Really?uniface wrote:Very largely a bugbear of fairly recent manufacture, CS. The Pharaohs of Egypt married their sisters for hundreds of years with no ill effects.I shudder to even consider the descendents of Queen Victoria and the resulting medical problems due to consanguinity...
So Tut-Anch-Amun was a strapping young lad?
Does it occur to you that genetic 'misfits' and 'failures' might have been willfully ignored by recordists throughout time?As did the Inca royal stratum. And the Ptolmaic Greeks weren't far behind them. Sometimes it seems the Herodians never even bothered with the marriage aspect. There are a lot of fables around sexuality that history shows to be falsehoods; that consanguinity necessarily results in less fit offspring is one of them. If the stock's sound to begin with, up to a point, inbreeding just produces more of it. Many of the Rabbinical genealogies have been an unbroken string of first-cousin unions from time out of mind.
As they are today: are you aware how 5 billion of the total 6 billion people on this planet treat their mentally and physically handicapped children? They hide them! Literally in as deep a closet they can find. Until they die of malnutrition, abuse, or simple lack of care/neglect. Because the parents and siblings are deeply ashamed of them, as they believe that these kids are a manifestation of a punishment from the gods for some terrible misbehavior they, the parents, or even their whole ancestral line, or the village, etc., are guilty of. A curse.
That's the painful, and embarrassing reality.
So if records don't show them it doesn't mean for one second they weren't there. It only means that records don't show them!