Friday, April 20, 2007

Can a Virgin Be an Ancestor?

Saturday is the 81st birthday of Queen Elizabeth, who will soon be paying a visit to the United States. The Telegraph marks the event by suggesting that one of the Queen's distant cousins wasn't really a virgin.

This year's visit is for the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, the first permanent settlement in troubled Virginia, a state named after the Queen's ancestor Elizabeth I. [Link]
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that by "ancestor" they mean "someone with the same first name who held the same job."

Bill Blunt

It's true, Chris. Our Royal Family are special people, with special ways of doing things. If they want to start a dynasty and they don't have children, what's the problem?

I wonder if any Daily Telegraph leader-writers had ancestors who were virgins? It's clear they had the odd cretin here or there, that's for certain!

Kind Regards


Are you saying that the Royals can reproduce asexually? That would explain how Diana was able to bear children while married to Charles.

Bill Blunt

Well, I see that Wikipedia defines an 'ancestor' thus:

Two individuals have a genetic relationship if one is the ancestor of the other or if they share a common ancestor; in evolutionary theory, species who share an evolutionary ancestor are said to be of common descent. However, this concept of ancestry does not apply to some bacteria and other organisms capable of horizontal gene transfer.

A bit harsh of them to suggest that our Royals are a kind of bacteria, I thought...

Kind Regards


Indeed, but that does seem the most logical explanation.

Colin Blunt

Mr. Hamburger Jr wrote:

I wonder if any Daily Telegraph leader-writers had ancestors who were virgins?

I am sure that many have ancestors that were almost virgins.

Post a Comment

« Newer Post       Older Post »
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...