In a general ORLY? moment:
The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005174)
QuoteAbstract Top
The kings of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty (1516–1700) frequently married close relatives in such a way that uncle-niece, first cousins and other consanguineous unions were prevalent in that dynasty. In the historical literature, it has been suggested that inbreeding was a major cause responsible for the extinction of the dynasty when the king Charles II, physically and mentally disabled, died in 1700 and no children were born from his two marriages, but this hypothesis has not been examined from a genetic perspective. In this article, this hypothesis is checked by computing the inbreeding coefficient (F) of the Spanish Habsburg kings from an extended pedigree up to 16 generations in depth and involving more than 3,000 individuals. The inbreeding coefficient of the Spanish Habsburg kings increased strongly along generations from 0.025 for king Philip I, the founder of the dynasty, to 0.254 for Charles II and several members of the dynasty had inbreeding coefficients higher than 0.20. In addition to inbreeding due to unions between close relatives, ancestral inbreeding from multiple remote ancestors makes a substantial contribution to the inbreeding coefficient of most kings. A statistically significant inbreeding depression for survival to 10 years is detected in the progenies of the Spanish Habsburg kings. The results indicate that inbreeding at the level of first cousin (F = 0.0625) exerted an adverse effect on survival of 17.8%±12.3. It is speculated that the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II (F = 0.254) of two different genetic disorders: combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis, determined by recessive alleles at two unlinked loci, could explain most of the complex clinical profile of this king, including his impotence/infertility which in last instance led to the extinction of the dynasty.
(continues at link site)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.orf.at%2Fscience%2Fstoryimg%2Fstorypart_272630.gif&hash=d9b15660c5ad827b24942a0703c80db5b03dd6a4)
Doesn't come close to the Ptolemaians, though.
So it's not good when your family tree is all zig-zaggy like that huh?
Thank you very much, Captain Obvious. :P
The real question should be: Why did the Austrians Habsburgs survive until 1918?
So basically the Spanish and German branches just kept marrying each other.
Oddly the German branch did not seem to have the genetic problems the Spanish one did despite that fact. Maybe they just lost the genetic lottery with Charles II.
Btw, that family tree diagram is horrible.
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 11:26:01 AM
So basically the Spanish and German branches just kept marrying each other.
Was such a developed study really needed on something that was, well, obvious to anyone remotely knowledgeable about the Habsburgs?
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 11:27:55 AM
Was such a developed study really needed on something that was, well, obvious to anyone remotely knowledgeable about the Habsburgs?
It might be interesting to track who had what genetic disorder and how they got passed on...but yeah it is no mystery that the Habsburgs did not marry outside the main line much.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 11:27:27 AM
Btw, that family tree diagram is horrible.
They get an "F" in my Intro to Anthropology class.
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2009, 11:30:18 AM
They get an "F" in my Intro to Anthropology class.
There are much clearer ways of showing marriages and descendants.
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 11:29:13 AM
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 11:27:55 AM
Was such a developed study really needed on something that was, well, obvious to anyone remotely knowledgeable about the Habsburgs?
It might be interesting to track who had what genetic disorder and how they got passed on...but yeah it is no mystery that the Habsburgs did not marry outside the main line much.
"When you reduce the family tree to a family bush you can't hide so much under it!"
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 11:32:10 AM
There are much clearer ways of showing marriages and descendants.
Indeed - there is a reason that the standard system has lasted so long...it works well.
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2009, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 11:32:10 AM
There are much clearer ways of showing marriages and descendants.
Indeed - there is a reason that the standard system has lasted so long...it works well.
The problem with the standard system is that it isn't adapted to the fact that the Habsburgs were relentlessly incesting from uncle to niece or between first-degree cousins.
Since this is a genetic hereditary study of the Habsburg I guess they chose depiction in line with that field, not genealogy.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe8%2FMendelian_inheritance_3_1.png&hash=1a67a4edf95747f382195798295db5ce2fef9c8b)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frationalrevolution.net%2Fimages%2FSexlinked_inheritance_white.jpg&hash=1ca84cc219ac2bda61b29394f782e9e3ceab103f)
Except that, that system at least shows an x between parents. There is no x in this system.
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 11:25:27 AM
Thank you very much, Captain Obvious. :P
The real question should be: Why did the Austrians Habsburgs survive until 1918?
Tremere blood.
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2009, 11:49:14 AM
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 11:25:27 AM
Thank you very much, Captain Obvious. :P
The real question should be: Why did the Austrians Habsburgs survive until 1918?
Tremere blood.
I'd say Etrius, as Tremere is now a slumbering, giant white worm.
And Meerlinda, what a MILF!... :wub: :perv:
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 11:38:51 AM
The problem with the standard system is that it isn't adapted to the fact that the Habsburgs were relentlessly incesting from uncle to niece or between first-degree cousins.
Actually, it would work fine.
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 11:25:27 AM
Thank you very much, Captain Obvious. :P
The real question should be: Why did the Austrians Habsburgs survive until 1918?
Didn't they start marrying smarter genetically after the Spanish branch died out? They seem to have married minor German dynasties after that.
Anyway the Austrian Habsburgs are still going strong except for that little not being monarchs anymore thing.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 11:47:57 AM
Except that, that system at least shows an x between parents. There is no x in this system.
Nitpicker. I have no idea what variants of schematics exist in modern genetics, but I guess if they made such a study they knew what they were doing.
Quote from: Syt on April 15, 2009, 11:54:42 AM
Nitpicker. I have no idea what variants of schematics exist in modern genetics, but I guess if they made such a study they knew what they were doing.
Nein. My point from the beginning is that it was most confusing to have siblings and spouses virtually indistinct from one another. The only way to note who was married and who was not is to trace up from the children.
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 11:53:29 AM
Didn't they start marrying smarter genetically after the Spanish branch died out? They seem to have married minor German dynasties after that.
They still married first-degree cousins, though. Sissi's mother was Franz Joseph's aunt.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 11:56:13 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 15, 2009, 11:54:42 AM
Nitpicker. I have no idea what variants of schematics exist in modern genetics, but I guess if they made such a study they knew what they were doing.
Nein. My point from the beginning is that it was most confusing to have siblings and spouses virtually indistinct from one another. The only way to note who was married and who was not is to trace up from the children.
Yeah, fuck you too.
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 11:57:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 11:53:29 AM
Didn't they start marrying smarter genetically after the Spanish branch died out? They seem to have married minor German dynasties after that.
They still married first-degree cousins, though. Sissi's mother was Franz Joseph's aunt.
Yes but they were not marrying first cousins from the same branch over and over again. So at least there was a bit more genetic diversity than before.
Quote from: Syt on April 15, 2009, 11:57:12 AM
Yeah, fuck you too.
Unfortunately, and I'm sure the geneticists will agree, our copulation will not result in offspring. :(
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 11:27:55 AM
Was such a developed study really needed on something that was, well, obvious to anyone remotely knowledgeable about the Habsburgs?
What is obvious is that the extinction of the Habsburg line is Spain was due to the same cause as the extinction of the Stuart line in England 14 years later: very high infant mortality and a high rate of stillborn children. Queen Anne, for instance, was 17 times pregnant and gave birth six times, but all of her children predeceased her. She was not at all closely related to the Habsburgs.
Ditto, Charles II of Spain had 3 older brothers, but none of them lived log enough to take the throne. Charles II's own lack of an heir wouldn't have doomed the dynasty had there been nephews.
Given the almost identical results for the Spanish Habsburgs and the non-Habsburg-like Stuarts, it is hard to argue that Habsburg-style breeding caused the extinction of dynasties.
QuoteQueen Anne, for instance, was 17 times pregnant
Her vagina was a clown carriage.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 12:11:10 PM
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 11:27:55 AM
Was such a developed study really needed on something that was, well, obvious to anyone remotely knowledgeable about the Habsburgs?
What is obvious is that the extinction of the Habsburg line is Spain was due to the same cause as the extinction of the Stuart line in England 14 years later: very high infant mortality and a high rate of stillborn children. Queen Anne, for instance, was 17 times pregnant and gave birth six times, but all of her children predeceased her. She was not at all closely related to the Habsburgs.
Ditto, Charles II of Spain had 3 older brothers, but none of them lived log enough to take the throne. Charles II's own lack of an heir wouldn't have doomed the dynasty had there been nephews.
Given the almost identical results for the Spanish Habsburgs and the non-Habsburg-like Stuarts, it is hard to argue that Habsburg-style breeding caused the extinction of dynasties.
Well, what the study seems to say, though, is not that inbreeding was the sole cause but that a number of hereditary deseases that accumulated in Charles II made it more likely.
QuoteIn the light of the knowledge of the current clinical genetics and on information gathered by the historians on the health of Charles II we might speculate on the origin of his illness. Although we recognize that it is highly speculative, some of the health problems suffered by Charles II could have been caused by the action of detrimental recessive genes given his high inbreeding coefficient (F = 0.254) with 25.4% of his autosomal genome expected to be homozygous. In this sense, the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II of two genetic disorders determined by recessive alleles, combined pituitary hormone deficiency (CPHD, OMIM 26260) and distal renal tubular acidosis (dRTA, OMIM 602722), could explain an important part of his complex clinical profile.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 12:11:10 PM
Given the almost identical results for the Spanish Habsburgs and the non-Habsburg-like Stuarts, it is hard to argue that Habsburg-style breeding caused the extinction of dynasties.
Huh, James II had a son and Charles II had countless bastards, and the majority of these scions had survived. It's the rotten womb of the latter's Queen and the Catholicism of the former that extinguished the Stuart line. In other words, circumstancial events.
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 12:22:39 PM
Huh, James II had descendants and Charles II had countless bastards, and the majority of these scions survived. It's the rotten womb of the latter's Queen and the Catholicism of the former that extinguished the Stuart line.
Yeah I don't think childbirth was the reason the Stuart dynasty was toppled.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 12:11:10 PM
What is obvious is that the extinction of the Habsburg line is Spain was due to the same cause as the extinction of the Stuart line in England 14 years later: very high infant mortality and a high rate of stillborn children. Queen Anne, for instance, was 17 times pregnant and gave birth six times, but all of her children predeceased her. She was not at all closely related to the Habsburgs.
Ditto, Charles II of Spain had 3 older brothers, but none of them lived log enough to take the throne. Charles II's own lack of an heir wouldn't have doomed the dynasty had there been nephews.
Given the almost identical results for the Spanish Habsburgs and the non-Habsburg-like Stuarts, it is hard to argue that Habsburg-style breeding caused the extinction of dynasties.
QFT. There is no direct link that relates inbreeding with the problems the Habsburgs had with their spanish line.
In fact, they just had one genetically bad monarch, Carlos II. If that is a result of inbreeding, then should we assume that every couple that has a genetically defective child is inbred?
Besides, if close marriages caused genetical problems like it is suggested, then muslim monarchies would have crumbled long ago - marriage between first cousins is the preferred marriage in Arabia.
Also, remember that the Egyptian Pharaohs always married their sisters - yet, the lines of Pharaohs remained just as stable (or even more so) than other dynasties, century after century.
The inbreeding idea should be ruled out just by pointing out that, for 99% of mankinds' History, Humans lived in clannic groups of 30-odd people, which always interbred. If marrying close relatives unavoidably led to genetical problems, then we as a species simply could not exist today - we would have died out long ago.
(ditto for animals - I think most of you have already realized that Chimpanzees and Gorillas have been living in close knit groups and all procreate with their close relatives for many millennia now, with no problems. When was the last time you heard of a Gorilla searching for 'brides' outside his group?)
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 11:56:13 AM
Nein. My point from the beginning is that it was most confusing to have siblings and spouses virtually indistinct from one another.
That's the Hapsburg problem in a nutshell. :D
Quote from: Syt on April 15, 2009, 12:20:11 PM
Well, what the study seems to say, though, is not that inbreeding was the sole cause but that a number of hereditary deseases that accumulated in Charles II made it more likely.
The study argues that Charles II was the inheritor of a number of genetically transmitted diseases, which i think is unarguable. This has little to do with the extinction of the dynasty, though, as he was just a single person - and not even one who would have inherited, had infant mortality not spiked in that generation.
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 12:22:39 PM
Huh, James II had a son and Charles II had countless bastards, and the majority of these scions had survived. It's the rotten womb of the latter's Queen and the Catholicism of the former that extinguished the Stuart line. In other words, circumstancial events.
Huh? :huh: There were two Stuart monarchs after James II: Mary II and Anne, who between them conceived 19 times but had no children who survived them. That seems to be more than mere circumstance to me.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 03:00:47 PM
Huh? :huh: There were two Stuart monarchs after James II: Mary II and Anne, who between them conceived 19 times but had no children who survived them. That seems to be more than mere circumstance to me.
I think his point was that while it is convenient to look at those awful Stuart sisters, the truth of the matter is that there were many available Stuarts, such that if the Stuarts hadn't been bumbling fools and England so strongly against Catholics, the dynasty could certainly have continued. After all the Jacobite pretenders were a straight line of Stuarts trying to take back their throne.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 03:08:55 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 03:00:47 PM
Huh? :huh: There were two Stuart monarchs after James II: Mary II and Anne, who between them conceived 19 times but had no children who survived them. That seems to be more than mere circumstance to me.
I think his point was that while it is convenient to look at those awful Stuart sisters, the truth of the matter is that there were many of available Stuarts, such that if the Stuarts hadn't been bumbling fools and England so strongly against Catholics, the dynasty could certainly have continued. After all the Jacobite pretenders were a straight line of Stuarts trying to take back their throne.
Bingo. In fact, James II's son and grandson could have increased their chances of reclaiming the English throne if they had accepted to become Protestants, which they refused, woe to them.
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 03:11:09 PM
Bingo. In fact, James II's son and grandson could have increased their chances of reclaiming the English throne if they had accepted to become Protestants, which they refused, woe to them.
The Stuarts were such asses. I mean seriously how stupidly stubborn can you get?
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 03:25:19 PM
The Stuarts were such asses. I mean seriously how stupidly stubborn can you get?
Actually with James II and progeny, they simply needed to not be such pussy bitches. I mean, why the fuck did James II run away from William when the odds were in his favor? Likewise, in his failed Ireland attempt, he bounced the second the times got tough.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 03:27:31 PM
Actually with James II and progeny, they simply needed to not be such pussy bitches. I mean, why the fuck did James II run away from William when the odds were in his favor? Likewise, in his failed Ireland attempt, he bounced the second the times got tough.
True Charles II knew how to be tough if he needed to.
I guess it is a combination of being inflexible and being a wimp besides.
Why did James II run away anyway? Was it like Pompey Magus who just assumed Caesar must have a huge army if he was going to march on Rome?
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 03:28:52 PM
Why did James II run away anyway?
That's what I've been trying to figure out. It sounds like he just reacted emotionally (perhaps a trait inherited from Mary Stuart). I mean, he even did a somewhat smart thing of not inviting the French to help put down the invasion as he thought he could manage it on his own, and didn't want his people to react violently to his French connections...and then suddenly, he just lost resolve. <_<
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 03:28:52 PM
I guess it is a combination of being inflexible and being a wimp besides.
Yeah, if you are going to be authoritarian then you need to be willing to use force.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 03:32:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 03:28:52 PM
Why did James II run away anyway?
That's what I've been trying to figure out. It sounds like he just reacted emotionally (perhaps a trait inherited from Mary Stuart). I mean, he even did a somewhat smart thing of not inviting the French to help put down the invasion as he thought he could manage it on his own, and didn't want his people to react violently to his French connections...and then suddenly, he just lost resolve. <_<
Having your dad beheaded can make you a trifle emotional about these things. :lol:
But really - Mary, his own daughter turning against him with army. Tisk. And John Churchill!
Quote from: Malthus on April 15, 2009, 03:37:58 PM
Having your dad beheaded can make you a trifle emotional about these things. :lol:
But really - Mary, his own daughter turning against him with army. Tisk. And John Churchill!
Charles II wasn't beheaded. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 03:39:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 15, 2009, 03:37:58 PM
Having your dad beheaded can make you a trifle emotional about these things. :lol:
But really - Mary, his own daughter turning against him with army. Tisk. And John Churchill!
Charles II wasn't beheaded. :contract:
Charles II wasn't James II's dad - but his brother.
Edit: you fail at Stuarts. :D
Quote from: Malthus on April 15, 2009, 03:42:33 PM
Charles II wasn't James II's dad - but his brother.
Edit: you fail at Stuarts. :D
Oh yeah. Oops. :blush:
Anyway, I think if you were afraid of getting beheaded, you wouldn't push such a hardline like your father did. :P
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 03:47:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 15, 2009, 03:42:33 PM
Charles II wasn't James II's dad - but his brother.
Edit: you fail at Stuarts. :D
Oh yeah. Oops. :blush:
Anyway, I think if you were afraid of getting beheaded, you wouldn't push such a hardline like your father did. :P
*puffs pipe*
Playing airmchair psycho-historian ... maybe he was torn between a desire to live up to his (martyred) father's ideals, and fear of suffering his fate.
Quote from: Malthus on April 15, 2009, 03:50:12 PM
*puffs pipe*
Playing airmchair psycho-historian ... maybe he was torn between a desire to live up to his (martyred) father's ideals, and fear of suffering his fate.
So he decided to hang out with the French? :x
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 15, 2009, 03:50:12 PM
*puffs pipe*
Playing airmchair psycho-historian ... maybe he was torn between a desire to live up to his (martyred) father's ideals, and fear of suffering his fate.
So he decided to hang out with the French? :x
Hey, I never said they were *good* ideals. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on April 15, 2009, 03:50:12 PM
maybe he was torn between a desire to live up to his (martyred) father's ideals
I mean really...at some point you just have to decide London is worth not having a mass.
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 03:57:55 PM
I mean really...at some point you just have to decide London is worth not having a mass.
Was it though? Parliament seemed to want to spoil all the fun.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 03:32:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 03:28:52 PM
Why did James II run away anyway?
That's what I've been trying to figure out. It sounds like he just reacted emotionally (perhaps a trait inherited from Mary Stuart). I mean, he even did a somewhat smart thing of not inviting the French to help put down the invasion as he thought he could manage it on his own, and didn't want his people to react violently to his French connections...and then suddenly, he just lost resolve. <_<
Or Maybe, he just didn't want his head cut off and put on a pike like his father.
EDIT: Beaten to it. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 03:57:55 PM
I mean really...at some point you just have to decide London is worth not having a mass.
Was it though? Parliament seemed to want to spoil all the fun.
Especially that a King having a mass in London would probably mean the scaffold for being at the head of a Popish plot. :bowler:
Seriously, with such a bunch of fundies on Ritalin whining about a Catholic plot behind every shadow and every disaster farted by God, who wouldn't give up on these ungrateful jerks? I'd prefer to live at Versailles in peace, quiet, and unconditionally subsided wealth. <_<
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 03:08:55 PM
I think his point was that while it is convenient to look at those awful Stuart sisters, the truth of the matter is that there were many available Stuarts, such that if the Stuarts hadn't been bumbling fools and England so strongly against Catholics, the dynasty could certainly have continued. After all the Jacobite pretenders were a straight line of Stuarts trying to take back their throne.
I don't think his point counters my point, which is that the upsurge in infant/child mortality during this period is what doomed both the Stuart and Spanish Habsburg dynasties, no matter the genetic "defects" of Carlos II. Carlos had three elder brothers who predeceased their father, after all.
If one is going to argue that politics is what doomed the Stuarts, one could do the same about the Spanish Habsburgs. Carlos had several sisters who could have inherited, had not politics forbade, just as Anne and Mary had a brother who could have inherited, had not politics forbade.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
So he decided to hang out with the French? :x
He didn't have much of a choice. It was his dad who decided he would hang out with the French, and as they say, "you may be the greatest King of England, but if you suck
just one French cock..."
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 06:08:45 PM
I don't think his point counters my point, which is that the upsurge in infant/child mortality during this period is what doomed both the Stuart and Spanish Habsburg dynasties, no matter the genetic "defects" of Carlos II. Carlos had three elder brothers who predeceased their father, after all.
How are the Stuarts different from the Tudors in terms of mortality? Like I said, I think politics is what doomed the Stuarts. It is never good to have daughters unseat their father.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 06:08:45 PMIf one is going to argue that politics is what doomed the Stuarts, one could do the same about the Spanish Habsburgs. Carlos had several sisters who could have inherited, had not politics forbade, just as Anne and Mary had a brother who could have inherited, had not politics forbade.
Maybe, I don't know enough abut the Hapsburbgs. I would say that the Stuart situation is different in that Anne and Mary helped cause the downfall of their house (by unseating the sitting monarch and natural heir).
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 06:11:52 PM
He didn't have much of a choice. It was his dad who decided he would hang out with the French, and as they say, "you may be the greatest King of England, but if you suck just one French cock..."
:(
Actually, he should have gone to Poland! :w00t:
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 04:54:57 PM
Especially that a King having a mass in London would probably mean the scaffold for being at the head of a Popish plot. :bowler:
Right. Which is why I said London is worth NOT HAVING a mass.
Anyway as an actual Catholic James II had lots of Masses in London.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 06:17:49 PM
How are the Stuarts different from the Tudors in terms of mortality?
the Tudors had six of 12 children outlive their parents. That is a bit different than 0 of 19.
QuoteLike I said, I think politics is what doomed the Stuarts. It is never good to have daughters unseat their father.
Dunno what this means. The Stuart dynasty died because there were no heirs that lived to either Mary II or Anne. That doomed them.
QuoteMaybe, I don't know enough abut the Hapsburbgs. I would say that the Stuart situation is different in that Anne and Mary helped cause the downfall of their house (by unseating the sitting monarch and natural heir).
But the two dynasties were the same in that the lack of heirs (because the heir died in childhood or early adulthood) caused their extinction, not some genetic issues. That was my sole point, and it was in response to the original point of the thread.
The failures of the descendants of Charles I were interesting, and worth discussing, but not central to the original idea of the thread.
I would note that Mary II and Anne had almost nothing whatever to do with the unseating of their father. He brought that on himself (and, given the bizarro world in which all the Stuarts seemed to live, was probably a great thing). The only Stuarts for whom one can feel the slightest sympathy are James VI/I and the two sisters. The two Charleses and James II would have been far better people had they been stillborn or died in childhood, as all of Mary II's and Anne's progeny did.
Cromwell was a wacko, but he was right as far as the Stuarts were concerned.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 07:41:38 PM
the Tudors had six of 12 children outlive their parents. That is a bit different than 0 of 19.
I didn't realize that Anne and Mary were the only Stuarts.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 07:41:38 PMThe Stuart dynasty died because there were no heirs that lived to either Mary II or Anne. That doomed them.
There were available Stuart heirs, parliament decided against them.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 07:41:38 PMBut the two dynasties were the same in that the lack of heirs (because the heir died in childhood or early adulthood) caused their extinction, not some genetic issues. That was my sole point, and it was in response to the original point of the thread.
The failures of the descendants of Charles I were interesting, and worth discussing, but not central to the original idea of the thread.
I recognize that. I was simply interested in discussing the idea that infant/child mortality was a cause of the demise of the dynasties.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 07:41:38 PMI would note that Mary II and Anne had almost nothing whatever to do with the unseating of their father. He brought that on himself (and, given the bizarro world in which all the Stuarts seemed to live, was probably a great thing).
Oh, so the fact that Mary was married to a prince with independent forces / that Anne deserted her father played no role? Ironically(?), James II lost his throne at the precise moment that he supplied a male heir to the throne. Sure, James II provided the motive to oust him, but through Mary came the means.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2009, 07:41:38 PM
Cromwell was a wacko, but he was right as far as the Stuarts were concerned.
I don't know if I feel that way, but perhaps after all my readings, I will.
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2009, 11:57:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2009, 11:53:29 AM
Didn't they start marrying smarter genetically after the Spanish branch died out? They seem to have married minor German dynasties after that.
They still married first-degree cousins, though. Sissi's mother was Franz Joseph's aunt.
Not to mention many of us feel the Emperor Ferdinand I was as, if not more feeble than poor old Carlos II. Ferdy was "retired" for the boy Emperor Franz-Josef in 1848.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 07:49:03 PM
I recognize that. I was simply interested in discussing the idea that infant/child mortality was a cause of the demise of the dynasties.
I thought that you were arguing that the deaths of 19 out of 19 children before their parents wasn't just a matter of chance, but rather something that implies that there was a genetic component to so many infant deaths.
QuoteIronically(?), James II lost his throne at the precise moment that he supplied a male heir to the throne.
My understanding is that he was overthrown precisely because he produced a male heir, because it had previously been believed that he would be followed on the throne by a Protestant relative.
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2009, 07:49:03 PM
I didn't realize that Anne and Mary were the only Stuarts.
Nor did I. Perhaps you need to run the strawman detector over your statement. I bet it goes off.
QuoteThere were available Stuart heirs, parliament decided against them.
As there were available Spanish Habsbug heirs to carlos II who were passed over for political reasons.
QuoteI recognize that. I was simply interested in discussing the idea that infant/child mortality was a cause of the demise of the dynasties.
Which is precisely what I addressed, and which you seem to be ignoring. I repeat: Carlos II had three elder brothers, none of whom outlived their parents. To me, the parallels with the last two, and contemporary, Stuarts seems a sufficient explanation for the demise of the two dynasties. We don't need to rely on dubious genealogical explanations, let alone accept them as "obvious."
QuoteOh, so the fact that Mary was married to a prince with independent forces / that Anne deserted her father played no role?
I smell a strawman! :lol: "Almost no" is not "no role." Parliament would have unseated James II under those circumstances even if Mary and Anne had died in childhood. They would not have replaced him with Mary had she done so, though.
QuoteIronically(?), James II lost his throne at the precise moment that he supplied a male heir to the throne. Sure, James II provided the motive to oust him, but through Mary came the means.
There was no Mary in the decision to unseat Charles I, so I don't see your point. In the case of James II, the need to unseat was even more pressing. There was always the Palatinate descendants of James I to fall back on if no closer degrees of consanguinity could be established.
QuoteI don't know if I feel that way, but perhaps after all my readings, I will.
It is, above all, a fun period to read about.
Quote from: Habsburg on April 15, 2009, 07:54:00 PM
Not to mention many of us feel the Emperor Ferdinand I was as, if not more feeble than poor old Carlos II. Ferdy was "retired" for the boy Emperor Franz-Josef in 1848.
But there were many vigorous emperors between Chuck V and Ferdinand, so I think the whole issue of "Habsburg inbreeding" is overstated in terms of introducing instability. Sure, there were wacko individuals, but, as we have seen, this occurred in the much-less-inbred Stuarts, as well.
In any case, a fascinating study, regardless of our personal conclusions. Let's keep going.
Quote from: dps on April 15, 2009, 08:28:22 PM
My understanding is that he was overthrown precisely because he produced a male heir, because it had previously been believed that he would be followed on the throne by a Protestant relative.
That's what I meant. It's ironic/funny in the context of the conversation that there was a lack of heirs (which in part was because a viable heir became illegitimate).