Jayson’s Reviews > Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life > Status Update

Old habits die hard. Historically, Royals have always loved marrying their cousins in order to maintain strong lineages and political alliances. Even first cousins weren't off limits.
It's.... troubling by modern standards.

Jonathan wrote: "Old habits die hard. Historically, Royals have always loved marrying their cousins in order to maintain strong lineages and political alliances. Even first cousins weren't off limits.
It's.... trou..."

Well, it's not just limited to royals. Cousin-marriages are quite common in Muslim countries and certain parts of Africa as well, preferred in many cases. Even in the west, for example, more than half of British Pakistanis marry their first cousin. In my part of the world, it's not uncommon for Sikhs to marry their first cousin. Albert Einstein married his first cousin. Franklin Roosevelt married a cousin. It's more common than you'd think.

Absolutely, I wasn't limiting it to Royals, just keeping in context with your post :) I didn't know about Einstein! Fascinating!

Jonathan wrote: "Absolutely, I wasn't limiting it to Royals, just keeping in context with your post :) I didn't know about Einstein! Fascinating!"

Oh, I get what you're saying. Just, when you mentioned that it's troubling by today's standards, my question would be, which standards? From a European and New World perspective, sure, but elsewhere there are sections of the world where it's still common practice and convention in modern times.

The thing with Einstein was that he never had any children with his second wife, so genetic issues wouldn't be a problem, only social complications with marrying his cousin.

Troubling purely with regard to social palateability from a Western lense as it was in context to the British Royal Family.
I have to admit, my natural and honest reaction, influenced by what might be an unfortunate Western prejudice, is that it's a bit cringey. On the other hand, I believe strongly in the idea of 'each to their own' and am always looking to shed my culturally inherited preconceptions of what is "normal".

Jonathan wrote: "Troubling purely with regard to social palateability from a Western lense as it was in context to the British Royal Family.
I have to admit, my natural and honest reaction, influenced by what might..."

Well, the British Royal Family isn't unique in that respect. If anything, they follow along with current social trends. As I've mentioned earlier, second-cousin marriages were quite common from a Western perspective in the 40s, which is why Elizabeth and Philip got married with no concern about it. Even up to the 80s, when Charles was involved with his second-cousin Amanda, no one really batted an eyelid. Of course, now it would be an issue, and in that senese, the British Royals can be seen as a microcosm of British social attitudes at large.

To give another example, the idea that Edward VII could have a great number of affairs and still be considered a suitable heir to the throne was perfectly fine at the time, provided he could keep a lid on it. The mere hint of it in the modern sense would be enough to disqualify any heir on the grounds of public dishonor and moral compromise.

All things considered, it wouldn't be a Western prejudice that makes you feel it's cringy, but a modern prejudice.

Good examples, and excellent point on the Social Microcosm. Enjoy the rest of the book! :)

Jonathan wrote: "Good examples, and excellent point on the Social Microcosm. Enjoy the rest of the book! :)"

Thanks, I appreciate it.