Ship of Fools: Of what use is an hereditary BLOODLINE?

Thread: Of what use is an hereditary BLOODLINE? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025493

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

Inherited skills, gifts and propensities?

Do they have VALUE in civil society?

Would leadership qualities convey? Or not?

For example, the Bach family, in music.

The bloodline of Pharoah.

The Stuarts or the Windsors?

What is the value of a bloodline?

EEWC

[ 22. June 2013, 01:03: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

What is the value of a bloodline?

EEWC

Not sure I know what you're on about or looking for, but the short answer I'd offer is: bloodlines mean very little. Allegedly I have an ancestor who came to Massachusetts on the Mayflower. I also have a relative who seems to think this makes her "a cut above" and has rested on this social laurel for much of her adult life.

Why? Don't ask me. It's not as if she were the one cutting jibs or whatever they do on 17th-century sailing vessels.

The other issue is that I'm not at all sure we've really sorted out what's inherited vs. what's learned, though skills, at least among humans, are almost certainly not passed on through bloodlines.

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The other issue is that I'm not at all sure we've really sorted out what's inherited vs. what's learned, though skills, at least among humans, are almost certainly not passed on through bloodlines.

Okay, so let's sort it out.

What I know from my experience is that I have ABSOLUTELY nothing in common with the people who reared me, who brought me to maturity.

Nothing. I have everything in common with the father I never met who died when I was 28.

His writings and his contacts mean everything to me, and what happened prior mean nothing.

How can that be, if bloodline has no meaning?

EEWC

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

Let's just go to WHAT IF.

WHAT IF a Soul is ASSIGNED to a bloodline based on its compatibility with character and skillsets?

AND WHAT IF functions in Leadership are associated with bloodline skillsets?

What would that imply for human and Earthbound Leadership?

Where leadership goes wrong--goes to EGO--what does that say about the Feedback that Leadership happens to get from the People over whom they REIGN?

I guess my question is transforming before my eyes.

What if, HOW the Cosmos administer a Planet is through the skillful leadership of a single bloodline ... rather than by, what is POPULAR OR PREFERRED by a single generation?

EEW

[ 21. June 2013, 00:11: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I don't believe that there is any use or value in a "bloodline", particularly in the New World we all move around so much nobody is aware of others' ancestry and nobody cares.

With inherited traits, or skills etc they are useful if they serve some purpose and particularly if somebody is prepared to pay you for exercising them. Whether they are inherited, learnt or a gift from God is open for debate and will differ from case to case.

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

--So, who do you want to administer the planet--

--stupefied bureaucrats?

--the Rich who operate by Preferences?

--the Outcast who operate by Fear?

--the techno-phobe who operate by Not-Seeing suffering?

--the tricky who operate by influence and nepotism?

--the idealistic who opeerate by dogma and doctrine?

Who do you want running this world?

Just asking.

EEWC

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I don't believe that there is any use or value in a "bloodline", particularly in the New World we all move around so much nobody is aware of others' ancestry and nobody cares.

With inherited traits, or skills etc they are useful if they serve some purpose and particularly if somebody is prepared to pay you for exercising them. Whether they are inherited, learnt or a gift from God is open for debate and will differ from case to case.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

How much of our life is nature, and how much is nurture? The world of psychology certainly has explored and continues to explore this. Genetic science is still trying to sort out the issue, and constantly making gains. We do know that biological parents can and do pass down certain genetic tendencies. I have certainly heard of parents of children who have Asperger having an a-ha moment for themselves later in life, as they learn about their child. I have seen families where a natural aptitude for music seems to be inborn.

When it comes to leadership positions, we have to factor in the 'nurture' aspect as well. Just because a descendent of Bach is applying for a position as organist at St. Peter's Basilica doesn't mean he is automatically more qualified for it than somebody who has been studying organ for fifteen years and has a clearly musical family heritage, but not the Bach ancestry.

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

what you appear to be saying is that Causes-and-Effects are more powerful than DNA-programming at the outset.

My Life testifies to "knocking nurture completely out of the picture," because as an orphan, a foster child, an adopted child--I completely internalized my hereditary DNA and completely rejected what was being "entrained" in me.

completely and totally, 100%,.

I am so unlike my adopted family, by the time my adopted mother died, I had absolutely nothing to do with any of her relatives nor considered myself a part of their culture.

On the other hand, since the age of 9 I have been studying, integrating and incorporating my father's way of thinking into my own ... even though, I never met him during his life ...

and my offspring, my children, ALL OPERATE the way he did.

"Nurture" equalled ZERO in my case.

EEWC

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
How much of our life is nature, and how much is nurture? The world of psychology certainly has explored and continues to explore this. Genetic science is still trying to sort out the issue, and constantly making gains. We do know that biological parents can and do pass down certain genetic tendencies. I have certainly heard of parents of children who have Asperger having an a-ha moment for themselves later in life, as they learn about their child. I have seen families where a natural aptitude for music seems to be inborn.

When it comes to leadership positions, we have to factor in the 'nurture' aspect as well. Just because a descendent of Bach is applying for a position as organist at St. Peter's Basilica doesn't mean he is automatically more qualified for it than somebody who has been studying organ for fifteen years and has a clearly musical family heritage, but not the Bach ancestry.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

Actually given all the advantages the Windsors have such as the wealth and social position to get the best education, they are a remarkably middling lot. Apparently not a single top notch scientist, scholar, musician, painter, or writer amongst the lot.

Some families do tend to produce more than the expected number of outstanding people but they also tend to have the wealth to provide the best education and a good start, an expectation of excellence, and the social connections in the relevant field to also help in that start. Ignoring bloodlines and just adopting the most promising unrelated people would probably be even more effective (note for the best run of good Roman Emperors, Nerva through Marcus Aurelius, each adopted his successor [probably because none except the last had sons]; the first son to inherit was a disaster though his bloodlines were impeccable).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Research* and observation seem to concur that nature and nurture combined make us what we are. Not necessarily a 50/50 ratio and not necessarily the same bias for each individual.
As to the royal bloodlines, there might be factors which compete negatively with the inherited advantages of wealth and education.

*In aggregate.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Bloodlines rarely predict talent, only a likelihood for having inherited riches.

The genius founder of a bloodline is usually followed by descendants who revert to the mean. There was an article about college admissions of alumni children in the New York Times a few months ago which discussed this.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I would have thought European monarchies (I'm looking at you, Hapsburgs) are a good illustration of how trusting to bloodline can all go Terribly Wrong.

I can see temperamental similarities in myself and females of my family going back two generations (before that I don't have the data). But our life outcomes have been very different because of the social circumstances - education, mobility, world wars, technology - that we happened to encounter.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

"Bloodline" is mystical rubbish. The blood carries nothing to be passed on. (I did abstain from an argument with a dear evangelical friend who held to a belief that Jesus had to be the child of a virgin because the blood was inherited from the father, and only thus could His blood be capable of redeeming us.)

We have 46 chromosomes. There's a certain amount of juggling about, but roughly speaking, once one has gone back enough generations that there are more than 46 people involved, there's no guarantee that any one of those people has contributed anything to the descendant. This is six generations, or a couple of centuries or so.

In the case of royal families (which take this thing seriously, and act as if the male dominates the inheritance), with all their inbreeding, it's probably more likely that any particular person further back in the tree has contributed. For the rest of us, it doesn't mean much if we go back to the middle ages and claim that we are probably descended from one king or other.

Bloodline is a meaningless concept.

Though I dare say her Maj might argue differently with regard to her horse, today.

[ 21. June 2013, 07:35: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Actually given all the advantages the Windsors have such as the wealth and social position to get the best education, they are a remarkably middling lot. Apparently not a single top notch scientist, scholar, musician, painter, or writer amongst the lot.

I suspect that success is a combination of opportunity, means and motivation. Brenda's mob have the means but living a life of guaranteed freedom from poverty means that they don't necessarily have the opportunity or much in the way of motivation. Too many distractions, not enough drive.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The other issue is that I'm not at all sure we've really sorted out what's inherited vs. what's learned, though skills, at least among humans, are almost certainly not passed on through bloodlines.

This is true. However, there is a kind of value in hereditary positions because the postholder can be taught how to fill the post properly from birth. It's not that there's anything intrinsic to their blood or genes that makes them better at it, it's the simple fact that they've had far better and more extensive training in the role.

For example, someone who has been trained from birth to be a blacksmith is going to be a far better blacksmith than someone who only took it up at the age of 25. It's nothing to do with inherited traits, just education.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I would have thought European monarchies (I'm looking at you, Hapsburgs) are a good illustration of how trusting to bloodline can all go Terribly Wrong.

The Hapsburgs valued their bloodline and power so much that they kept getting dispensations for uncles to marry nieces. There were many bad genes in the bloodline, including genes for insanity. The result was a genetic nightmare.

Moo

Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The other issue is that I'm not at all sure we've really sorted out what's inherited vs. what's learned, though skills, at least among humans, are almost certainly not passed on through bloodlines.
This is true. However, there is a kind of value in hereditary positions because the postholder can be taught how to fill the post properly from birth. It's not that there's anything intrinsic to their blood or genes that makes them better at it, it's the simple fact that they've had far better and more extensive training in the role.

For example, someone who has been trained from birth to be a blacksmith is going to be a far better blacksmith than someone who only took it up at the age of 25. It's nothing to do with inherited traits, just education.

And not just education - someone who has been handling the tools from childhood is going to develop the physique to go with them. I remember seeing a documentary about a girl who grew up with a monkey for a best friend in her formative years who has a physique very much adapted to climbing - very lean and metabolically efficient, greater armspan than expected for her height and the ability to do single-finger pull-ups. There was also, I believe, a characteristic triangular torso-shape among English longbowmen that they developed as a result of being trained to use longbows from childhood.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The other issue is that I'm not at all sure we've really sorted out what's inherited vs. what's learned, though skills, at least among humans, are almost certainly not passed on through bloodlines.
This is true. However, there is a kind of value in hereditary positions because the postholder can be taught how to fill the post properly from birth. It's not that there's anything intrinsic to their blood or genes that makes them better at it, it's the simple fact that they've had far better and more extensive training in the role.

For example, someone who has been trained from birth to be a blacksmith is going to be a far better blacksmith than someone who only took it up at the age of 25. It's nothing to do with inherited traits, just education.

Yeah, but if we suggested that a bloke in Whitehall somewhere should blindfold himself and randomly choose a child from a list of birth registrations who would be trained to be head of state in 40 years time based entirely on the random lottery everyone'd think we'd jumped the shark. Overall I prefer democracy.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
What I know from my experience is that I have ABSOLUTELY nothing in common with the people who reared me, who brought me to maturity.

Nothing. I have everything in common with the father I never met who died when I was 28.

His writings and his contacts mean everything to me, and what happened prior mean nothing.

How can that be, if bloodline has no meaning?

It could be by chance. One data point doesn't prove much!

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
What I know from my experience is that I have ABSOLUTELY nothing in common with the people who reared me, who brought me to maturity.

Nothing. I have everything in common with the father I never met who died when I was 28.

His writings and his contacts mean everything to me, and what happened prior mean nothing.

How can that be, if bloodline has no meaning?
It could be by chance. One data point doesn't prove much!

Apart from the fact that she believes with all sincerity that her father is King Edward VIII; by virtue of the fact that he and her mother happened to be around 20 miles from each other at the occasion of her conception.

I don't know if that is a data point at all.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
However, there is a kind of value in hereditary positions because the postholder can be taught how to fill the post properly from birth. It's not that there's anything intrinsic to their blood or genes that makes them better at it, it's the simple fact that they've had far better and more extensive training in the role.

Potentially yes, but historically this is not always the case. The best rulers seem to have been ones who have not grown up expecting to rule as a birthright, but had their duties thrust upon them by an abdication or death, or by virtue of their own efforts. I would cite George VI, Elizabeth I and II, Henry VII, (and even VIII if you ignore his personal life), William I and III as examples. All of them got the crown through (ill)fortune or by merit. Whereas those born within an established stable dynasty could often turn out weak, inept, or both.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

and my offspring, my children, ALL OPERATE the way he did.

How do you know that, having never met him once?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What's "heritary"? Do you mean "hereditary"?

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
"Bloodline" is mystical rubbish. The blood carries nothing to be passed on.

You are mistaking etymology for meaning.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I have mental illness and suicide on one side of my 'bloodline' and heart disease on the other.

My sister and i are pleased to have outlived both our parents.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
.....The best rulers .....William I ...

A.k.a Guillaume le Batarde. And he was, in all senses of the term. In the opinion of many, a disaster for my country.

I don't doubt his ability, though.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
Apart from the fact that she believes with all sincerity that her father is King Edward VIII; by virtue of the fact that he and her mother happened to be around 20 miles from each other at the occasion of her conception.

I don't know if that is a data point at all.

Ah. I hadn't made it that far into her writing. That ties everything together.

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
...Jesus' teachings are still the best, and hardest in the short-term to abide by. But i think His approach is the best, along with Common Laws (against Harm, Deceit, Waste and Undue Cost) which His Father YHVH gave to Israel first, and then to the British.

quote:
Originally posted at http://www.holyconservancy.org/liafailstone.htm:

These two letters are "aleph" and "tau", and in the original Hebrew alphabet aleph appears as a diagonal cross (x) and tau as an upright cross (+). Thus, when combined as a symbol to express the idea of the Eternal God, they would appear like the protective mark referred to above, which is identical with the crossed cross of Britannia's shield (Britannia symbolises the ancient sixth century B.C. "War Queen of Ireland" - queen Teia Tephi holding the Olive from Jerusalem and the Trident she took from Neptune's Porch (Gibraltar) on her way to Ireland); the flags of the Celtic / Israelites in Northern Spain and Christ's flag the Union Jack.

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

Elites. Bloodlines beginning with Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Jacob, etc., through the twelve tribes of that racial group ... who utilized crusades to enrich themselves with Babylonian banking practices, namely the Templars ... who then became the founding 300 families of Europe and who today own most of the world (they think). Elites today are industrialists, bankers and coupon-clipping globalists.

quote:
Originally posted at http://www.holyconservancy.org/protocol.pdf:

WORLD CONQUEST THROUGH WORLD
"JEWISH" GOVERNMENT
THE PROTOCOLS
OF THE "LEARNED ELDERS
OF ZION"
THIS IS REAL; IT IS "ALIEN"
HOW ALPHA DRACONIS RUN
MARS
~BY LAW~
This is the New World Order

Space Age British Israelism, of course!

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I thought Edward the 8th was an authoritarian facist ?

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

I think all of us have some things in common with each other. In fact one of the things people often do when meeting is to try and match up how they are alike. "Oh you like lemon flavor, I love lemon pie." So if we are interested in someone we look for ways that we are alike. As to not feeling that one fits in with the family in which they were raised, I think that can be true if a natural or adopted child.

I would guess we are a bit of both. Nature and Nurture as it were. I think twin studies have shown that to be true. Twins raised by two different families share some things in common.

The bottom line is what we do with what we have been given. In the end we are each responsible in how we choose to live our life, if Grandma came over on the Mayflower or in steerage. It does not really matter.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Inherited skills, gifts and propensities?

Do they have VALUE in civil society?

Would leadership qualities convey? Or not?

For example, the Bach family, in music.

The bloodline of Pharoah.

The Stuarts or the Windsors?

What is the value of a bloodline?

EEWC

Over rated. Looking at your examples:

There were quite a few musically talented Bach's. However, it is fair to say that none of them were quite up to the level of Johann Sebastian and it isn't as if there's a present day Bach knocking out Brandenburg Concerti.

There were 31 Dynasties in Ancient Egypt plus the Macedonians and several intermediate periods and within these dynasties there were often shifts between families. There was some cultural continuity between Menes and Cleopatra. Dynastic community there was none.

Finally, James II was deposed in 1688 in favour of his son in law and daughter, then his second daughter. His son was overlooked in favour of the House of Hanover which became the house of Saxe-Coburg Gotha when Victoria married Albert which subsequently changed its name to Windsor during World War I (The Kaiser demonstrated that there is no truth in the rumour that Germans have no sense of humour when he remarked that he looked forward to a production of 'The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg Gotha'. Subsequently Edward Windsor was deposed for wishing to marry a divorcee in favour of his brother. Part of the stability of the British Crown derives from the Hanoverians/ Saxe-Coburg Goths/ Windsors tending to be dutiful and prepared to leave the major decisions to parliament but there's no reason to suppose that had Queen Anne, poor woman, had better luck in the heredity stakes (11 children, none of whom made it into puberty) that her descendants would have managed worse than the Hanoverians.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I thought Edward the 8th was an authoritarian facist ?

Pretty much. Or, as EW-C's website puts it, he 'DISSENTED FROM GLOBAL ZIONISM!'

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

Quite frankly, given the fact that my ancestors were mostly a bunch of racist bastards who never missed an opportunity to violently oppress someone who didn't look like them, I'm hoping this whole bloodline stuff is a crock of shit.

On another note, I should mention that there are historical figures I'm rather fond of. Some of them, I even feel an affinity for, and think I might have something in common with. Does this mean I'm descended from them? Of course not! Many of them were celibate anyway, or at least never had children who survived them. I think it's possible to feel a sort of kinship, a recognition of certain traits, across time and space, but without being descended from someone.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

it's all bullshit.

I come from a very "respectable" bloodline - all sorts of important people who did important things and many in this generation doing those important things and it's all very special.

We also have a buttload of genetically-related diseases and are generally pretty much a line of lemons. If my forebears hadn't had some money we'd probably have died off eons ago.

We do have a lot of "traits" that run in the family, but I think it's all nurture. Eccentric people raise eccentric kids. I have a sister who was put up for adoption, whom we just met 6 or so years ago. She's lovely. She looks a lot like my dad. And she's very different from us. She's terribly normal.

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I thought Edward the 8th was an authoritarian facist ?
Pretty much. Or, as EW-C's website puts it, he 'DISSENTED FROM GLOBAL ZIONISM!'

Yes, beginning in the 20s he saw the heavy hand of bureaucracy as very oppressive.

And he gave up everything he ever had, to get away from it.

His whole life was a testimony to Libertarianism, getting out from under the heavy hand of elitism.

But the reason he got free was not of his own making; his father set up the relationship with Wallis [MI-5 agent in WWI] through Eliz-Bowes-Lyons circle of friends.

Nobody has ever been told the real story. ... Someday I will ... after I get access to his will, medical records and diaries, which I have been requesting for some twenty years now.

EEWC

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I thought Edward the 8th was an authoritarian facist ?
Pretty much. Or, as EW-C's website puts it, he 'DISSENTED FROM GLOBAL ZIONISM!'
Yes, beginning in the 20s he saw the heavy hand of bureaucracy as very oppressive.

And he gave up everything he ever had, to get away from it.

His whole life was a testimony to Libertarianism, getting out from under the heavy hand of elitism.

But the reason he got free was not of his own making; his father set up the relationship with Wallis [MI-5 agent in WWI] through Eliz-Bowes-Lyons circle of friends.

Nobody has ever been told the real story. ... Someday I will ... after I get access to his will, medical records and diaries, which I have been requesting for some twenty years now.

EEWC

Is this is a wind up or have you been drinking with MI6 again?

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

When someone makes an affirmative statement about my dad which is fundamentally false, I feel I ought to contribute a rejoinder.

Is that okay with you?

EEWC

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Emily
...But the reason he got free was not of his own making; his father set up the relationship with Wallis [MI-5 agent in WWI] through Eliz-Bowes-Lyons circle of friends.

FYI: MI5 has been concerned only with domestic and non-military security from before the outbreak of World War I. Wallis Warfield (as she was in 1914) would not have been able to be any kind of agent or operative for MI5 by virtue of the fact that she was a foreign citizen.

Plus Wallis didn't travel outside the USA until the early 1920s. In 1914 and 1915 she did the Baltimore "season" as a debutante - easy to track by looking through the reports of "society" events. In April 1916 she moved to Florida, staying with a distant cousin (Corinne Mustin) and there she met husband #1, Earl Winfield Spencer, a US Navy pilot; they married in November 1916. Spencer wasn't posted oversseas in WWI and after the Armistice he was posted to the Far East. Wallis's period in China is well-documented.

Her first trip to Europe (summer 1927) was made with an aunt. She first came to London in 1928 - to marry Ernest Simpson - and the Duke and Duchess of York had departed on their Empire Tour before she arrived.

As for Wallis Simpson being part of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons's circle [Ultra confused]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Emily
When someone makes an affirmative statement about my dad which is fundamentally false, I feel I ought to contribute a rejoinder.

And your "dad" is???

Still trying to convince it was Edward VIII? Well, even though the USA was well-away from most of the business end of WWII it was still not that simple for US citizens to travel outside the landmass - and the Bahamas were not then (nor are they now) part of the USA. Civilian air traffic was restricted and heavily monitored.

At the relevant period (June 1943) the Duke of Windsor remained in the islands - his whereabouts are well-documented.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
What I know from my experience is that I have ABSOLUTELY nothing in common with the people who reared me, who brought me to maturity.

Nothing. I have everything in common with the father I never met who died when I was 28.

His writings and his contacts mean everything to me, and what happened prior mean nothing.

How can that be, if bloodline has no meaning?
It could be by chance. One data point doesn't prove much!
Apart from the fact that she believes with all sincerity that her father is King Edward VIII; by virtue of the fact that he and her mother happened to be around 20 miles from each other at the occasion of her conception.

I don't know if that is a data point at all.

Wow she must be about the only person in the world who wants to claim a Nazi for a father.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's "heritary"? Do you mean "hereditary"?

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
"Bloodline" is mystical rubbish. The blood carries nothing to be passed on.
You are mistaking etymology for meaning.

But so are others. There's a difference between Emily claiming inheritance of characteristics from one parent, and people arguing significance in inheritance from generations centuries ago, which is what often happens when the word bloodline is used.

e.g. the Dan Brown et al stuff. If there was anything in that, all Europeans would by now have the bloodline of Jesus, not just some girl in France, whereas any inheritance would be in homeopathic quantities.

It may be a relevant expression for racehorses, and the Hapsburgs, but not most of us. It carries meaning (through its etymology) in addition to the realities of inheritance (even bringing epigenetics in) which is not consistence with that reality. In my opinion.

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :

Bloodline is mostly just for bragging rights.

I once heard that nature and nurture did not make up the entirety of us. Self choice also makes up part of us. I also think that in this discussion nurture really should mean environmental factors and surroundings.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
When someone makes an affirmative statement about my dad which is fundamentally false, I feel I ought to contribute a rejoinder.

Is that okay with you?

EEWC

Um, believing something doesn't make it true unless the facts stack up.

[ 22. June 2013, 16:48: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
What I know from my experience is that I have ABSOLUTELY nothing in common with the people who reared me, who brought me to maturity.

Nothing. I have everything in common with the father I never met who died when I was 28.

His writings and his contacts mean everything to me, and what happened prior mean nothing.

How can that be, if bloodline has no meaning?
It could be by chance. One data point doesn't prove much!
Apart from the fact that she believes with all sincerity that her father is King Edward VIII; by virtue of the fact that he and her mother happened to be around 20 miles from each other at the occasion of her conception.

I don't know if that is a data point at all.
Wow she must be about the only person in the world who wants to claim a Nazi for a father.

Perhaps the spermatozoa of members of the royal family can jump further than most - or even swim? In that case, 20 miles is nothing.

I think I'm seeing a big baking tin here to put this inside.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

We have 46 chromosomes. There's a certain amount of juggling about, but roughly speaking, once one has gone back enough generations that there are more than 46 people involved, there's no guarantee that any one of those people has contributed anything to the descendant. This is six generations, or a couple of centuries or so. [...]

Bloodline is a meaningless concept.

Hear hear!

Somewhere between 6 and 10 generations there is no reason to expect any individual to have inherited anything at all from any particular one of their ancestors (With the exceptions of mitochondria and Y-chromosomes of course, but put together they make under 1% of our genes) Of course we inherit all our genes from all our ancestors (plus a few new mutations) but there is no way to know which came from who.

It seems that social mixing takes about that long as well, at least in England. So if yo go back 6 or 10 generations pretty much everyone is likely to have both aristocratic or royal ancestors and also ancestors who were labourers or servants.

Go back a bit further - and its not that much further - and everybody is related. The most recent common ancestor of all living humans might have lived as recently as about one or two thousand years ago.

Go back a bit further than that and you get to a time where everybody is descended from everyone else. That is everybody who was alive at that time and lest any descendants at all is an ancestor of everyone now living - almost certainly within the last three or four thousand years maybe less.

Go back far enouygh

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

We're a' Jock Tamson's bairns.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I forgot about the Y-chromosome inheritance - there is a Jewish priestly male "blood"line, isn't there? But no-one has kept tabs on the mitochondrial lines - it's hard enough to track down school friends, if you're female.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

One of the complexities around this is that bloodline in some cases is not as specific as it sounds... at least in some families.

I thought years ago hereditary peers. I am not saying I'm strongly in favour of them BUT some owned large portions of land, and employed large numbers of people and had significant influence in different parts of the UK. I could see why some thought it a good idea they were in parliament.

(PLEASE note I say 'some' ...)

Now their heirs were brought up to inherit this and to take on the same role... So maybe there is an argument for hereditary bloodline. But then I wonder if we extend it to the royal family -- does it quite work (as wonderful as HM the Queen is).

A bit of a muddled thought, I know. But I offer it in the hope some may understand me!

Posted by snowgoose (# 4394) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
it's all bullshit.

I come from a very "respectable" bloodline - all sorts of important people who did important things and many in this generation doing those important things and it's all very special.

We also have a buttload of genetically-related diseases and are generally pretty much a line of lemons. If my forebears hadn't had some money we'd probably have died off eons ago.

Yup, same here. On my mother's side they are very proud of their aristocratic forebears; however, they tend to avoid discussing the problems that arise when folks marry their cousins for 400 years--quite a few hereditary diseases, including a tendency toward mental instability.

I wish I had inherited the health of my father's (very mixed, not-remotely-aristocratic) side instead of my mother's. As it is I have a large collection of doctors and take a lot of very expensive prescription drugs every day.

So, I guess that's what comes of an hereditary bloodline. I agree with Comet that the rest of it is mostly nurture/experience. Illnesses aside, The 5 of us (I have 3 sisters and a brother) have deliberately gone very different ways and have very different lives. The assorted nieces are all amazingly normal--and so far, fortunately, sane. So thank God the bloodline is being diluted.

The idea that a bloodline can carry with it some sort of hereditary greatness is, as has been stated above, total crap.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Quite frankly, given the fact that my ancestors were mostly a bunch of racist bastards who never missed an opportunity to violently oppress someone who didn't look like them, I'm hoping this whole bloodline stuff is a crock of shit.

Well racism isn't genetic anyway.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
One of the complexities around this is that bloodline in some cases is not as specific as it sounds... at least in some families.
... So maybe there is an argument for hereditary bloodline. But then I wonder if we extend it to the royal family -- does it quite work (as wonderful as HM the Queen is).

A bit of a muddled thought, I know. But I offer it in the hope some may understand me!

I think an hereditary monarchy is perfect-when the role of the monarchy is effectively powerless but acts as a protector of democracy. If you turn the monarchy into some sort of Presidential role you run the risk of dictators, corrupt change in government systems etc etc. When you have a monarchy that is trained and educated from birth to undertake their duties as part of the preservation of a just system of government.

The monarchy don't need any special powers or leadership abilites, in fact it's better if they don't have TOO much in that regard or they might overstep their role. By having the role an accident of birth from which you can't be fired, (EWC's alleged father's situation aside [Biased]

) blackmailed or bought off, it stops the politicking and skullduggery, corruption etc that goes with political office.

I'm an Australian monarchist, not because I love Royalty or think there is anything special about their "breeding" but because they serve their purpose in our Constitution better than any of the alternatives. When we had a referendum on changing, there was too much division about what we'd have instead of our Queen so we stuck with what we had. We're more Constitutional Conservatives than Monarchist.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
One of the complexities around this is that bloodline in some cases is not as specific as it sounds... at least in some families.
... So maybe there is an argument for hereditary bloodline. But then I wonder if we extend it to the royal family -- does it quite work (as wonderful as HM the Queen is).

A bit of a muddled thought, I know. But I offer it in the hope some may understand me!
I think an hereditary monarchy is perfect-when the role of the monarchy is effectively powerless but acts as a protector of democracy. If you turn the monarchy into some sort of Presidential role you run the risk of dictators, corrupt change in government systems etc etc.

The monarchy don't need any special powers or leadership abilites, in fact it's better if they don't have TOO much in that regard or they might overstep their role. By having the role an accident of birth from which you can't be fired, (EWC's alleged father's situation aside ) blackmailed or bought off, it stops the politicking and skullduggery, corruption etc that goes with political office.

I'm an Australian monarchist, not because I love Royalty or think there is anything special about their "breeding" but because they serve their purpose in our Constitution better than any of the alternatives. When we had a referendum on changing, there was too much division about what we'd have instead of our Queen so we stuck with what we had. We're more Constitutional Conservatives than Monarchist.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
[qb] One of the complexities around this is that bloodline in some cases is not as specific as it sounds... at least in some families.
... So maybe there is an argument for hereditary bloodline. But then I wonder if we extend it to the royal family -- does it quite work (as wonderful as HM the Queen is).

A bit of a muddled thought, I know. But I offer it in the hope some may understand me!

I think an hereditary monarchy is perfect-when the role of the monarchy is effectively powerless but acts as a protector of democracy. If you turn the monarchy into some sort of Presidential role you run the risk of dictators, corrupt change in government systems etc etc.

The monarchy don't need any special powers or leadership abilites, in fact it's better if they don't have TOO much in that regard or they might overstep their role. By having the role an accident of birth from which you can't be fired, (EWC's alleged father's situation aside [Biased]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
Apart from the fact that she believes with all sincerity that her father is King Edward VIII; by virtue of the fact that he and her mother happened to be around 20 miles from each other at the occasion of her conception.

I don't know if that is a data point at all.

IIRC Emily's early posts, her birth mom said he was Emily's father.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

She was mistaken.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I'm not saying he was her father--just that, taking Em's posts at face value, she was told he was.

I don't know one way or the other. I doubt he was. OTOH royals (in general) aren't known for chastity nor monogamy.

Finding out their parentage is a primal drive for many adoptees. I think Em's trying to work with the bit of info she has.

FWIW.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I know Golden Key. Her mother was deluded. It's simple to verify.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
....
The monarchy don't need any special powers or leadership abilites, ....

Indeed. George III was insane at times, and the Prince Regent / George IV was utterly worthless and a figure of fun and derision, but the country carried on, through some very difficult times, regardless of the personal qualities of the monarch. And that despite a Parliament which wasn't as democratic as it might have been. ....

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think that this conversation is getting rather hellish.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
George IV was utterly worthless and a figure of fun and derision, but the country carried on, through some very difficult times, regardless of the personal qualities of the monarch. And that despite a Parliament which wasn't as democratic as it might have been. ....

When Wellington thrash'd Bonaparte,
As ev'ry child can tell,
The House of Peers throughout the war,
Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well

Kings, eh? Sometimes you have to corner them on an island in the Thames, sometimes you have to get up a loyal rebellion, or borrow someone else's, or behead them, or sort through 51 other people to find one you like - to keep the show on the road.

Yet the daft thing is, despite the evidence that they are really only there in sufferance, we carry on as if they had some right to the job.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The other issue is that I'm not at all sure we've really sorted out what's inherited vs. what's learned, though skills, at least among humans, are almost certainly not passed on through bloodlines.
Okay, so let's sort it out.

I doubt we can. ISTM that this is essentially a scientific question which would require the investigation of numerous cases over substantial stretches of time by numerous scientists accredited across several field -- genetics, psychology, sociology, etc.

Speaking for myself, I lack the credentials to embark on such a study as a scientist, and would have only modest interest in participating in such a study, as I'd expect to be in my dotage by the time any suggestive results got arrived at.

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
What I know from my experience is that I have ABSOLUTELY nothing in common with the people who reared me, who brought me to maturity.

Nothing. I have everything in common with the father I never met who died when I was 28.

His writings and his contacts mean everything to me, and what happened prior mean nothing.

How can that be, if bloodline has no meaning?

EEWC

I suspect most of us can point to kin with whom they have nothing in common, and other kin whom they resemble in various important ways.

The problem is that you're considering a single case, which can tell us very little about the operations of what you call "bloodlines."

Also, I don't understand the basis for your comparison with your alleged father. You claim never to have met him. This means you're depending on haphazardly-gathered filtered and/or second-hand information about him, rather than direct observation carried out according to pre-determined guidelines.

Beyond that, humans have a tendency to find what they are looking for.

[ 23. June 2013, 13:08: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I love the idea the Emily has about her "father" and am gobsmacked at the qualities she ascribes to him:

earlier post by Emily

quote:
I have everything in common with the father I never met who died when I was 28.

His writings and his contacts mean everything to me, and what happened prior mean nothing.

Leave aside the fact that he was not the brightest lamp in the chandelier - left Dartmouth naval college before graduation because in reality he failed the course; gained precisely nothing from his 8 terms at Oxford (no exams, not a single essay written) and his short attention span was the despair of his private secretaries - to what "writings" does EWC refer? One can only assume his letters which were almost exclusively to his mistresses.

So, EM, do you really want to be associated with his views from Australia, when he gave this opinion on indigineous Australians to Freda Dudley-Ward " they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys.".

THIS is the man you're keen to claim as father and say you have "everything in common with"? Really??? [Eek!]

If his expressed views, not just on this issue but on others as well, weren't so striking in their ignorance, bigotry and sheer unpleasantness it would be laughable.

Yes, the treatment of Wallis was indeed ungracious: in taking away a man so manifestly unfit to be king she did this country an enormous favour - frankly she should have been made a duchess in her own right for that alone. [Cool]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Me too Doublethink. Sorry. The Duke of Windsor was an anti-Semite, a racist and "... never thought Hitler was such a bad chap." - that was 20 years after the war.

He was in Washington from mid May to early July 1943.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

...and if he was in Washington during that period then J Edgar Hoover's chaps will have had him under surveillance so EWC can apply under FoI legislation for the surveillance logs to see if he did meet up with her birth mother...

Still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would want to claim kinship - heriditary blood ties - with an unpleasant, narcissistic racist bigot. [Confused]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's ... organic. In Greg Bear's truly horrific Vitals it's physically contagious.

All will be well.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Me too Doublethink. Sorry. The Duke of Windsor was an anti-Semite, a racist and "... never thought Hitler was such a bad chap." - that was 20 years after the war.

He was in Washington from mid May to early July 1943.

That's putting it mildly, he was a full-on Nazi-supporting traitor, gave the Nazi salute publicly in Berlin, made defeatist speeches to Britain and gave away state secrets to the Nazis.

I actually really, really like the idea of Wallace being an American spy. It fits perfectly, she had had an affair with the German foreign minister (a set-up to get info & feed it back to the US), could well have learnt from him the extent of Edward Viii's traitorous support of Germany. She becomes the means of getting rid of a King who is a liability to US interests as well as Britain's. If Britain had fallen, dead cert Edward would have been reinstated as puppet monarch and again Wallace would have been in the perfect position to support America's interests.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

It's also notable that while earlier PoW's had blow-bys as well as legitimate offspring, Eddy VIII had none that are recognized. It is documented that Wallis seemed to resent this, frequently making the joke (in the most humiliating possible circumstances) that he was not "heir-conditioned."

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Timothy, the reason why Edward VIII had no publicly acknowledge bastards was probably more to do with the fact that public morality had changed fundamentally from the days of, say, Charles II or William IV.

And it isn't only Edward VIII in the recent past: name me ONE publicly acknowledged by-blow of Edward VII, George V (or his older brother Eddie) or George VI or any other of Edward VIII's brothers...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Evangeline. Nice, simplistic, Dan Brown plot. Em would LOVE it. Reality, despite being classified, is more mundane, grubby and not subject to hindsight. In Wallace Simpson you get what you see.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

How is it you never hear about Gromit Simpson?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Leave aside the fact that he was not the brightest lamp in the chandelier - left Dartmouth naval college before graduation because in reality he failed the course; gained precisely nothing from his 8 terms at Oxford (no exams, not a single essay written) and his short attention span was the despair of his private secretaries - to what "writings" does EWC refer? One can only assume his letters which were almost exclusively to his mistresses.

His letters to Wallis Simpson were very interesting. He sort of wrote in baby talk to her - as if he were a little boy. Nothing necessarily wrong in that, being love letters, and personal between them. But biographers seemed to think it interesting that even in his maturity (over 30 years of age) this attitude of styling himself as the naughty/helpless little boy looking to his more grown-up lover to be in charge, was significantly persistent in him. Especially in a man trained to be king.

Of course, one could say it was a role he played as a welcome alternative to the responsibilities and authority owing to his position. But others would suggest it just demonstrated his essential weakness of character; the need to submit to and be directed by his lover, when his decisions, especially regarding the state, where his own to make and his alone.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Evangeline. Nice, simplistic, Dan Brown plot. Em would LOVE it. Reality, despite being classified, is more mundane, grubby and not subject to hindsight. In Wallace Simpson you get what you see.

Quite, I still love the idea though and think it could form an element in a novel of some sort.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Evangeline. Nice, simplistic, Dan Brown plot. Em would LOVE it. Reality, despite being classified, is more mundane, grubby and not subject to hindsight. In Wallace Simpson you get what you see.

And I see the great gold digger of the 20th century.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Pot, Kettle Gee D !

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0