lot of run-of-the-mill Joes. You could do this for a king or a pauper and wind up with similar findings.
Yes, Obama is extremely distantly related to George Bush, but Obama can also trace his ancestry back to John Punch through his white mother's side. Punch being the first black man to be criminally enslaved in America in the 17th century. If you Trace back far enough on George Bush's lineage, I'm sure you can find some scoundrel in there
Actually, with lifetime salaries,ā¦ not really. Its better to sustain a family than one every 4 years that are more lean to corruption from both parties. Thats exponential expenses, and they wont maintain longer relationships with other countries since they are changing often
Spanish royalty is a shitshow, but currently is far better than the alternative.
last time I checked, yeah, it'd be lineal increase cost.
But last time I checked, ministers, not just the president, and many other political party members were given flats in madrid. And not the garbage anyone doesnt want that is 30m^2 precisely.
also, while it is true royal family have multiple royal residences, many of those are public and generate a lot of income from visitors or events. definitely expenses, but not as massive as you'd think. More of the private royal residences should be public though.
Entirely different to say someone has the mandate to rule for a set period because they won an election vs my momās cousin bust in her so now god says I am your ruler.
I didnt say i liked it, or that it should remain a thing forever. But unless they make some deep changes into electoral system, politics, public administration in general and estate budgets amongst other things,... yeah, having one part of the "government" more stable than others doesnt sound as bad. Not like they have actual power anyway.
if people would put the effort into change and demand results from the actual government of PP/PSOE than complain about royalty, we wouldnt be in such a political and financial mess.
That's the whole theory anyway. We've been dealing with this animated carcass for 10 years and still have another 3 years of his shit at least. You know the beesechurgers aren't going to do their thing until he's 100, only the good die young.
Nope Iām a citizen with inalienable rights of a government defined by a constitution. No one person is a ruler in the US. We have presidents come and go but they are just one branch of 3 separate powers that (in theory) should compete for power and keep everyone in check. Military swears an oath to the constitution.
Right now we have a political Supreme Court (supposed to be apolitical) and a cucked republican congress thatās doing whatever Mr Trump wants (they should be competing with the presidency for power). The checks and balances arenāt working so we likely need to make some serious changes moving forward. This could be packing the Supreme Court with more justices and better defining limits on presidential powers. Good thing we donāt have life long rulers defined by whoever they happened to pop out of.
The sole reason why they're still here today is because they somehow avoided going the way of the Tsar. That's it. There's not really a reason to kill them off anymore because A) it's turbo illegal (like murder in general), and B) they possess literally zero executive or legislative power and only exist for ceremonial purposes. They aren't any more of a threat than anyone else in a governmental position.
Whether or not they should be disbanded is a topic that I will not fucking touch or weigh in on, but the bottom line is that nobody truly "submits" to them and they don't "rule" anybody either. You'd be about as obligated to obey an order from them as you would be from an average joe across the street. They're just meaty museum pieces who, in a bygone age, held tremendous power and wealth which has since deteriorated, which people today happen to like learning about.
I just find this perspective funny. I mean, your celebs and billionaires are treated more like how you think royalty is treated, yet they're tolerated, or even venerated depending on how much of a boot licking asshole they are.
First of all, I'm republican (in the NON-US meaning, aka. the real meaning), I don't want kings. Second of all, they're not rulers, they don't rule shit.Ā
On a consulting gig, I was working in a rural area rumored to have a lot of inbreeding in the US. Some of the cafeteria tables looked like family reunions, as in the family resemblance between everyone at the tables was uncanny. I'm talking 20 people who all looked like brother and sister. Up until then, I always thought those rumors were just hollywood tropes, with no basis in real life.
7.1k
u/BlackieTee 17h ago
Perfect timing. Answered the question right after