“Dost Thou Love Me, Cousin?”

Since I’m banned from Powerline, I’m putting a comment here about Hinderaker’s piece, “Who is adapting to whom?” which concerns the U.K. NHS recent endorsement of first-cousin marriage.

He sees it as an attempt to placate the many, many immigrants from , ah…less enlightened countries which the British government has been copiously importing.

Now here’s an intelligent, well-educated gent who comments on society and historical events for a living. Yet he seems to have no memory.

My title is from Tennyson’s poem “Locksley Hall” (1842). The young protagonist has a beautiful, very young cousin, named Amy, and he notices she’s lookin’a bit peaked. He loves her and begs her to tell him what’s making her unhappy (although he suspects):

“Tell me, Cousin! All the current /Of my being sets to thee!”
She blushes and whispers: “…I have hid my feelings/Fearing they should do me wrong,” and then he “(Stooping):”Dost thou love me, cousin?”/(Weeping): “I have loved thee long!”

Famously, they didn’t get to tie the knot but only because in this case, 5eir family was a bit impoverished, so it was more economically advantageous for little Amy to be wed to some new money. But my point is:

First-cousin marriage was considered ideal among the aristocracy in 18th and 19th century England, the literature is full of it. Tennyson was the Laureate for 42 years. What the NHS pronouncement hints at, the aristocratic families were quite explicit about: keep the money and wealth in the family, and do not dilute rank.

As a native of Appalachia, I have always been sensitive to the America-bashing sneers about incestuous marriages from Brits and Europeans . Marriage to close relatives is, historically, MUCH more their thing than ours. It’s just one more insult we meekly tolerate from these supercilious has-beens.

(Okay, I admit one of my fave books as a child was Louisa May Alcott’s book “Eight Cousins”, in which the entire drama is which of the heroine Rose’s seven male cousins she will eventually marry. Of course,—spoiler alert!— this being an Alcott book, Rose gets the bookish bespectacled Max rather than the dashing impetuous Charlie, with whom every reader has fallen in love. But the assumptions in that book just reflect the prevailing attitudes and customs of the Anglosphere. )
The U.K. NHS pronouncement does no more than return to British cultural roots. I’m just surprised the author of this piece doesn’t even give that a mention.
That’s all. Carry on. As Trump would say:”Thank you for your attention to this matter”.

5 Likes

This is not the endorsement you think it is. The aristocracy of that period were notoriously inbred and famous for their dysgenic traits. I remember learning about hemophilia among European royalty in high school biology.

First cousin marriage is a characteristic of primitive, low-trust societies. Since you can’t trust strangers, it’s best to have lots of close kin that you can trust. It is banned in most Western countries for good reasons, including the dysgenic element. The royalty may have engaged in it because of their rather limited dating pool but the commoners did not — for if they had, Britain would never become the industrial, technological, and military powerhouse it was in the 18th and 19th centuries.

In short, if Hinderaker is down on first-cousin marriage, he’s exactly right and the NHS is exactly wrong except inasmuch as all the institutions of the woke UK are set on destroying the country. In that twisted sense, they’re exactly right.

6 Likes

Good Lord, Hypatia! You seem to have a talent for stepping on toes that deserve to be stepped on. Can you give lessons? :grinning:

4 Likes

I wasn’t endorsing first-cousin marriage. And yes of course like everybody else I know about the genetic problems. I’m just saying it was a common practice and I’m surprised the author didnt mention that.,

4 Likes

There was once an insult something like your family tree goes straight up and down.

And again another insult: your paternal grandfather’s family is that they’re so inbred it’s a ladder instead of a tree

1 Like

And as I explained, it was only practiced by the royals, which hardly makes it “a common practice.” Maybe that’s why the author failed to mention that — you know, given that it is false.

2 Likes

I wasn’t talking about brother-sister marriage, like with the Eqyptians. I was talking about cousin marriage, and I mentioned Tennyson’s poem and LMA’s book.

1 Like

Oh, Gerry,I’m hate those jokes! But my BMD, a city boy, keeps on telling them too!

1 Like

I was really sad about Powerline, cuz I love Ammo Grrrl, and she had actually written a response saying how much she liked various comments I had made.

I got banned for quoting an American Thinker piece about how trans men ( or should that be trans women?) simulate having menstrual periods. It was in response to an article about “Tampon Tim” Walz’ comments about having female sanitary products in boys’ bathrooms. I wrote: if these guys are gonna do stuff like that, then yes PLEASE, let’s make sure they have plugs and pads available!

Okay it IS a disgusting topic, but the American Thinker piece was on point, and I didn’t make it up.

I really don’t know WHAT it is about my writing. I reckon it’s just a gift I have….

2 Likes

I’m unlikely to ever be banned by PowerLine because I refuse to use the Disqus commenting system they use. While it has its conveniences, they are bait for a steaming pile of privacy invading excrement, funding an entirely woke business. Just say no to Disqus.

3 Likes

Has anyone ever explained in which organ menstrual cramps occur? We’re talking about people who do not have a uterus, the only site of menstrual cramps in females. I’m only a physician, not even a Supreme Court (sic) justice, so what can I possibly know? I guess the only person with the “expertise” to define a woman (according to justice Jackson) is that person who says them is a woman, no?

3 Likes

Apparently these wannabe women feel cheated because they can’t undergo the monthly…well, inconvenience, to put it mildly, of menstrual periods. So (okay, anybody who is squeamish STOP reading NOW—)

they insert frozen tomato sauce suppositories up their bungholes and take laxatives to bring on cramps.

Again ,don’t blame me, this is according to American Thinker.

What I commented on Powerline was that if there are men doing this in public places, I certainly want them to have the equipment to soak of the flow. So yuh: put tampons and pads in men’s restrooms! Please!

However I’m not sure that’ll help. These men are exhibitionistic and they probably WANT to be seen ooozing “blood”. What fun would it be otherwise?

These guys can’t seem to get it through their heads that a vagina is not the same thing as an anus. Humans aren’t birds or reptiles, we do not have a cloaca.

2 Likes

sigh
Nobody mentioned brother-sister marriage until you did. This thread is about first-cousin marriage and my comments have addressed that.

One source of confusion is that, sometimes, second-cousin marriage is misleadingly lumped in with first-cousin marriage in cousin marriage statistics. So just to be crystal clear, the NHS’s endorsement of first-cousin marriage is what got everyone upset. And it is first-cousin marriage that is characteristic of tribal cultures of MENA. Here’s a helpful map. N.B.: this map includes second cousins.

3 Likes

you said only the royals practiced it. It is true that the royalty of all the European countries were getting parlously interbred by dynastic marriages within a fairly small family circle. Finally, the poor little Tsarevich’s haemophilia led to the success of the Bolshevik Revolution and pretty much brought the entire ancien régime down. (You don’t need to reply that “it’s not that simple”: I concede that of course it isn’t, but I’m not writing a brief here.)
Actually, you and I were both wrong, cuz I had said it was the British aristocracy wherein cousin marriage was common. But apparently, it was the “propertied classes” , the bourgeoisie, people “born to the purple of commerce”, as Wilde put it. In addition to Tennyson, I might have mentioned Dickens, Trollope, Austen, Brontë, inter alia, as authors who mentioned cousin marriage in their works. (You can confirm this yourself; I’m also not writing an Honors thesis here.)

But in any event, dear @drlorentz , as I tried to make clear in my conclusion in the OP, this little meditation was intended to be no more than a gaily festooned pleasure craft bobbing on the deep intellectual currents of this site. A mere bauble among the precious gems of insight we treasure here. I’m sorry it elicited [sighs] from you, but I still hope maybe some people enjoyed it.

1 Like

This may come to a shock to Hypatia, but I had an affair with a cousin.

My cousin said, don’t quote me on this but as I remember from many years ago, “she would have loved to have married me”.

It was brief and we still are friends.

As for cousin love…

https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-make-my-cousin-fall-in-love-with-me

3 Likes

This is simply false, which point I’ve made more than once. I suppose it depends on the meaning of the term common. Only a tiny minority of the bourgeoisie engaged in first-cousin marriage. If you want to call that “common” then have at it. I’d call it misleading. And what’s with bringing up incest, in which almost no one in the civilized world engages?

Your use of writers as ‘evidence’ for your thesis points to the divide between science and the humanities: C. P. Snow’s Two Cultures. Or, in more contemporary parlance, the takeover by the Theater Kids — Justin Trudeau being the quintessential exemplar. It’s the triumph of emotivist ethics and feel-good over reality, and woke modernity is its endpoint. To quote a theater kid, “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”

3 Likes

I don’t have a “thesis”.

In some American states first cousin marriage is considered incestuous. In others it isn’t. In some cultures I’ve studied, degrees of kinship for purposes of the incest taboo are only calculated in terms of relationship through one parent. It’s hardly off-point, the incest taboo is what’s behind all the statutes or customs dealing with consanguinity. That’s “ what’s with incest”.

It is not” simply false” that the writers I cited mention cousin marriage. They do.

Whether or not you consider the literary examples to be valid evidence of the acceptance of the practice is your personal choice. You are welcome to it!

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

2 Likes

There is quite a good chart here, ( that is if you believe “wiki” ).

2 Likes

Please try to stick to reality and refrain from misrepresenting what I wrote. The claim that you made that I labeled as false is that cousin marriage was common among the bourgeoisie, not that some writers had made reference to it. Kindly refer back to my comment as an aide-mémoire.

The fact that you conflate the reality of the low prevalence of first-cousin marriage in Britain with what some writers said about it merely reinforces my point, made above, about the takeover of the culture by the Theater Kids.

Reality is not a matter of personal choice. Reality doesn’t care a fig about anyone’s opinion. Either cousin marriage was commonplace or it wasn’t, thoroughly independent of what Dickens or Wilde would like to have believed.

1 Like

The trouble with this citation is that it is about the legality of the practice, not about its prevalence. The data I cited gave the prevalence of cousin marriage (first & second) as 0.1% in the US. A fortiori, first-cousin marriage must be less than 0.1%. Thus, while it may be legal in about 1/3 of states, including three of the four most populous, nevertheless it is uncommon.

First-cousin marriage is currently legal in the United Kingdom, yet its prevalence is 1.1%. So, 100% legal but about 1% in practice. Big difference!

1 Like