Posted on 04/23/2009 3:32:46 AM PDT by Loyalist
The powerful Habsburg dynasty that ruled Spain for nearly 200 years came to an abrupt end in 1700 with the death of King Charles II, who left no heirs to the throne.
The termination of that royal lineage may be the result of frequent inbreeding of the line, which may have left Charles II ill and infertile, a new study suggests.
....
Historical data show that "in order to keep their heritage in their own hands, the Spanish Habsburgs began to intermarry more and more frequently among themselves," the authors of the new study wrote.
Records show that the Spanish Habsburg kings frequently engaged in consanguineous marriage (or marriage between biological relatives); nine of the 11 marriages that occurred over the dynasty's 200-year reign were consanguineous, with two uncle-niece marriages and one first-cousin marriage.
It had been suggested that this high degree of inbreeding led to the eventual extinction of the line when the "physically disabled, mentally retarded and disfigured" Charles II died after two childless marriages, the authors wrote. But this idea had not before been examined from a genetic perspective.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

It had been suggested that this high degree of inbreeding led to the eventual extinction of the line when the "physically disabled, mentally retarded and disfigured" Charles II died after two childless marriages, the authors wrote. But this idea had not before been examined from a genetic perspective.
Isn't it amazing how so many people learned in history and science could fail to draw the most obvious conclusion from the Habsburg's twisted geneaology?
Acutally, it isn't. Somehow inbreeding among royalty hasn't attracted the same sort of moral censure that inbreeding among the lower classes has, even when it has produced the same results.
It's all about social class. What's a crime against nature for hillbillies in Appalachia is a virtue of nobility for the Habsburgs of Spain.
Seems to be doesn't it.
Hell, that looks like the family tree of New Mexico!!
i don’t quite understand, didn’t we all came from two ppl
Not suprising, because of the perception of the time of the Spanish Hapsburg family.
1) It’s always interesting to hear infertility is hereditary.
2) I wonder if this Andrea Thompson is the former Headline News Network newslady who used to be on Babylon 5.
You mean New Mexico was started by Spanish royalty in its history?
What?!!
You mean Adam and Eve couldn’t possibly have lead to 6.2 billion people from just that one mating pair? Don’t tell the Creationists.
Actually, the Hapsburgs ruled most of Europe at that time (which is why the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabel ended up married to one in the first place), and royals only married royals, so the options were limited. The Habsburgs were originally from Switzerland, btw.
Virtually of the royal families of Europe are still related. Take a look at the English royal house, for example.
Maybe that explains Prince Charles...
Royalty married royalty. King George V of England, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and Czar Nicolas II of Russia were related (at least by marriage, all decended from England’s Queen Victoria. Nicolas’ son Alexis suffered from the genetic disorder hemophilia, one of the Queen’s sons, three of her grandsons, and six of her great-grandsons (including Alexis).
In addition the following current leaders are decended from Queen Victoria:
Elizabeth II, Queen of England
Harald V, King of Norway
Carl XVI Gustaf, King of Sweden
Margrethe II, Queen of Demnark
Juan Carlos, King of Spain
Most of these people are not double cousins for no reason.
My daughter and I were discussing the Habsburgs just yesterday. They are a very sad and interesting family. Charles ll’s great-great-great grandmother was pretty much insane as a young woman and was known as Joanna the Mad or Juana la loca. Not someone you want to find swinging from a branch in your family tree. Some of us may have crazy relatives, but fortunately most of them don’t have the appellation “mad” next to their name, at least not formally. :)
a homeschooling parent? - surely your child did not learn about them in public school
Charles - pets his wife and kisses his horse.
Just glad the two sons had a fresh dose of DNA from Diana! Maybe they'll turn out OK.
....uh, and the sky is blue.
If you go to a family reunion to meet women, you might be a redneck. Or a Habsburg.
LLS
At least they are starting to turn out normal.
Far be it from me to defend incest, but doesn’t it really depend on who’s doing the breeding? You take a small sample of two (seemingly) ordinary people and their little bunch, you may see poor results. You take your typical Arab stallion and mare and cross them likewise a few generations, treat THEM like royalty, they’re probably not going to toss up even one disfigured, sterile, retarded colt.
Matter of fact, Arab humans are pretty inbred too, comparatively speaking (but we can go there on another thread). Why do we get generally healthier results from tribes and nations than from smaller samples, hmm?
Anyone looking at the British crown has got to come to the same conclusion.
Just look at the clown next in line.
He dumped Di for horse face with a donkeys butt Camille.
Ironic, because from what I do remember, Joanna the mad’s sister was Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII’s first wife.
He dumped Di because she was crazier than an outhouse rat.
Yep, no wonder QEII takes confort from an iPod given to her by you-know-who.
Luckily they have Diana’s looks and Charles’ brains. It would have been disaster the other way around. Diana was as dumb as a box.
I’m counting 18 posts so far and NOT ONE PICTURE of Helen Thomas...the queen of inbreeding.
No.
Interesting writing style, by the way.
She was crazy as an outhouse rat like you say, and what woman isn’t?
Least she wasn’t a two bagger.
Well, New Mexico has the oldest Spanish structures in the country and the Governors Palace in Santa FE dates from before the British thought of a colony. In New Mexico you learn that much of the propaganda from St Agustine is false.
If your family tree doesn’t have any branches in it... You might be a Hapsburg!
(With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)
What explains Camilla, though? ;-P
You need to borrow a tie and browse elsewhere for women! :)
I have a tie. It goes with my funeral suit.
Reminds me of the old Appalachian question: Under West Virginia law, if a man divorces his wife is she still his sister?
:D
The family tree is actually worse than the article says. Not only was Charles II the product of an uncle-niece marriage, but both his grandfathers were as well, and there are a number of cousin-marriages not so indicated. A marriage between a half-uncle and niece is genetically equivalent to the marriage of first cousins, but these marriages here were full uncles and nieces. How unfortunate that the Habsburgs wanted to make these marriages, and the popes gave permission.
Another sad royal case is that of Queen Anne of England. She miscarried or gave birth to stillborn children 13 times, had four children die before the age of two, and one boy who lived to eleven. There are worse heartbreaks than infertility.
Oh thats bad, LOL!
Reminds me of some other distasteful rural jokes LOL.
Not suprising, this was the practice throughtout the royal houses in Europe, because they wanted not to have the blood lines “contaiminated” by the blood of commoners.
New Mexico has a LOT of very interesting historic structures, that this has helped it draw in tourists and residents from all over the country.
Periodically I see someone wanting to allow first cousin marriages, pointing out the genetic risk from doing it, once, is small. As this illustrates the risk is that allowing it once also allows the potential for it happening repeatedly. Like compounded interest, that risk then becomes large. Genetic diseases are much more common in societies where such is allowed and the families involved often believe the practice is a good thing, keeping money and power within the family.
Queen Mary I (daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon) married her first cousin, Philip II of Spain. They had no children.
Lately, some studies have showed that close marriages do not have this kind of effect unless there is a known genetic defect that gets carried forward through the marriages. I’m from the south and many of my ancestors married first cousins. One ancestor born about 1720 shows up in four of my lines. Three of my father’s grandparents were cousins to each other, one couple being first cousins. Most people in my father’s family live into their 90s and are relatively healthy.
A girl dreaming of a being swept off her feet by a prince on a white horse would be safer, genetically speaking, marrying the horse.
There is really nothing wrong with inbreeding. You just have to start with good stock, kill the worst third and don’t over do it, ie new blood with some frequency.
It is how you fix desired characteristics in a bloodline.
Just Rio Arriba County.
Interesting article!
I knew this was going to be about the Habsburgs before I even clicked on it.
LMAO!
Well, with patience and intelligence you can turn wolves into Golden Retrievers, but it's never been done with humans. That free will thing always getting in the way...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.