Charles Darwin

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Well I just found out he married his first cousin. Ironic isn't it... The man who talked about mutual ancestors liked to keep it in the family :pac:

His mother's parents were third cousins too for example. It was not uncommon at the time. There was something of a tradition for marriage between the Darwins and the Wedgwoods long before Charles was born. In fact it was not uncommon in prominent Victorian English families to maintain such dynasties.

In fact it was his own work breeding plants that led him to begin to worry that his own marriage might have led to some of the problems his children had. While three of his kids went on to get knighthoods, another three died. One of them from TB if I recall.

So the irony is a little reversed on what you describe. It was his work on shared ancestry that led him to begin question his families tradition of "keeping it in the family". It was not that HE liked to do so as you suggested.

And the question plagued him it seems. Although he knew nothing of genes, he was certainly ahead of his time in linking his floral observations to his own families issues.

We have learnt much more about the effects of inbreeding, especially long term over generations, since then. It is hard to say if his marriage was to blame for anything in his children though. Anyone can catch TB. He himself was always a "sickly" man so it could well be that he was never good breeding stock no matter whom he himself ended up marrying.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

His mother's parents were third cousins too for example. It was not uncommon at the time. There was something of a tradition for marriage between the Darwins and the Wedgwoods long before Charles was born. In fact it was not uncommon in prominent Victorian English families to maintain such dynasties.

In fact it was his own work breeding plants that led him to begin to worry that his own marriage might have led to some of the problems his children had. While three of his kids went on to get knighthoods, another three died. One of them from TB if I recall.

So the irony is a little reversed on what you describe. It was his work on shared ancestry that led him to begin question his families tradition of "keeping it in the family". It was not that HE liked to do so as you suggested.

And the question plagued him it seems. Although he knew nothing of genes, he was certainly ahead of his time in linking his floral observations to his own families issues.

We have learnt much more about the effects of inbreeding, especially long term over generations, since then. It is hard to say if his marriage was to blame for anything in his children though. Anyone can catch TB. He himself was always a "sickly" man so it could well be that he was never good breeding stock no matter whom he himself ended up marrying.

He was a noted hypochondriac that rarely got out of bed in his later years unless he had to.

blackbox wrote: »

Oops - I misread that as nymphomaniac!

Forget what I wrote, you're version is likely far more entertaining. Please proceed.