Posted by M.Sjostrom on 12/7/2009, 19:26:50, in reply to "Not that rare"
82.181.239.182
the situation that a person would have only cousins as his closest relatives, is quite rare.
We can argue forever about semantics of that wording, but rare means that occasionally so happens, though not in an overwhelming number of cases.
The example of king Olav V: at his death, he had closer relatives than his cousins, namely he had his own children. QED.
The rare possibility did NOT actualize in his case.
Even if a person has only cousins laterally [and even that's not an usual case!], in most cases a person will have his own issue. I think nowadays it's still a minority of population who do not have any children of their own.
In the overwhelming number of cases, the thing I characterized as *rare*, does not actualize.
To avoid that rarity, it suffices that there are (a) one's own issue, or (b) siblings or their issue, or (c) a surviving parent, etc, or (d) a surviving uncle or aunt.
--Previous Message--
:
: Genealogically,
: It is a rare occasion that a person has only
: cousins as nearest relatives. Usually, there
: are siblings and their some issue, even if a
: monarch is childless.
:
:
: Not that rare, specially in the NRF.
: Olav was an only son (won't debate again his
: eventual parenthood).
: Should he have died before fathering a
: child, or should his marraige have been
: childless, who would be the next in line ?
: Knud, who was by then Crown Prince of Dk, or
: any of Pr. Harald's sons ?
: Or in this case, could he have proposed any
: other person according to art. 7 of the
: Constitution ?
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread