Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts

Friday, December 27, 2013

Indian Satirist Takes On Homophobia

Via First Post Bollywood:
The controversy around Section 377 of IPC raised a lot of questions about gay people, gay sex and homophobia. What is this whole 'gay' thing, anyway, said a large swathe of Indian society. And why is everyone making such a big fuss about it? Actor Imran Khan has taken it upon himself to disabuse these people from their mistaken notions of homosexuality in a new satire video. Imran Khan poses as a sort of gay version of a sex advice columnist. In the video, Khan sits behind a laptop while viewers email in their questions.
You'll enjoy this. Not office-friendly.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Bangalore on Homosexuality

"We walked around Bangalore and asked people what they thought about homosexuality." Bangalore is India's third largest city and has about the same population as New York City.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

INDIA: Government Asks Supreme Court To Review Anti-Homosexuality Law

The Indian government yesterday petitioned the Supreme Court to review its decision to reinstate the criminalization of homosexuality.
The government asked the court to review its order saying it believed it "violated the principle of equality". There has been outrage over the ruling seen as a huge blow to gay rights. There have been street protests and many activists and even government ministers have criticised it. "The government has filed the review petition on Section 377 in the Supreme Court today. Let's hope the right to personal choices is preserved," Law Minister Kapil Sibal tweeted on Friday. In its petition filed in the Supreme Court, the government says "the position of the central government on this issue has been that the Delhi High Court verdict... is correct". The Supreme Court's earlier order was widely criticised in India. The president of the ruling Congress party Sonia Gandhi described it as "an archaic, unjust law" and Finance Minister P Chidambaram said the ruling had taken India "back to 1860".
Very encouraging.

Monday, December 16, 2013

US Hate Group Cheers Indian Ruling

"When given the same choice the Supreme Court of the United States had in Lawrence vs. Texas, the Indian Court did the right thing. India chose to protect society at large rather than give in to a vocal minority of homosexual advocates. The Texas case laid the groundwork for the invalidation of traditional marriage by a number of courts subsequent to that. The Indian Supreme Court saw what had happened there and was wise enough not to want to go down that road. America needs to take note that a country of 1.2 billion people has rejected the road towards same-sex marriage, and understood that these kinds of bad decisions in the long run will harm society." - Benjamin Bull, executive director of Alliance Defending Freedom, speaking to the American Family Association's OneNewsNow.

RELATED: Early this year an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom was convicted on eight felony counts of making child pornography with her daughter. She was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

INDIA: LGBT Community & Allies Demonstrate Against Court Ruling

In what was titled as a "Global Day Of Rage," yesterday LGBT Indians and their allies demonstrated against last week's Supreme Court ruling that recriminalized homosexuality. Supporting demonstrations were held in major cities around the world. The clips below are from New Delhi and Bangalore. Buzzfeed has posted a massive compilation of photos from cities in many nations.

Friday, December 13, 2013

SUNDAY: Global Protests Planned In Support Of Indian LGBT Community

On Sunday there will be protests of the Indian Supreme Court ruling in major cities around the world. The list of cities so far: Sydney, Toronto, Cambridge, London, Delhi, Ann Arbor, Chennai.  More locations will be added at this link, at which you can find details for each city.

Editorial Of THe Day

From the New York Times editorial board:
The court’s statement inviting the Legislature to amend the law is disingenuous. Given the fractious nature of India’s Parliament, the conservative views of many of its members, and the political stakes in the run-up to general elections next spring, the Legislature is unlikely to take up this issue on its own. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh now has an opportunity to leave a lasting legacy of progress before his government steps down next spring. His cabinet should act immediately to seek a repeal of Section 377. This 1861 law has no place in a 21st-century democracy.

Indian AG Denounces Ruling

"The world has moved on. It is fast changing. Perceptions have changed. Attitudes have changed. Law does not and cannot remain static. Whenever necessary, the Supreme Court has reflected changed perceptions of the law and has struck outmoded laws down. They did so when striking down rent control laws as socially irrelevant. They also did it by breathing fresh life into Article 21, protecting life and personal liberty. They did it by consigning the archaic judgment in A K Gopalan vs State of Madras, rendered in 1950, into the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, they declined to give a similar treatment to Section 377. Therein lies the tragedy." - Goolam Vahanvati, Attorney General of India.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

INDIA: Top Politicians Vow To Repeal Law Against Homosexuality

In the wake of yesterday's shocking recriminalization of homosexuality by the Indian Supreme Court, politicians there today vowed to repeal the law legislatively.
"We will have to change the law. If the Supreme Court has upheld that law, then we will certainly have to take firm steps," Thursday. "Change has to be made fast, and any delay cannot take place." Sibal's comments were echoed by other government officials. Sonia Gandhi, the head of the ruling Congress Party, who is among the most powerful political figures in the country, said Thursday she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, adding she hopes "Parliament will address the issue and uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by the judgment." The main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, fresh off massive wins in state elections last week, refused to comment on the ruling, "react when we see the government's proposal." The BJP is seen as a front-runner ahead of next year's national elections.

HomoQuotable - Kate Kendell

"It is repellent that extremist religious opposition worldwide is such a corrosive impediment to basic human rights. The groundbreaking Delhi high court decision would have stood had religious opponents not attempted, now successfully, to roll it back. Even the Indian government refused to defend the law in court. We are unfortunately in a global culture war with many more challenges ahead. [snip] We are living in a Dickensian world, the best of times for many LGBT people in great swathes of this nation and some other countries, and the worst of times on far too much of the planet. It is impossible to enjoy our liberty and freedom knowing that so many others suffer. We always knew our work was not done, and today we have another grim reminder." - Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Updated Map: India Rejoins 76 Other Nations That Criminalize Homosexuality

Business Insider takes note:
The news that India has re-criminalized homosexual acts has come as a blow to the worldwide LGBT movement. Roughly 16% of the world's total population — 1.2 billion people — live in the South Asian state. But India isn't alone in considering homosexual acts a crime. According to the 2013 report from the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, 76 countries (plus India) have laws making homosexuality illegal. In five of these countries — Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania, Sudan — plus parts of Nigeria and Somalia, homosexuality is punishable by death. Additionally, there are a number of countries where homosexuality is not illegal but laws exist that seriously restrict homosexuality — most famously, Russia, which enacted a law that prohibited homosexual "propaganda" last year.
And let's not forget that Uganda's "kill the gays" bill remains pending. The full list of the countries on the above map is at the link.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Indian LGBT Community Protests Ruling

More photos of the protests are at Vocativ.  See my full report on today's shocking Supreme Court ruling.

Freep This Indian Poll

Right here. (Tipped by JMG reader Justin)

Indian LGBT Group Denounces Ruling

The Indian LGBT rights group Orinam has issued a reaction to the today's shameful ruling by the Indian Supreme Court.
We are deeply disappointed at the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Kaushal v. Naz Foundation. The decision by overturning the historic Delhi High Court judgment which recognized that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) persons are full citizens of India, attempts to stem the tide of history. By overturning the Naz Foundation judgment, the Supreme Court has, in one fell stroke again reduced LGBT persons to the status of what the Delhi High Court memorably called 'unapprehended felons'. The judgment of the Supreme Court is a unconscionable blow to the dignity of LGBT persons who as per the Indian Constitution are entitled to equal treatment. It withdraws the protective arm of the constitution from LGBT persons and renders LGBT persons vulnerable to discrimination, violence and harassment. It is a tragedy that this judgment forgets the vision of the founders of the Indian republic which was so eloquently captured by the Delhi High Court. By re-criminalizing LGBT persons the judgment ignores the spirit of inclusiveness which is the heart of the Indian Constitution as articulated by Jawaharlal Nehru. It equally abandons the principle of constitutional morality (ie majorities dont have a charter to discriminate against minorities purely because they are majorities) articulated by Dr. Ambedkar which is the cornerstone of a diverse and plural nation.
Read the full statement.

INDIA: Supreme Court Recriminalizes Homosexuality In Shocking Decision, Reverses 2009 Landmark Ruling

This is beyond shocking. Homosexuality is once again a crime in India after the Supreme Court today reversed a 2009 ruling by the Delhi High Court and declared that only the national legislature can legalize gay sex.

Via Reuters:
India's Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated a ban on gay sex in the world's largest democracy, following a four-year period of decriminalization that had helped bring homosexuality into the open in the socially conservative country. In 2009 the Delhi High Court ruled unconstitutional a section of the penal code dating back to 1860 that prohibits "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal" and lifted the ban for consenting adults. The Supreme Court threw out that decision, saying only parliament could change Section 377 of the penal code, widely interpreted to refer to homosexual sex. Violation of the law can be punished with up to 10 years in jail. The move shocked rights activists around the world, who had expected the court simply to rubber-stamp the earlier ruling. In recent years, India's Supreme Court has made progressive rulings on several issues such as prisoners' rights and child labor.
Via Al Jazeera:
The court on Wednesday held that an homosexual act was punishable under Section 377 of the Indian penal code, reports quoting the judgement said. A bench of justice G S Singhvi and justice SJ Mukhopadhaya delivered the verdict after hearing petitions of anti-gay right activists besides social and religious organisations against the earlier Delhi high court order of 2009. The top court came down heavily on the federal government describing its approach as “casual” and said it was concerned that the Indian parliament had not thought fit to discuss the issue. The federal government had welcomed the ruling of the earlier Delhi High court on the grounds that the section 377 of the Indian penal code was a relic of the British colonial law and that Indian society was much more tolerant towards homosexuality, reports said. The Delhi high court on July 2, 2009, had ruled that sex between two consenting adults in private would not be an offence.
Via the India Times:
The verdict has been shocking on many levels. Firstly, landing a major blow to India's claim of being a country with a modern outlook, the fact a law made by Britishers in the 1860's has been upheld in 2013 makes for a strange sentence. Secondly, with many countries now equating gay equality with the rights for same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court ruling puts India back in the company of most nations in the Islamic world and many African countries which criminalise homosexuality. The only country in South Asia where gay sex is now legal is Nepal.

"It is highly embarrassing for the country because now we will be among the dirty dozens of the world," said Narayan, the lawyer from the Alternative Law Forum.In most western countries, the debate about same-sex couples has shifted on to their rights to marry. More than a dozen countries now allow homosexuals to wed. Thirdly, it is a blow to people's right to equality. Just because gays have made a different lifestyle choice, they do not deserve to be put in jail. They are also entitled to their privacy and dignity. They do face widespread discrimination and ignorance from a largely homophobic Indian society. And with this verdict, the law has also deserted them.

Fourthly, by putting the ball in the Parliament's court, the Supreme Court has now granted power to decide how India's citizens should lead their private lives, in the hands of those MPs who are yet to become sensitive even to the gender equality issue.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

The Royal We

A discussion is still underway at theroyalforums.com about "Incestuous Royal Marriages." This blog has noted such things before.
Kataryn started off the discussion YEARS ago...
Legally Catherine of Aragon was married incestually because she as widow of one brother married the other after the first hausband's death.

That's not considered incest in most definitions.
But that's just a formality. History has shown that Royal families did not hesitate to form very close bonds between them. While a marriage of cousin and cousin happened quite often, marriages between unles and nieces are rare - but they happened, too.

One example is the marriage of Antoinette Marie of Wuerttemberg to Ernst I. of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Marie's mother Antoinette of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld was the sister of the groom.

Then there are the three uncle-niece marriages of the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs:

- Philipp II. married Anna of Austria, the daughter of his sister Marie.

- Archduke Charles II of Austria-Innerösterreich married Maria Anna of Bavaria, daughter of his sister Anna of Austria.

- Philipp IV. married Marianna of Austria, daughter of his sister Maria Anna.

As you can see, the last three uncle-niece-marriages happened in the House of Habsburg between 1550 and 1660 in the direct line leading to Philipp IV. of Spain and his wife Marianna of Austria. Their child is the sad, sick Don Carlos of Schillerian fame...

Not 100 years later, the House of Habsburg ended in the male line. But of course the marriage of Maria Theresia of Austria to Francis Stephan of Lorraine brought new blood into the family..
As I understand it, uncle-niece marriages are allowed in some places in deference to religious traditions.



Princess Agnes added...
In Portugal there are two cases of marriages to uncles, regarding the only female monarchs.

D. Maria I (1734-1816) married her uncle, Pedro de Bragança (1717-1786) who became D. Pedro III, in 1760.

Her greatgranddaughter, D. Maria II (1819-1853) married her uncle D. Miguel (1802-1866) by proxy in 1826. This marriage was annulled in 1834. This annullment had nothing to do with the close relationship between the spouses (there had been a papal dispensation) but because it had been contracted in an attempt to end the liberal civil wars. D. Miguel didn't fulfill his part of the agreement (he was on the absolutist side) and the marriage ended being annulled. D. Maria II later married Auguste of Beauharnais in 1834 by proxy and personnally in January 1835, although he died in March that year.

She finally married Fernando de Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (1816-1885) in 1836. After the birth of their first son, he became D. Fernando II.

MAfan added more about Spain...
In the Spanish Royal Family it appears that such marriages were a sort of habit:

- in 1779 Infanta Maria Amalia (Carlos IV's daughter) married her paternal uncle Infante Antonio;
- in 1816 King Fernando VII married his niece Infanta Isabel of Portugal (daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina);
- in 1829 again King Fernando VII married his niece Princess Maria Cristina of the Two Sicilies (daughter of his sister Maria Isabel);
- in 1816 Infante Carlos married to his niece Infanta Maria Francisca of Portugal (daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina);
- in 1838 Infante Carlos married to his niece and sister-in-law Infanta Teresa of Portugal (another daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina, and sister of the above mentioned Isabel and Maria Francisca);
- in 1819 Infante Francisco de Paula (brother of Fernando VII) married to his niece Princess Luisa Carlotta of the Two Sicilies (daughter of his sister Isabel, and sister of the above mentioned Maria Cristina; later Francisco de Paula and Luisa's son, Francisco de Asis, married to Fernando and Maria Cristina's daughter, Queen Isabel II).

Several other descendants of these couples married among themselves.
Alison20 was confused...
It has always seemed very strange to me that no-one in the Spanish RF realised a very basic biological fact, which was that marrying close relatives was not a healthy practice. This was somethat that was understood by even the most isolated and 'primitive' human societies - who made it 'taboo' for a woman to marry a man from her own family group. Perhaps they were so blinded by their belief in their superiority that they didn't think this basic fact applied to them! :-)
Most children born to close relatives are healthy. Not all societies have had a taboo preventing consanguineous marriages. The ones who did were likely more concerned about trading their daughters away as bargaining chips. In other words, the prohibitions were for the same reason the royal families would engage in consanguineous marriages: power. Either gaining it or retaining it.

Grandduchess24 contributed some information about the Norwegian royals...
Queen maud of Norway married her maternal cousin, haakon VII since they are both grandchildren of King Christian IX of Denmark

Princess Irene of Hesse and by Rhine married her maternal cousin prince Heinrich of Prussia and had 3 sons, is that right?

Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe Coburg and Gotha had married firstly her cousin grand duke Ernst Ludwig of Hesse and had a daughter by him but died young, she secondly married her maternal cousin grand duke Cyril Vladimirovich and had two girls and one boy.

King carol II of Romania married his cousin Helen

Marc23 added about the Portugal royals...
And her son Pedro,"product" of uncle and niece was married to his own aunt Maria Francisca who was a sister to his mother and the other niece of his father,who was at the same time his grandfathers younger brother!
pacomartin gave quite a list...

Hanoverian familial relationships with consorts
King George I married his firstcousin
King George II married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
Prince of Wales Frederick married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
King George III married his 3rd cousin
King George IV married his firstcousin
King William IV married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
Victoria and Edward Augustus were 3rd cousins 1 generation removed
Queen Victoria married her first cousin
King Edward VII married his 3rd cousin
King George V married his 2nd cousin 1 generation removed
King Edward VIII married "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor" after he abdicated (no known relationship)
King George VI married his 13th cousin (pretty distant for two English people) They were both descended from Henry VII.
 

Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh are:
2nd cousins one generation removed through common descent from King Christian IX of Denmark (died 1906) 3rd cousins through common descent from Queen Victoria (died 1901) and Prince Albert
Prince Charles is said to have proposed to his 2nd cousin, but when she turned him down he proposed to Diana (his 7th cousin once removed).

Queen Elizabeth's consanguinity index is almost zero because of the lack of any close relationship between her parents. Prince Charles is 2.03%, or about a third of the child of first cousins. Prince William and Harry have almost 0%.
theresa_225 offered...
Is Joseph, Prince of Beira and Benedita, Princess of Brazil mentioned yet? José was the son of Maria I of Portugal and her uncle, Peter III. Benedita is his aunt, being the daughter of José I of Portugal and Infanta Mariana Victoria of Spain (the parents of Maria I of Portugal).
Noble Consort Ming...
I think the Thai royal family has not been mentioned. Traditionally Thai kings had many wives including their sisters and half sisters. For example, King Rama V's four queen consorts were all his half-sisters(he had many other wives and concubines besides them as well).

Also, Kind Leonidas of Sparta and his wife Gorgo were uncle and niece. Many sources call her his half-niece(if there is such a term) since she was the daughter of his half brother.
Meraude...
The Roman emperor Claudius married his niece Agrippina the Younger, daughter of his brother Germanicus. She was the sister of emperor Caligula and there were rumours that he had an incestrous relationship with his sister Julia Drusilla, if not all of his sisters, but there is no known facts whether it's true or not.

Emperor Tiberius married his stepsister Julia the Elder, and was later adopted by Julia's father emperor Augustus, so the marriage could be seen as incestrous. The same could be said for the marriage between emperor Nero and his first wife, Claudia Octavia, the daugher of his step- and adoptive father, emperor Claudius.
norenxaq noted...
on a related theme, there was a dynasty in central india called the ikshvaku (c.200-300 AD) whose kings married their aunts
Keeping it in the caste?

The royals in Egypt, Hawaii, and elsewhere are also mentioned.

Literally all over the world, it has been common for close relatives to marry. In the US, there is a ridiculous stereotype that assigns such marriages or sexual relationships to rural southerners. But the fact is, wealthy people urban residents, and people of any socioeconomic background experience consanguinamory.

It is ridiculous that any US state has restrictions on the consanguineous freedom to marry, let alone laws criminalizing sex between first cousins. This is just one of many reasons we need full marriage equality nationwide. Adults in love who want to marry shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to figure out of they can marry where they live, or if it would be criminal for them to live together if they want to move to another state.

The Royal We

A discussion is still underway at theroyalforums.com about "Incestuous Royal Marriages." This blog has noted such things before.
Kataryn started off the discussion YEARS ago...
Legally Catherine of Aragon was married incestually because she as widow of one brother married the other after the first hausband's death.

That's not considered incest in most definitions.
But that's just a formality. History has shown that Royal families did not hesitate to form very close bonds between them. While a marriage of cousin and cousin happened quite often, marriages between unles and nieces are rare - but they happened, too.

One example is the marriage of Antoinette Marie of Wuerttemberg to Ernst I. of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Marie's mother Antoinette of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld was the sister of the groom.

Then there are the three uncle-niece marriages of the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs:

- Philipp II. married Anna of Austria, the daughter of his sister Marie.

- Archduke Charles II of Austria-Innerösterreich married Maria Anna of Bavaria, daughter of his sister Anna of Austria.

- Philipp IV. married Marianna of Austria, daughter of his sister Maria Anna.

As you can see, the last three uncle-niece-marriages happened in the House of Habsburg between 1550 and 1660 in the direct line leading to Philipp IV. of Spain and his wife Marianna of Austria. Their child is the sad, sick Don Carlos of Schillerian fame...

Not 100 years later, the House of Habsburg ended in the male line. But of course the marriage of Maria Theresia of Austria to Francis Stephan of Lorraine brought new blood into the family..
As I understand it, uncle-niece marriages are allowed in some places in deference to religious traditions.



Princess Agnes added...
In Portugal there are two cases of marriages to uncles, regarding the only female monarchs.

D. Maria I (1734-1816) married her uncle, Pedro de Bragança (1717-1786) who became D. Pedro III, in 1760.

Her greatgranddaughter, D. Maria II (1819-1853) married her uncle D. Miguel (1802-1866) by proxy in 1826. This marriage was annulled in 1834. This annullment had nothing to do with the close relationship between the spouses (there had been a papal dispensation) but because it had been contracted in an attempt to end the liberal civil wars. D. Miguel didn't fulfill his part of the agreement (he was on the absolutist side) and the marriage ended being annulled. D. Maria II later married Auguste of Beauharnais in 1834 by proxy and personnally in January 1835, although he died in March that year.

She finally married Fernando de Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (1816-1885) in 1836. After the birth of their first son, he became D. Fernando II.

MAfan added more about Spain...
In the Spanish Royal Family it appears that such marriages were a sort of habit:

- in 1779 Infanta Maria Amalia (Carlos IV's daughter) married her paternal uncle Infante Antonio;
- in 1816 King Fernando VII married his niece Infanta Isabel of Portugal (daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina);
- in 1829 again King Fernando VII married his niece Princess Maria Cristina of the Two Sicilies (daughter of his sister Maria Isabel);
- in 1816 Infante Carlos married to his niece Infanta Maria Francisca of Portugal (daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina);
- in 1838 Infante Carlos married to his niece and sister-in-law Infanta Teresa of Portugal (another daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina, and sister of the above mentioned Isabel and Maria Francisca);
- in 1819 Infante Francisco de Paula (brother of Fernando VII) married to his niece Princess Luisa Carlotta of the Two Sicilies (daughter of his sister Isabel, and sister of the above mentioned Maria Cristina; later Francisco de Paula and Luisa's son, Francisco de Asis, married to Fernando and Maria Cristina's daughter, Queen Isabel II).

Several other descendants of these couples married among themselves.
Alison20 was confused...
It has always seemed very strange to me that no-one in the Spanish RF realised a very basic biological fact, which was that marrying close relatives was not a healthy practice. This was somethat that was understood by even the most isolated and 'primitive' human societies - who made it 'taboo' for a woman to marry a man from her own family group. Perhaps they were so blinded by their belief in their superiority that they didn't think this basic fact applied to them! :-)
Most children born to close relatives are healthy. Not all societies have had a taboo preventing consanguineous marriages. The ones who did were likely more concerned about trading their daughters away as bargaining chips. In other words, the prohibitions were for the same reason the royal families would engage in consanguineous marriages: power. Either gaining it or retaining it.

Grandduchess24 contributed some information about the Norwegian royals...
Queen maud of Norway married her maternal cousin, haakon VII since they are both grandchildren of King Christian IX of Denmark

Princess Irene of Hesse and by Rhine married her maternal cousin prince Heinrich of Prussia and had 3 sons, is that right?

Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe Coburg and Gotha had married firstly her cousin grand duke Ernst Ludwig of Hesse and had a daughter by him but died young, she secondly married her maternal cousin grand duke Cyril Vladimirovich and had two girls and one boy.

King carol II of Romania married his cousin Helen

Marc23 added about the Portugal royals...
And her son Pedro,"product" of uncle and niece was married to his own aunt Maria Francisca who was a sister to his mother and the other niece of his father,who was at the same time his grandfathers younger brother!
pacomartin gave quite a list...

Hanoverian familial relationships with consorts
King George I married his firstcousin
King George II married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
Prince of Wales Frederick married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
King George III married his 3rd cousin
King George IV married his firstcousin
King William IV married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
Victoria and Edward Augustus were 3rd cousins 1 generation removed
Queen Victoria married her first cousin
King Edward VII married his 3rd cousin
King George V married his 2nd cousin 1 generation removed
King Edward VIII married "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor" after he abdicated (no known relationship)
King George VI married his 13th cousin (pretty distant for two English people) They were both descended from Henry VII.
 

Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh are:
2nd cousins one generation removed through common descent from King Christian IX of Denmark (died 1906) 3rd cousins through common descent from Queen Victoria (died 1901) and Prince Albert
Prince Charles is said to have proposed to his 2nd cousin, but when she turned him down he proposed to Diana (his 7th cousin once removed).

Queen Elizabeth's consanguinity index is almost zero because of the lack of any close relationship between her parents. Prince Charles is 2.03%, or about a third of the child of first cousins. Prince William and Harry have almost 0%.
theresa_225 offered...
Is Joseph, Prince of Beira and Benedita, Princess of Brazil mentioned yet? José was the son of Maria I of Portugal and her uncle, Peter III. Benedita is his aunt, being the daughter of José I of Portugal and Infanta Mariana Victoria of Spain (the parents of Maria I of Portugal).
Noble Consort Ming...
I think the Thai royal family has not been mentioned. Traditionally Thai kings had many wives including their sisters and half sisters. For example, King Rama V's four queen consorts were all his half-sisters(he had many other wives and concubines besides them as well).

Also, Kind Leonidas of Sparta and his wife Gorgo were uncle and niece. Many sources call her his half-niece(if there is such a term) since she was the daughter of his half brother.
Meraude...
The Roman emperor Claudius married his niece Agrippina the Younger, daughter of his brother Germanicus. She was the sister of emperor Caligula and there were rumours that he had an incestrous relationship with his sister Julia Drusilla, if not all of his sisters, but there is no known facts whether it's true or not.

Emperor Tiberius married his stepsister Julia the Elder, and was later adopted by Julia's father emperor Augustus, so the marriage could be seen as incestrous. The same could be said for the marriage between emperor Nero and his first wife, Claudia Octavia, the daugher of his step- and adoptive father, emperor Claudius.
norenxaq noted...
on a related theme, there was a dynasty in central india called the ikshvaku (c.200-300 AD) whose kings married their aunts
Keeping it in the caste?

The royals in Egypt, Hawaii, and elsewhere are also mentioned.

Literally all over the world, it has been common for close relatives to marry. In the US, there is a ridiculous stereotype that assigns such marriages or sexual relationships to rural southerners. But the fact is, wealthy people urban residents, and people of any socioeconomic background experience consanguinamory.

It is ridiculous that any US state has restrictions on the consanguineous freedom to marry, let alone laws criminalizing sex between first cousins. This is just one of many reasons we need full marriage equality nationwide. Adults in love who want to marry shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to figure out of they can marry where they live, or if it would be criminal for them to live together if they want to move to another state.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Polyandry Again


I previously wrote about this fraternal polyandry (which is a form of polygamy) situation that is being profiled in them media. The folks at dailymail.co.uk had more pictures of this family and some more information.
The set-up may seem peculiar, but it is tradition in the small village near Dehradun, Northern India, for women to also marry the brothers of their first husband.
Remember, where this is, this is traditional marriage.


Tradition: The set up may seem peculiar, but it is custom in the small village near Dehradun, Northern India, for women to also marry the brothers of her first husband
  
The ancient Hindu tradition of polyandry was once widely practiced in India, but is now only observed by a minority.
 
It sees a woman take more than one husband, typically in areas which are male dominated.

In fraternal polyandry the woman is expected to marry each of her original husband's brothers.

Polyandry isn't for everyone, but there are people all over world who are in polyandrous relationships because it is what is best for them. That is their right, and they shouldn't be denied by discrimination.

Polyandry Again


I previously wrote about this fraternal polyandry (which is a form of polygamy) situation that is being profiled in them media. The folks at dailymail.co.uk had more pictures of this family and some more information.
The set-up may seem peculiar, but it is tradition in the small village near Dehradun, Northern India, for women to also marry the brothers of their first husband.
Remember, where this is, this is traditional marriage.


Tradition: The set up may seem peculiar, but it is custom in the small village near Dehradun, Northern India, for women to also marry the brothers of her first husband
  
The ancient Hindu tradition of polyandry was once widely practiced in India, but is now only observed by a minority.
 
It sees a woman take more than one husband, typically in areas which are male dominated.

In fraternal polyandry the woman is expected to marry each of her original husband's brothers.

Polyandry isn't for everyone, but there are people all over world who are in polyandrous relationships because it is what is best for them. That is their right, and they shouldn't be denied by discrimination.

Categories