Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.usage.english > #577126 > unrolled thread

Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter

Back to article view | Back to alt.usage.english

Contents

  Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-26 07:07 +0200
    Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 22:36 -0800
      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-26 11:53 +0200
        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-26 15:21 +0100
          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 09:41 -0500
            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-26 14:53 +0000
              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 11:16 -0800
                Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-26 20:38 +0000
              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 12:07 -0800
              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 14:30 +1100
                Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 20:28 -0800
                Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 22:17 -0800
                Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2015-12-29 11:24 +0000
                  Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-29 12:35 +0100
                    Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2015-12-29 11:51 +0000
                      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-31 18:10 +0100
                        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-31 11:23 -0800
                  Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-29 06:28 -0800
                    Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2015-12-29 14:58 +0000
                      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-29 08:42 -0800
                        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2015-12-29 20:33 +0000
                          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter snidely.too@gmail.com - 2015-12-29 12:38 -0800
                          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-29 14:30 -0800
                            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2015-12-29 22:37 +0000
                            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter snidely.too@gmail.com - 2015-12-29 14:41 -0800
                            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2015-12-29 23:12 +0000
                            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-30 11:47 +1100
                              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter snidely.too@gmail.com - 2015-12-29 17:26 -0800
                              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-29 20:19 -0800
                            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Will Parsons <varro@nodomain.invalid> - 2015-12-30 02:03 +0000
                              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-29 20:23 -0800
                              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-31 18:24 +0100
                                Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 10:12 -0800
                          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-31 18:15 +0100
                  Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-29 16:50 +0000
          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 06:49 -0800
        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 11:38 -0800
          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 11:40 -0800
          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Joe Roberts" <shoreheritage@att.net> - 2015-12-26 17:10 -0500
            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-26 22:37 +0000
              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-27 12:02 +0100
                Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-27 04:59 -0700
                Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> - 2015-12-27 07:11 -0800
                Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-27 16:27 +0000
                  Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-27 18:01 +0100
                    Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2015-12-27 18:51 +0000
                      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-27 17:16 -0330
                        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2015-12-27 21:03 +0000
                          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-27 19:46 -0330
                            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 15:32 -0800
                            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2015-12-28 20:20 +0000
                        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2015-12-27 19:00 -0600
                          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-27 20:10 -0800
                          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-28 08:52 -0330
                            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2015-12-28 18:09 -0600
                    Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 23:37 -0800
                      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-28 11:45 +0000
                        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-28 17:47 +0100
                          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter snidely.too@gmail.com - 2015-12-28 12:31 -0800
                            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-28 22:26 +0100
                        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 14:52 +1100
                      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-28 19:42 +0000
                        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter snidely.too@gmail.com - 2015-12-28 12:06 -0800
                          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-28 21:13 +0000
                        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter snidely.too@gmail.com - 2015-12-28 12:20 -0800
                          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-28 21:16 +0000
                            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-28 22:41 +0100
                              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 14:25 -0800
                              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 15:17 -0800
                            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter snidely.too@gmail.com - 2015-12-28 19:14 -0800
                              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-29 08:13 +0100
                  Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 14:49 +1100
          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-27 02:38 +0200
        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter John Dawkins <artfldodgr@aol.com> - 2015-12-26 12:45 -0800
    Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-26 12:06 +0000
      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-26 20:05 +0200
      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-26 21:22 +0000
        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-27 12:11 +0100
    Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 05:29 -0800
    Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> - 2015-12-26 08:03 -0800
      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-26 20:09 +0200
    Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Joe Roberts" <shoreheritage@att.net> - 2015-12-26 12:02 -0500
      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-26 19:27 +0200
      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 12:09 -0800
        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 12:23 -0800
      Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 09:04 -0500
        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-27 16:56 +0200
          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 08:18 -0800
        Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Joe Roberts" <shoreheritage@att.net> - 2015-12-27 10:54 -0500
          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 12:32 -0500
            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter "Joe Roberts" <shoreheritage@att.net> - 2015-12-27 16:16 -0500
          Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-28 03:22 +0200
            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2015-12-28 12:40 +0000
              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2015-12-28 13:04 -0500
                Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-28 15:49 -0330
              Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-29 06:09 +0200
                Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-28 22:51 -0700
            Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 15:14 +1100
    Re: Shirttail cousins -- blogging's bertter Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 08:17 -0800

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#577397

On 2015-12-26 22:37:30 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <n5n336$1gp$1@dont-email.me>
>   Joe Roberts <shoreheritage@att.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Snidely" wrote:
> 
>>> (grouplist trimmed ... snip for brevity, please see the original post)
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> "What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it? Well 
>>> hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the springs."
>>> (Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
> 
>> Hmmm ...
> 
>> Kissin' cousins, perhaps?
> 
> Maybe, but most people seem to not know what that phrase means. It does
> not mean "cousin you are especially close to" but rather, "cousins it's
> OK to have sex with."

That's to say all cousins, if they're of age, and, in the past, of the 
opposite sex.

athel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577401

On 12/27/2015 4:02 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2015-12-26 22:37:30 +0000, Lewis said:
>
>> In message <n5n336$1gp$1@dont-email.me>
>>   Joe Roberts <shoreheritage@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Kissin' cousins, perhaps?
>>
>> Maybe, but most people seem to not know what that phrase means. It does
>> not mean "cousin you are especially close to" but rather, "cousins it's
>> OK to have sex with."
>
> That's to say all cousins, if they're of age, and, in the past, of the
> opposite sex.

And, in places where the qualifier is necessary, not already married to 
someone else....r

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577427

In article <de9ur3FiehqU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2015-12-26 22:37:30 +0000, Lewis said:
> 
> > In message <n5n336$1gp$1@dont-email.me>
> >   Joe Roberts <shoreheritage@att.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "Snidely" wrote:
> > 
> >>> (grouplist trimmed ... snip for brevity, please see the original post)
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> "What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it? Well 
> >>> hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the springs."
> >>> (Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
> > 
> >> Hmmm ...
> > 
> >> Kissin' cousins, perhaps?
> > 
> > Maybe, but most people seem to not know what that phrase means. It does
> > not mean "cousin you are especially close to" but rather, "cousins it's
> > OK to have sex with."
> 
> That's to say all cousins, if they're of age, and, in the past, of the 
> opposite sex.

My meaning isn't the same as Lewis', but it was never formally defined 
for me, I had to assume the meaning from its use. I thought it had to do 
with how close the relationship was and at some point the persons would 
be greeted with a kiss on the cheek, and others greeted more formally.

It was used around me, I think, but I didn't use it in conversation.

-- 
charles

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577437

In message <de9ur3FiehqU1@mid.individual.net> 
  Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2015-12-26 22:37:30 +0000, Lewis said:

>> In message <n5n336$1gp$1@dont-email.me>
>>   Joe Roberts <shoreheritage@att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> "Snidely" wrote:
>> 
>>>> (grouplist trimmed ... snip for brevity, please see the original post)
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> "What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it? Well 
>>>> hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the springs."
>>>> (Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
>> 
>>> Hmmm ...
>> 
>>> Kissin' cousins, perhaps?
>> 
>> Maybe, but most people seem to not know what that phrase means. It does
>> not mean "cousin you are especially close to" but rather, "cousins it's
>> OK to have sex with."

> That's to say all cousins, if they're of age, and, in the past, of the 
> opposite sex.

No. For many people first cousins are considered too close, and for many
Americans, *any* know cousin relationship is too close.

There was an episode of 30 Rock where two characters who'd been having
sex were disgusted, shocked, and horrified to discover they were
something like 5th cousins.

Yes, I know.

-- 
Belief is one of the most powerful organic forces in the multiverse. It
may not be able to move mountains, exactly. But it can create someone
who can.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577444

On 2015-12-27 16:27:40 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <de9ur3FiehqU1@mid.individual.net>
>   Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-26 22:37:30 +0000, Lewis said:
> 
>>> In message <n5n336$1gp$1@dont-email.me>
>>> Joe Roberts <shoreheritage@att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Snidely" wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> (grouplist trimmed ... snip for brevity, please see the original post)
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> "What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it? Well
>>>>> hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the springs."
>>>>> (Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
>>> 
>>>> Hmmm ...
>>> 
>>>> Kissin' cousins, perhaps?
>>> 
>>> Maybe, but most people seem to not know what that phrase means. It does
>>> not mean "cousin you are especially close to" but rather, "cousins it's
>>> OK to have sex with."
> 
>> That's to say all cousins, if they're of age, and, in the past, of the
>> opposite sex.
> 
> No. For many people first cousins are considered too close,

Not if you've been brought up in the bosom of the Church of England 
they aren't. Charles Darwin's wife Emma was his first cousin.

> and for many
> Americans, *any* know cousin relationship is too close.
> 
> There was an episode of 30 Rock where two characters who'd been having
> sex were disgusted, shocked, and horrified to discover they were
> something like 5th cousins.

I find that absurd.
> 
> Yes, I know.


-- 
athel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577461

In article <deajs0FnmfrU1@mid.individual.net>, acornish@imm.cnrs.fr 
says...
> 
> On 2015-12-27 16:27:40 +0000, Lewis said:
> 
> > In message <de9ur3FiehqU1@mid.individual.net>
> >   Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >> On 2015-12-26 22:37:30 +0000, Lewis said:
> > 
> >>> In message <n5n336$1gp$1@dont-email.me>
> >>> Joe Roberts <shoreheritage@att.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> "Snidely" wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>>> (grouplist trimmed ... snip for brevity, please see the original post)
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> "What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it? Well
> >>>>> hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the springs."
> >>>>> (Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
> >>> 
> >>>> Hmmm ...
> >>> 
> >>>> Kissin' cousins, perhaps?
> >>> 
> >>> Maybe, but most people seem to not know what that phrase means. It does
> >>> not mean "cousin you are especially close to" but rather, "cousins it's
> >>> OK to have sex with."
> > 
> >> That's to say all cousins, if they're of age, and, in the past, of the
> >> opposite sex.
> > 
> > No. For many people first cousins are considered too close,
> 
> Not if you've been brought up in the bosom of the Church of England 
> they aren't. Charles Darwin's wife Emma was his first cousin.

  Queen Victoria married her first cousin Albert, the son of her 
mother's brother. 

   Janet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577493

On 2015-12-27 3:21 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article <deajs0FnmfrU1@mid.individual.net>, acornish@imm.cnrs.fr
> says...
>>
>> On 2015-12-27 16:27:40 +0000, Lewis said:
>>
>>> In message <de9ur3FiehqU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>    Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-12-26 22:37:30 +0000, Lewis said:
>>>
>>>>> In message <n5n336$1gp$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>> Joe Roberts <shoreheritage@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Snidely" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> (grouplist trimmed ... snip for brevity, please see the original post)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> "What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it? Well
>>>>>>> hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the springs."
>>>>>>> (Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kissin' cousins, perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, but most people seem to not know what that phrase means. It does
>>>>> not mean "cousin you are especially close to" but rather, "cousins it's
>>>>> OK to have sex with."
>>>
>>>> That's to say all cousins, if they're of age, and, in the past, of the
>>>> opposite sex.
>>>
>>> No. For many people first cousins are considered too close,
>>
>> Not if you've been brought up in the bosom of the Church of England
>> they aren't. Charles Darwin's wife Emma was his first cousin.
>
>    Queen Victoria married her first cousin Albert, the son of her
> mother's brother.
>

It depends on which part of the bosom of the Church of England you were 
brought up in. I was brought up in what was then called the Church of 
England - it was later called the Anglican Church of Canada - and 
marriage with first cousins was considered as unthinkable as marrying a 
sibling, with marriage with more distant cousins being undesirable at 
the least. And it didn't matter in the least that such marriages were 
not forbidden in the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the prayer book.

What people did back in the UK, especially among the rich who were known 
to have made politically and financially advantageous marriages among 
their kin for years, was irrelevant.

-- 
Cheryl

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577498

In article <deb10rFqvt7U1@mid.individual.net>, cperkins@mun.ca says...
> 
> On 2015-12-27 3:21 PM, Janet wrote:
> > In article <deajs0FnmfrU1@mid.individual.net>, acornish@imm.cnrs.fr
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 2015-12-27 16:27:40 +0000, Lewis said:
> >>
> >>> In message <de9ur3FiehqU1@mid.individual.net>
> >>>    Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >>>> On 2015-12-26 22:37:30 +0000, Lewis said:
> >>>
> >>>>> In message <n5n336$1gp$1@dont-email.me>
> >>>>> Joe Roberts <shoreheritage@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Snidely" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> (grouplist trimmed ... snip for brevity, please see the original post)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> "What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it? Well
> >>>>>>> hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the springs."
> >>>>>>> (Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hmmm ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Kissin' cousins, perhaps?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe, but most people seem to not know what that phrase means. It does
> >>>>> not mean "cousin you are especially close to" but rather, "cousins it's
> >>>>> OK to have sex with."
> >>>
> >>>> That's to say all cousins, if they're of age, and, in the past, of the
> >>>> opposite sex.
> >>>
> >>> No. For many people first cousins are considered too close,
> >>
> >> Not if you've been brought up in the bosom of the Church of England
> >> they aren't. Charles Darwin's wife Emma was his first cousin.
> >
> >    Queen Victoria married her first cousin Albert, the son of her
> > mother's brother.
> >
> 
> It depends on which part of the bosom of the Church of England you were 
> brought up in. I was brought up in what was then called the Church of 
> England - it was later called the Anglican Church of Canada - and 
> marriage with first cousins was considered as unthinkable as marrying a 
> sibling, with marriage with more distant cousins being undesirable at 
> the least. And it didn't matter in the least that such marriages were 
> not forbidden in the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the prayer book.
> 
> What people did back in the UK, especially among the rich who were known 
> to have made politically and financially advantageous marriages among 
> their kin for years, was irrelevant.

  Marriage between first cousins is still legal in UK .

  Janet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577534

On 2015-12-27 5:33 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article <deb10rFqvt7U1@mid.individual.net>, cperkins@mun.ca says...
>>
>> On 2015-12-27 3:21 PM, Janet wrote:

>>>
>>>     Queen Victoria married her first cousin Albert, the son of her
>>> mother's brother.
>>>
>>
>> It depends on which part of the bosom of the Church of England you were
>> brought up in. I was brought up in what was then called the Church of
>> England - it was later called the Anglican Church of Canada - and
>> marriage with first cousins was considered as unthinkable as marrying a
>> sibling, with marriage with more distant cousins being undesirable at
>> the least. And it didn't matter in the least that such marriages were
>> not forbidden in the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the prayer book.
>>
>> What people did back in the UK, especially among the rich who were known
>> to have made politically and financially advantageous marriages among
>> their kin for years, was irrelevant.
>
>    Marriage between first cousins is still legal in UK .
>
>    Janet

It's legal in Canada, too. Has been forever, as far as I know. It is 
just, at least in my part of Canada, regarded with such extreme 
disapproval that it rarely occurs. And that's not because of a religious 
prohibition, at least, not among Anglicans. I have heard the theory that 
the antipathy of cousin marriage is rooted in the eugenics movement, but 
that wasn't particularly strong in my province, and I suspect, although 
I haven't researched the matter, that the disapproval goes back further.

The problems of consanguinity in a population that was traditionally 
dispersed in small isolated villages were known, and may have encouraged 
out-marriage and discouraged marriage between cousins.

-- 
Cheryl

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577536

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 3:16:09 PM UTC-8, Cheryl P wrote:
> On 2015-12-27 5:33 PM, Janet wrote:
> > In article <deb10rFqvt7U1@mid.individual.net>, cperkins@mun.ca says...
> >>
> >> On 2015-12-27 3:21 PM, Janet wrote:
> 
> >>>
> >>>     Queen Victoria married her first cousin Albert, the son of her
> >>> mother's brother.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It depends on which part of the bosom of the Church of England you were
> >> brought up in. I was brought up in what was then called the Church of
> >> England - it was later called the Anglican Church of Canada - and
> >> marriage with first cousins was considered as unthinkable as marrying a
> >> sibling, with marriage with more distant cousins being undesirable at
> >> the least. And it didn't matter in the least that such marriages were
> >> not forbidden in the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the prayer book.
> >>
> >> What people did back in the UK, especially among the rich who were known
> >> to have made politically and financially advantageous marriages among
> >> their kin for years, was irrelevant.
> >
> >    Marriage between first cousins is still legal in UK .
> >
> >    Janet
> 
> It's legal in Canada, too. Has been forever, as far as I know. It is 
> just, at least in my part of Canada, regarded with such extreme 
> disapproval that it rarely occurs. And that's not because of a religious 
> prohibition, at least, not among Anglicans. I have heard the theory that 
> the antipathy of cousin marriage is rooted in the eugenics movement, but 
> that wasn't particularly strong in my province, and I suspect, although 
> I haven't researched the matter, that the disapproval goes back further.
> 
> The problems of consanguinity in a population that was traditionally 
> dispersed in small isolated villages were known, and may have encouraged 
> out-marriage and discouraged marriage between cousins.
 
In some parts of South America the Native Americans practiced tribal
exogamy, In the patrilocal version the men found wives from other tribes
and the women went off some other tribe. An important concern for the
men was (and may still be) that their wives had too little in common to 
combine against them. It did keep the gene pool mixed up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577712

In article <deb9plFt35hU1@mid.individual.net>, Cheryl  <cperkins@mun.ca> wrote:

>>    Marriage between first cousins is still legal in UK .

>It's legal in Canada, too.

And in Shelbyville.

-- Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577541

Cheryl Perkins:
> I was brought up in what was then called the Church of England -
> it was later called the Anglican Church of Canada...

Hmm.  It's not polite to ask a lady her age, but was this in Canada?
If so, do you know when they changed the name?
-- 
Mark Brader, Toronto   |  "I've always wanted to be a mad scientist!
msb@vex.net            |   Or perhaps just mad!"    -- Robert L. Biddle

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577567

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 8:00:28 PM UTC-5, Mark Brader wrote:
> Cheryl Perkins:

> > I was brought up in what was then called the Church of England -
> > it was later called the Anglican Church of Canada...
> 
> Hmm.  It's not polite to ask a lady her age, but was this in Canada?
> If so, do you know when they changed the name?

It was in Newfoundland, of course. Which, you may recall, wasn't part of 
Canada until 1949.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577631

On 2015-12-27 9:30 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Cheryl Perkins:
>> I was brought up in what was then called the Church of England -
>> it was later called the Anglican Church of Canada...
>
> Hmm.  It's not polite to ask a lady her age, but was this in Canada?
> If so, do you know when they changed the name?
>

I had to look it up - 1955. In rural Newfoundland, "Church of England" 
or "C or E" was in common use well after this year. I can't remember 
specific dates, but it must have been 5 or 10 years later that I heard 
that we weren't supposed to be using C of E any more.

-- 
Cheryl

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577757

Mark Brader:
> > ... do you know when they changed the name?
 
Cheryl Perkins:
> I had to look it up - 1955.

Thanks.
-- 
Mark Brader | "...people continue to wish that C were something it is not,
Toronto     |  not realizing that if C were what they thought they wanted
msb@vex.net |  it to be, it would never have succeeded and they wouldn't
            |  be using it in the first place."           -- Steve Summit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577583

On Sunday, Athel Cornish-Bowden pointed out that ...
> On 2015-12-27 16:27:40 +0000, Lewis said:

>> No. For many people first cousins are considered too close,
>
> Not if you've been brought up in the bosom of the Church of England they 
> aren't. Charles Darwin's wife Emma was his first cousin.

Which appears to have contributed to their offspring's ill health.  "Of 
the ten Darwin children, most were sickly.  Three proved infertile as 
adults, and three died young, roughly double the child mortality rate 
in England."  Kean, _The Violinist's Thumb_, pg 251

"While most children born to first cousins are healthy (well north of 
90 percent), they do have higher risks for birth defects and medical 
problems, and the numbers can creep higher still in unlucky families."
(ibid)

/dps


/dps

-- 
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really 
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.  
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577623

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 23:37:14 -0800, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, Athel Cornish-Bowden pointed out that ...
>> On 2015-12-27 16:27:40 +0000, Lewis said:
>
>>> No. For many people first cousins are considered too close,
>>
>> Not if you've been brought up in the bosom of the Church of England they 
>> aren't. Charles Darwin's wife Emma was his first cousin.
>
>Which appears to have contributed to their offspring's ill health.  "Of 
>the ten Darwin children, most were sickly.  Three proved infertile as 
>adults, and three died young, roughly double the child mortality rate 
>in England."  Kean, _The Violinist's Thumb_, pg 251
>
>"While most children born to first cousins are healthy (well north of 
>90 percent), they do have higher risks for birth defects and medical 
>problems, and the numbers can creep higher still in unlucky families."
>(ibid)
>
It's a miracle that humans exist considering that our shared ancestor,
Adam, produced children with Eve who wasn't a cousin or sister but was
made from his own body. He reproduced using a separated part of himself,
allegedly.

That's extreme consanguinity.



-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577682

On 2015-12-28 11:45:27 +0000, Peter Duncanson [BrE] said:

> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 23:37:14 -0800, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sunday, Athel Cornish-Bowden pointed out that ...
>>> On 2015-12-27 16:27:40 +0000, Lewis said:
>> 
>>>> No. For many people first cousins are considered too close,
>>> 
>>> Not if you've been brought up in the bosom of the Church of England they
>>> aren't. Charles Darwin's wife Emma was his first cousin.
>> 
>> Which appears to have contributed to their offspring's ill health.  "Of
>> the ten Darwin children, most were sickly.  Three proved infertile as
>> adults, and three died young, roughly double the child mortality rate
>> in England."  Kean, _The Violinist's Thumb_, pg 251
>> 
>> "While most children born to first cousins are healthy (well north of
>> 90 percent), they do have higher risks for birth defects and medical
>> problems, and the numbers can creep higher still in unlucky families."
>> (ibid)
>> 
> It's a miracle that humans exist considering that our shared ancestor,
> Adam, produced children with Eve who wasn't a cousin or sister but was
> made from his own body. He reproduced using a separated part of himself,
> allegedly.
> 
> That's extreme consanguinity.

Yes, but before they sinned there were no harmful mutations.

More seriously, the Pharoahs seemed to have gone through quite a few 
generations of brother-sister unions while still producing viable 
offspring.

Highly inbred strains of animals like rats are very widely used in 
laboratories, and although they wouldn't survive in the wild they can 
be quite healthy in laboratory conditions.

-- 
athel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577715

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 8:47:23 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2015-12-28 11:45:27 +0000, Peter Duncanson [BrE] said:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 23:37:14 -0800, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sunday, Athel Cornish-Bowden pointed out that ...
> >>> On 2015-12-27 16:27:40 +0000, Lewis said:

> >>>> No. For many people first cousins are considered too close,
> >>> 
> >>> Not if you've been brought up in the bosom of the Church of England they
> >>> aren't. Charles Darwin's wife Emma was his first cousin.
> >> 
> >> Which appears to have contributed to their offspring's ill health.  "Of
> >> the ten Darwin children, most were sickly.  Three proved infertile as
> >> adults, and three died young, roughly double the child mortality rate
> >> in England."  Kean, _The Violinist's Thumb_, pg 251
> >> 
> >> "While most children born to first cousins are healthy (well north of
> >> 90 percent), they do have higher risks for birth defects and medical
> >> problems, and the numbers can creep higher still in unlucky families."
> >> (ibid)
> >> 
> > It's a miracle that humans exist considering that our shared ancestor,
> > Adam, produced children with Eve who wasn't a cousin or sister but was
> > made from his own body. He reproduced using a separated part of himself,
> > allegedly.
> > 
> > That's extreme consanguinity.
> 
> Yes, but before they sinned there were no harmful mutations.
> 
> More seriously, the Pharoahs seemed to have gone through quite a few 
> generations of brother-sister unions while still producing viable 
> offspring.
> 
> Highly inbred strains of animals like rats are very widely used in 
> laboratories, and although they wouldn't survive in the wild they can 
> be quite healthy in laboratory conditions.
> 

I'm not sure about the Pharoahs' rate child mortality and birth defects,
but there was a break in lineage after King Tut,
whose offspring didn't last long (5 months and 7 months).
Tut himself had both the family clubfoot and cleft palate.
I'd have to do some research to determine how often different branches
took over in the various dynasties.

The Hawaiian royalty also practiced brother-sister marriage,
but were reportedly quite aggressive about removing birth defects.
I don't have any real documentation about that, though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577723

On 2015-12-28 20:31:02 +0000, snidely.too@gmail.com said:

> On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 8:47:23 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2015-12-28 11:45:27 +0000, Peter Duncanson [BrE] said:
>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 23:37:14 -0800, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, Athel Cornish-Bowden pointed out that ...
>>>>> On 2015-12-27 16:27:40 +0000, Lewis said:
> 
>>>>>> No. For many people first cousins are considered too close,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not if you've been brought up in the bosom of the Church of England they
>>>>> aren't. Charles Darwin's wife Emma was his first cousin.
>>>> 
>>>> Which appears to have contributed to their offspring's ill health.  "Of
>>>> the ten Darwin children, most were sickly.  Three proved infertile as
>>>> adults, and three died young, roughly double the child mortality rate
>>>> in England."  Kean, _The Violinist's Thumb_, pg 251
>>>> 
>>>> "While most children born to first cousins are healthy (well north of
>>>> 90 percent), they do have higher risks for birth defects and medical
>>>> problems, and the numbers can creep higher still in unlucky families."
>>>> (ibid)
>>>> 
>>> It's a miracle that humans exist considering that our shared ancestor,
>>> Adam, produced children with Eve who wasn't a cousin or sister but was
>>> made from his own body. He reproduced using a separated part of himself,
>>> allegedly.
>>> 
>>> That's extreme consanguinity.
>> 
>> Yes, but before they sinned there were no harmful mutations.
>> 
>> More seriously, the Pharoahs seemed to have gone through quite a few
>> generations of brother-sister unions while still producing viable
>> offspring.
>> 
>> Highly inbred strains of animals like rats are very widely used in
>> laboratories, and although they wouldn't survive in the wild they can
>> be quite healthy in laboratory conditions.
>> 
> 
> I'm not sure about the Pharoahs' rate child mortality and birth defects,

Well yes, I chose my word carefully: "viable" doesn't mean healthy and 
free of defects.

In the case of laboratory strains of ratd, I'm sure they didn't just 
choose any pair of albino rats and breed from them but instead bred 
from the lines that survived the early generations in reasonable shape.

However, the wild golden hamsters found in Israel are thought to be 
descendants from a very small family group, and are apparently good at 
surviving. Golden hamsters kept as pets elsewhere have been claimed to 
be descendants of a single pair.

> but there was a break in lineage after King Tut,
> whose offspring didn't last long (5 months and 7 months).
> Tut himself had both the family clubfoot and cleft palate.
> I'd have to do some research to determine how often different branches
> took over in the various dynasties.

On Christmas Day we were watching the whole of a Canadian-American 
series about Tutankhamon. I believe its original title was just "Tut", 
which would have ensured that I wouldn't watch it, but here it was 
called "Toutânkhamon : Le Pharaon maudit". It wasn't very good, but I 
was feeling quite ill on Christmas Day (not from eating too much, 
because we didn't) and it passed the time. It was too much of a modern 
soap opera, but I did wonder how much, if anything, was based on 
historical fact. His club foot wasn't much in evidence, and didn't 
prevent him from playing a very active role in a war.
> 
> The Hawaiian royalty also practiced brother-sister marriage,
> but were reportedly quite aggressive about removing birth defects.
> I don't have any real documentation about that, though.


-- 
athel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.usage.english

csiph-web