I’ll give you that, but I will also cite that we’re pretty hardwired to put incest in the “Really Icky” bucket, Egyptians or no Egyptians, and that there are good biological reasons to do that as you point out in your original reference to genetic issues. Heck, our brains are programmed to try to look outside the family group for someone to pair with as shown by that Israeli study about kids that grow up together in kibbutzes, and (possibly) more than one study related to arranged marriages where the girl goes to live with the boy’s family which frequently end up being less fortuitous than marriages where the prospective happy couple aren’t raised together.
ponder
Ah, bah, now you’re making me think fondly of the university libraries and their sociology/ethics caches of studies/ponderings despite the fact I haven’t been there since I graduated yonks ago, dammit.
Mangetout, why Norfolk – is this a hillbilly joke I’m being whooshed by? (What is the UK equivalent of hillbillies?)
Right. Or maybe even the state of the law in that jurisdiction is such that there is no discretion but to declare annullment once the fact of the degree of consanguinity is established.
Pretty much. It’s where all the world’s turnips are grown. I’m not sure if they could be called hillbillies though - as Norfolk is somewhat bereft of hills.
Well, yes, but that’s true of any partnership. One generation of inbreeding, unless they have some of the more simple recessive genetic disorders, is unlikely to uncover any horrible recessive genes. Inbreeding is a problem for a population, not necessarily for a single parent-offspring set. Our horror of incest, which leads us to imagine mutant children in a single generation, is more about what’s best for the species as a whole, and because it’s a really bad idea socially and psychologically, not because it’s troublesome for any given couple.
Exactly. From what I understand, we only think of incest like this as icky when we see the sibling being reared by our parents. Without that visual cue, there is no inherent barrier to brother sister relationships. As Menocchio has suggested, the risk of birth defects for such a relationship is extremely low. Inbreeding is more of a problem for populations than it is for individuals.
I’m going to admit something right now that will completely verify what everyone here has always thought: I’m a total fucking idiot.
The first, oh, three times I passed by or read this thread, I was incredibly confused. After all, wouldn’t they have at least noticed the scar from where they were separated?
Under English law the marriage would have been void (as opposed to voidable) anyway and had no legal standing. News reports saying the marriage was annulled are wrong, since you can’t annul a marriage that never existed. What will have happened is that the court will have made an order stating that the marriage was void. Although not necessary this is usually done for the avoidance of any doubt.
Also, the BBC report does not state who applied to court for the marriage to be declared void. English law allows anyone to apply for a court order that a marriage is void. Could be that someone else found out and decided that ‘something had to be done’.
Or, considering how little information there is and how much political hay Lord Alton’s trying to make of this, the whole thing could be bullshit.
I don’t think this was being put forward as the reason for changing the law (it didn’t crop up until a Lords debate), but as one example of consequences of the current secrecy.
To The Addams Family tune: Your father is your brother, your sister is your mother, you like to fuck each other, the Norwich family.
I do find it interesting that the reactions of ‘it can’t be true’ seem to be heavily provoked by the squeamishness such a story creates. Nobody has given a good reason to disbelieve it, just that they don’t want it to be real. (Note that ‘behind closed doors’ situations such as this can occur in British courts in a way that may be unfamiliar to those used to other systems.)
The only real reason to disbelieve it is that it appears at such a convenient time for Lord What’s His Name. Plus the claim that it can’t be verified by any public records.
OTOH, what other time WOULD it crop up, all the details being secret?
Nothing in the story states when it occurred. And once again, this was dealt with in a family court, and there is nothing unusual about such proceedings being kept private.
Apologies – I misspoke. Instead of saying, “The only real reason to disbelieve it…” I should have said, “What makes it seem suspicious…”.
I have no real reason to disbelieve it, though I have a very high degree of skepticism toward anecdotal stories told by politicians to further their agendas.
political mileage is being gained from it (as Boyo Jim noted) and
there is not one credible or ascertainable piece of information that accompanies the story.
I understand you think people may disbelieve because it makes them squeamish, but “It’s true because I said so unless you can disprove it” has never been a weighty argument to bring to the table.
