Humanities desk
< February 18	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 19

"Reciprocal" marriages

Hi! If Family A's brother (John A) and sister (Jane A) are married to Family B's sister (Jane B) and brother (John B) respectively (John A-Jane B & John B-Jane A), what is this type of marriage called? Are there any social taboos or biological/social advantages concerning this type of marriage? Thanks! --Shibo77 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the marriages have a name, but the offspring of them would be double first cousins. --Tango (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any social taboos to these sorts of marriages. I have them on both sides of my family. My mom has two brothers that married a mother and a daughter. On my dad's side, two of my grandmother's aunts married two of my grandfather's uncles, making THREE close marriages of this sort. In smaller communities, with relatively small numbers of distinct families, it would not be unusual for several close members of the same families to intermingle in that way. As long as there is no close consanguinity usually there isn't any taboos. This article describes identical twin brother marrying identical twin sisters, which they call "Quarternary marriages", so that may be the term you are looking for. It claims there are only about 250 recorded cases of this happening world wide. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the probability that their respective children (double cousins to each other), would be identical, or at least be so similar in appearance as to be virtually identical? (Male-male and female-female only, of course). -- JackofOz (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double cousins of identical twin pairings have the same consanguinity as true siblings do, so they would probably look like siblings, if not perfect twins. See Double first cousin for a discussion of this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks, Jayron32. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when such marriage might have been forbidden. Before Henry VIII married his brother's widow, he got a Papal waiver. (Consider the phrase sister in law literally.) Incest was defined rather differently before Gregor Mendel! —Tamfang (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different situation entirely. There would have been no problem if Henry VIII had married Arthur's wife's sister. The problem in that case was that Henry wanted to marry his dead brother's wife, not his dead brother's wife's sister... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is actually mandatory in some cultures. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say second vs third degree of kinship is entirely different. —Tamfang (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting variation of this used to happen relatively (no pun intended) often, back when siblings were often spread out over many years and widows and widowers were plentiful. Two brothers (say 20 years apart in age) might marry a widowed mother and her daughter, or some variation like that. Widower Samuel Adams, for example, was remarried to Elizabeth Wells, and his daughter married Elizabeth's brother. Not unusual, but it does bring6 to mind the old novelty song, I'm My Own Grandpa. —Kevin Myers 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know of one biological advantage first hand. A child I know was diagnosed with Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, was classified as a SCID-kid, and was basically kept in isolation most of his life (i.e. as a "bubble boy"). He had three double-first cousins, of which two were perfect bone marrow matches. He got a transfer and is now a (mostly) healthy boy. If not for those double-cousins, the chances of finding a suitable (let alone perfect) match would have drastically decreased and he would almost certainly be dead. Matt Deres (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the article on Prohibited degree of kinship. I'd summarize it here to answer your question but I'm afraid my mind's still spinning from reading about "wife's son's daughter" and so forth. ---- smurdah^{[citation needed]} 18:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siblings marrying siblings is a rather common practice in Western societies (as any amateur genealogist could tell you), but I'm afraid I don't know of a particular term for it. One reason for the practice (at least in the past) is that the first pair to wed have already overcome the sometimes-strict religious rules against consanguinity of married couples, so the second pair who have the same ancestry need not worry about that impediment. However, just a few days ago I heard a report on BBC radio of a couple in just this situation who have long been prohibited from marrying in the Greek Orthodox church because it is considered "incest". Here [1] is a link to a news report of the case. Thylacoleo (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large social advantages as everyone knows each other better. I know a case of this ages ago, the two couples had adjacent houses but generally only used one kitchen and only had shared meals. Inheritance of money and land is better too. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that the Mongols never lost a battle to a European force?

^Topic says it all. 76.6.56.157 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Mongol invasion of Europe notes that some did. Under "Later campaigns" it notes that the Poles defeated the Mongols at Krakow in 1287; but that it was something of a Pyrrhic victory for the Poles. It also notes unsuccessful raids against the Lithuanians in 1275 and 1277, and that a force of Mongols was defeated by Ladislaus IV of Hungary in the mid-1280's near modern Budapest. Then there is, of course, the Great stand on the Ugra river, where Ivan the Great defeated the Golden Horde and ended Mongol suzerainity over Russia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not, you'd need to explain what caused the Mongols to leave Europe. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the death of the Khan that made them leave, as they all had to go back to Mongolia and elect a new one. This happened three times, apparently. On the thrid occasion, the Mongols didn't bother returning to Europe, presumably because of a new policy by the new Khan. It had nothing to do with whether we beat them, or not.--KageTora (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So an empire collapsed due to a lack of absentee ballots ? StuRat (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent analogy! Clan heads were required to elect the new Khan in person, and by the third time around the emphasis was on richer China rather than poorer Europe. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mount everest

how is this site used by the chinese population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkuba4 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a start, there was of course the 2008 Summer Olympics summit of Mt. Everest.MarquisCostello (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen assets

I'm trying to find Wikipedia's information on the idea of 'frozen assets' in banking/economics. I've searched for 'frozen assets', 'assets frozen', 'asset freezing', 'freezing assets', 'frozen', 'freeze' and checked the page Asset but with no result. Where can I find this information? Normally I have no trouble finding stuff on Wikipedia, so this suggests some redirects or additions to the disambig page might be needed. 131.111.245.195 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a page on Asset forfeiture, although this is not quite the same.MarquisCostello (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Frozen Accounts". The first ghit was [2]. // BL \\ (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castle inheritance

hello there my name is elisha neville and my fathers name is richard neville we have heard for a few years that a castle has been handed down to him in male generations and after reading about the neville history is quite convincing i was wandering if you had any more information on the history you can contact me on #### thankyou very much for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.179.153.84 (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your email address. manya (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about your specific case, but be wary of anyone trying to tell you that you've come into an unexpected inheritance - that's unfortunately a very common internet scam. It generally goes like "you've inherited xxx, but you need to pay lawyers/taxes/bribes to get at it"; in these cases there's no inheritance, and your payment (and identity info) just lines the scammer's pocket). 87.112.89.175 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be careful, but the Neville family do have castle-owning relations. How did you come into the knowledge? I'd first check this 'castle' exists; preferably by finding it. Then ask the current owners about it - even if it is a scam, I'm sure they'll want to know that their property is involved. If you've (or your father) inherited it, you must be a blood relative of the previous occupant, so they'll know if your inheritance is a possibility. I'd suggest also, though, if it's been on the back boiler (letter a couple of months ago), then it's almost certainly not real - no-one would leave such a building like that for any period of time. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the castle would make this more intreresting for us others.--Wetman (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you hear about it? If it was any way other than the previous owner's solicitor contacting you, it's probably nonsense. --Tango (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably talking about Warwick Castle. I would have thought the present owners might have something to say about an "inheritance"! Oh and if your Dad thinks he's descended from Richard Neville, then he probably is: many people with English ancestry can trace their descent back to the Nevilles, myself included. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage behaviour

What can I do to convince my 14-year old neice that I have no interest in the actual content of her text messages, MSN messenger conversations, emails, blogs and documents on the family computer or her cell phone? As I'm the family expert on all things "technical", she quite often asks me for help with the computer or cell phone, but if something is left on the screen a strange paranoia suddenly takes hold - turning the screen away, furious clicking to exit programs, covering the screen with her hands, and so on. Is that normal behaviour for a 14-year old girl or should her parents be worried? Astronaut (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds entirely normal to me! DuncanHill (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, perfectly normal. It might help if you make a point of looking away while she hides things or, if you have hold of the mouse, minimise the windows yourself straight away. Of course, it is possible that she's hiding something specific that her parents do need to be worried about, unlikely, but possible. A certain amount of monitoring of children's internet usage is recommended. --Tango (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you're stuck between upholding a PC version of doctor/patient priviledge and you role as uncle/aunt. If she has a problem you need to fix - let her show you/take control first and then when she is comfortable she can hand it over to you to work on. Apart from that the above make sure you look away (and not just your eyes - make it obvious you're not trying to look) and that'll help. As DuncanHill said it's entirely normal behaviour - desire for privacy and fear of embarrassment are probably two of the biggest defining factors of what it is to be a teenager. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's a relief. Even though she makes all the right comments when internet safety is discussed, as a responsible adult I was getting worried. Astronaut (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to embarrass her, tell her you've been discussing her behaviour with millions of strangers on the internet. DuncanHill (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No need to do that. She doesn't want me to see anything of what she's writing, but is quite happy to put at least some of it in a blog for her friends (and millions of others around the world) to read. Crazy eh? :-) Astronaut (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with the advice you're getting. The kid has enough friends; she needs somebody who loves her looking to protect her. Would you be OK with her sloping off to the local streetcorner to hang out and chat with a mix of criminals of all ages and persuasions? Be afraid, be very afraid of the internet. Watch her like a hawk, and it doesn't matter whether she thanks you later; you're not doing it for any reward other than knowing you've done what you could to help her reach adulthood intact. Although her behavior might be nothing more than teen weirdness, what you've described sure looks exactly like guilty conscience and furtiveness. Am I the only adult who remembers being that age? You try to get away with things, and kids today have more avenues. The kid can have privacy when she earns it by openness and when her brain is full-grown and when she gets married or has her own place. Put a keylogger on her computer (but never, ever read her diary). Protect her. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's your niece. You have a responsible-adult role, but you do not have parental role; you may not invade her privacy. If you are going to spy on her, be sure to lie to her; she's going to resent the hell out of you when she finds out, so you may as well delay it as long as possible. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you say that you are the computer expert of the family and that you have no desire to spy on her, maybe you could tell her about public-key encryption? --Aseld ^talk 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]