Jump to content

Talk:List of coupled cousins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

Doesn't this seem a bit Redundant? --Mrdude 12:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. This list is more selective than the "Cousin couple" article; includes couples involving uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces; and is illustrated.
There is room for both articles. Nihil novi 13:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "Cousin couple"?

[edit]

It has been suggested that this article ("List of coupled cousins") be merged with "Cousin couple." Please see my remarks at "Merge with 'List of coupled cousins'?" (In brief, I oppose the idea.) Nihil novi 00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be this long, it needs to be separate. Thmazing (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of royals

[edit]

This article's "Notable individuals" section is arranged in alphabetical order. The list of European royalty does not appear to follow any order. Perhaps it would be well to place the royals in either alphabetical or chronological order? Nihil novi (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Chronology is tricky: birthdate, or ascending the throne? I'll try alphabetical by main first name. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - bad edit conflict. I'll try again when you have finished uploading those great pictures! BrainyBabe (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hopkins

[edit]

What was his wife's name?75.142.50.33 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce royalty list?

[edit]

Let's face it, until the 20th century, for the most part, nearly every single royal couple were cousins of varying degrees. Can we remove some of the more distant examples, such as second cousins once removed, and perhaps keep a few very close examples and current ones? This list will never be exhaustive, it will always be somewhere in between, but it is much too long. 142.68.138.25 (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of varying degrees? All the human race is cousins. The furthest degree is 16th cousin.Wythy (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. So why include sixth cousins, let alone eleventh? —Tamfang (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon III

[edit]

Nerissa-Marie (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I wonder what is Napoleon III's photo doing in this list? His wife, Eugénie de Montijo was in no way a relative of his, so there is not much reason for the emperor's photograph to be there.[reply]

You're absolutely right. It was his older brother, Napoleon Louis Bonaparte, who was married to his cousin. I have removed the image. Favonian (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should look into Chulalongkorn, Rama V, King of Thailand. It is my understanding he married FIVE of his half sisters, siring some 52 children, from which the current Thai Royal Family is descended (Mahidol line). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.125.1.229 (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics in the summary

[edit]

It seems that somebody keeps putting genetics into the lede. Genetics is an important aspect of cousin marriage but its details, beyond maybe a quick one sentence summary plus a link to this genetics section, do not belong in the lede of a list of coupled cousins. The focus here is biographical and not biological! —Khin2718 07:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Commoners", Einstein

[edit]

I found this article with a photograph of Albert Einstein, but he was not in the list. Was there a reason for that? (I added him to the list.) (I also moved a du Pont from the "E" section to the "D" section.)

A section heading said "Notable commoners". I changed it to "Other notable persons". "Commoner" seems quite inappropriate. Commoner redirects to Commoners in Great Britain, which says:

In British law, a commoner is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer.

I am a civilian; therefore it is inappropriate to ask whether I am an officer or an enlisted man. I am outside of that system; it doesn't apply to me. Likewise I have never been in Britain nor otherwise subject to British law; therefore I am outside of any system in which the status of "commoner" or "peer" makes sense. The same is true of many of the people potentially or currently on this list. Albert Einstein became a citizen of Switzerland while a teenager, if I recall correctly, then became (again) a German citizen after Germany had become a republic, then became an American. It makes no sense to inquire whether he was a peer or a commoner. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there was no entry for Einstein lay in this unfortunate edit, which removed Einstein and duplicated duPont. I have reverted it, but retained your change of section header. Favonian (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two proposals

[edit]

I propose that any relationship beyond 6th cousins, meaning seven generations to the common ancestor, be the maximum listed here and all other relationships deleted. We are all cousins to some degree. Seven generations is the maximum tracked by even the most obsessive societies I've heard of. We could make exceptions if a source indicated some special significance to the relationship. Also, let's start a section on famous people whose parents were cousins. 贾宝玉 (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are dead right. The furthest we are from each other is 16th cousin.Wythy (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why relationships beyond 2nd cousins are particularly noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:101:AB3:E409:6E98:B3E5:8A0B (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate article title

[edit]

This list has at least two couples who were not cousins but represent other forms of intra-familial couples, such as uncle and niece. It would seem to me that either the title of the article be changed to "List of Intra-familial Couples," or those not representing actual cousin couples be removed from the list. Leaving things as they are would be inaccurate, would it not? (20 Oct. 2010)

You are right that it is not accurate for a small minority of the cases. However, any other name like "List of close-kin marriages" is undoubtedly less accessible for the average reader. So there is a trade-off between complete accuracy and accessibility. I am leaning toward keeping the current title as I just don't see any real harm in it. 贾宝玉 (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Nihil novi (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, as a compromise, we could move those few non-cousin couples to a single, new subsection on the same page for non-cousin couples. That way, those couples could remain on a page easily accessible to readers, while their simple relocation to a new sub-section near the bottom of the page could allow the page's title to remain relatively accurate. Would there be any disagreements to this proposition? (22 Oct. 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.192.2 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree with at least trying this. If it is too awkward it can always be changed later. 贾宝玉 (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I'll proceed to make the adjustments, and will submit the final product to your and the others' good judgment. (23 Oct. 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.192.2 (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

Can someone edit the pictures? There are some that are in the way of the text so that you cant read it. Thanks

File:Ray stu.gif Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Ray stu.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

First of all, this article needs to separate degrees of cousins. It makes sense to list first-cousin couples here, but second-degree cousin couples are so ubiquitous, affecting more than 10% of couples worldwide today, and the majority of couples in world history, that it would make more sense to compile a list of "non-cousin couples".

And listing couples of third degree cousins and above is just silly in my opinion. --dab (𒁳) 13:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the list of remote relatives to Talk:List of coupled cousins/workspace. This listed marriages between people as far removed as sixth(!) cousins. Most couples are at least sixth cousins without any chance of knowing it, as only with the pedigree of high nobility would you even be able to compile a full list of your sixth cousins. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, wish there had been discussion prior to your relegating a good part of the lists in this article to "Talk:List of coupled cousins/workspace."
This article was established (in August 2007) not as a "list of coupled first-degree cousins" — which you have turned it into — but as a "List of coupled cousins."
It was intended, if anything, not so much as an adjunct to medical studies as to sociological ones. In some cultures, there need not even be an established familial relationship for a societal one to be regarded as existing: unrelated individuals bearing the same surname are considered to be "related."
What percentage of a given general population bears what degree of genetic relationship to each other is not the point. This was conceived as a list of prominent individuals known to be linked maritally or romantically to a cousin, nephew, niece, aunt or uncle.
Nihil novi (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have decided to segregate lists of cousins by their degree of consanguinity — a segregation whose merit eludes me — I propose that the coupled "remote" cousins who have been removed to "Talk:List of coupled cousins/workspace" be established as a separate sister article, "List of coupled distant cousins".
All four of the examples of famous cousin marriages in the United States listed in "Cousin marriage" — Edgar Allan Poe, Albert Einstein, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Jerry Lee Lewis, who have been banished from "List of coupled cousins" — will then once more have a common home as "coupled distant cousins".
An alternative to doing this, of course, would be to reintegrate the "distant" cousins with the "first-degree cousins" who are now stated to be the sole subject of "List of coupled cousins".Nihil novi (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the current separation is maintained, presumably the reduced original article should now be retitled "List of coupled first-degree cousins". Nihil novi (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why have all the portraits migrated from the original article to "Talk:List of coupled cousins/workspace", though some of the individuals themselves — e.g., Werner von Braun, Igor Stravinsky, H.G. Wells — have been allowed to remain in the original article (thus separated from their portraits)? Nihil novi (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per above discussion, I have restored to "List of coupled cousins" the distant-cousin couples, avunculate couples, and portraits -- all previously removed from the article. Nihil novi (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on List of coupled cousins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on List of coupled cousins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How distant should we list?

[edit]

I see, in the list of coupled cousins, that there are many distant cousins. I think we should probably limit it to third cousins, because:

  1. Except among royalty, I doubt that many people would even know that they married a cousin more distant than that;
  2. The risks behind inbreeding go down the more distantly related the parents are;
  3. If you go far enough back, everyone's related.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed 4 years ago. Please see "Cleanup", above. Nihil novi (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Monty Hall

[edit]

Monty Hall's wife Marilyn Plottel is neither his "distant cousin" nor any other blood relative. The connection supposedly arises from the fact that Monty's mother Rose is first cousin to Norman Shnier, and Norman Shnier is second cousin to Marilyn Plottel. Trouble is, Norman is related to Rose thru his father and to Marilyn thru his mother. So there is no blood relationship at all between Monty and Marilyn. 2601:18E:C501:5FE2:7ACA:39FF:FEB2:EFCB (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of coupled cousins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of coupled cousins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Royalty in Europe) There is too much details and Wikipedia is not a genealogy website

[edit]

Hello, In regard to the latest edits I ultimately made to the Royalty in Europe's section. We have to remember that Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory and you can check on that by reading the second rule on this page WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Therefore, there's no need to fill in the article with the names of multiple common ancestors by different levels and no need to demonstrate all kinds of kinship between each couple. Eventually, this will lead to the creation of a page full of trivia and excessive detail that may confuse common readers and let them lose interest in the blood relationship between the couples. Such an act isn't recommended and it can be detected here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_much_detail. Please, just keep everything concise by sticking on to show how those individuals are related ONLY by their MOST RECENT common ancestors with ONLY the NEAREST kinship between them in case there have been other kind of biological relationships through the same ancestor(s). Most readers don't care about the extended family trees of those royals. There have been some admins who're hunting down all kind of genealogical information on the pages of royal people here in Wikipedia. I doubt that one day they wouldn't try to delete the whole list of the schedule of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:112F:BEAA:C413:4316:ACAE:E72C (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it may not be time to split out of the "List of coupled cousins" a separate "List of royal and aristocratic coupled cousins"?
I am feeling fatigued at having to find the needle of interesting coupled commoners amidst the haystack of mostly uninteresting royals and aristocrats.
Nihil novi (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to invest much focus or concern about this. The anonymous person ("2001:8F8") makes sense to me. This isn't a subject I'm interested in at all, so I have no strong feelings. The people who are going to maintain it and work on cleanup should be consulted as to the depth and breadth, as to what is becoming excessive.--SidP (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

[edit]
There have been a number of criticisms of this List of coupled cousins. It was nominated for deletion on 31 August but retained on 20 September 2020.
As presently constituted, it seems top-heavy – more precisely, bottom-heavy – with massive sections devoted to "Royalty in Europe", "Royalty outside Europe", and "Aristocracy".
I would propose that the latter sections be devolved into a separate article or articles, to be tended by editors with a special interest in royals and aristocrats, leaving a much more modest section devoted to notable nontitled people.
That should make article maintenance less cumbersome; and editors of each successor article could refine the inclusion criteria for their respective articles.
Nihil novi (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an alternative proposition:
  1. Restrict it to first cousins (I have already performed this edit)
  2. Restrict it to first cousins in the strict sense, i.e. no half-first cousins or first cousins once removed (I have already performed this edit)
  3. Restrict it to married cousins, not otherwise "coupled" cousins
  4. Restrict it to couples where both partners have Wikipedia articles
This would make the size of the list much more manageable. I don't think it is a good idea to split off the royalty and aristocracy sections, as they would mostly become genealogy articles and Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. TompaDompa (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with not spliting off into "aristocracy" and "commoners" sections. That seems unhelpful to me for a list. I would prefer if we listed people in chronological order, that would give a better overview of the topic. If not in chronological then surely in alphabetical order. An article on the topic of Cousin marriage among aristocracy or something similar would be a better page to cover consanguine marriages among high society.★Trekker (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Locations

[edit]

I removed the locations because they prevented the dates from sorting chronologically, but the edits were undone.67.173.23.66 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 September 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The few participants this discussion has attracted have expressed that they feel additional specificity in the title is unnecessary. (Though, to be clear, this does not indicate consensus against the list criteria being limited to first cousins.) (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


List of coupled cousins → List of coupled first cousins – The result of the deletion discussion (see top of page for link) and other discussion strongly suggests that this page be restricted to first cousin marriages or else the next deletion request will likely result in it being deleted. Given that, the name of the page should reflect what it is restricted to hence adding "first". Some people might feel that replacing coupled with married might also be appropriate Erp (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"When the degree is not specified, first cousin is assumed."
In the meantime the article is already being protected, against overpopulation, by the first-cousin stricture.
Nihil novi (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The stricture should probably be made clear in the intro to the article if not in the title. I note the only reason that the Franklin/Eleanor distant cousin relation (fifth cousin once removed) is mentioned so often is because they share a common last name (I'm not sure English has a term for this). --Erp (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Erp: the Roosevelts' surnames are wikt:homonymous; most families' are, of course, and because of variations some may simply be wikt:cognate (e.g. Hoover and Huber); had the Roosevelts decided to anglicize theirs from the Dutch it would be Rosefield. That's from the point of view of a lexicographer, not a genealogist. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, there's one example of non marriage on the list, Duncan Grant and Lytton Strachey.2601:241:300:B610:54C7:F407:6476:4383 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the above observations and comment. They highlight interesting sociological questions which first drew me to the phenomenon of cousin couples. Would certain consanguinous couples of various degree have met, had both individuals not been members of the same extended family? Does formal legal coupling – which has evolved to include same-sex couples – now, in many places, even necessarily define coupling, as growing numbers of couples dispense with the formalities altogether (and when out-of-wedlock children are, in many societies, no longer subject to social ostracism and financial or other disadvantages)?
Nihil novi (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of a reductio ad absurdem, why stop at couples? Should we include ménages-à-trois, for example? I'd argue that since in many countries legal marriage has actually got easier for many people – far easier than divorce – and legal relationships such as civil partnership evolve (for example the UK law against heterosexual couples living in civil partnership was struck down in 2014), I'd argue that perhaps the whole idea of this list is misguided. If a person's relationship with another is relevant to their biography in any way, that can be mentioned in the article: if not, it shouldn't be in there anyway. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Since we have the redirect cousin couples pointing at Cousin marriage, and "cousin couple" is used on this talk page alone several times whereas "coupled cousins" is used almost exclusively in links, would a better title be List of cousin couples?
But really I disagree with the whole premise of the list anyway. WP:NOTGENEALOGY list items headed "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" and "Genealogical entries" probably imply restricting the list to close family relations, so we don't need to WP:CREEP in extra "strictures" for this one article. But since we're unlikely to have a List of second-cousin couples, List of third-cousin-once-removed couples, and so on, the "first" seems redundant in the title. I don't see what value the list provides beyond being a random collection of "fascinating facts".85.67.32.244 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where's Rudy?

[edit]

Rudolph Giuliani was married to a first or second cousin of his. Why is he missing? Psychlohexane (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list is limited to first cousins. 2601:249:9301:D570:DC65:3BB2:1426:4915 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_coupled_cousins&oldid=1257577321"