I donít have the statistics on hand. Itís not genetically impossible though, nor is it a one-off mutation, full stop. There are interactions between two principal genes and interactions with possibly over a dozen more which influence eye colour.
You can easily Google it and will come up with scientific JM journals, university websites, etc.
I did, in fact, try to Google it -- and the figure was akin to something very miniscule (less than 1%). Sorry, but the weak possibility of two blue-eyed parents producing a brown-eyed child is not a good refutation of the case for nonpaternity.
The point is that the eye color argument is rightly cited as good EVIDENCE -- if not downright proof -- of nonpaternity: there is a fine distinction between the two.
Obviously the latter is a very strong assertion -- and it would theoretically be possible to prove nonpaternity: exhume the remains of both Ferdinand and Mircea and perform a Y-chromosome DNA analysis. If the two don't match, then you would know for sure that the king was not the biological father of the prince.
This, of course, is using very modern molecular biology -- something unavailable at the time. As with so many things, it's about context: what kind of science has been available, for the good part of history -- and what has been applied to historical research.
The fact is that the basic Mendelian laws were well-known and developed, by the time the first biographies of Queen Marie came out -- even though the finer intricacies of genes would not have been. Biographers are not scientists, but they would have known the centuries-old observation that the vast majority of children born to two blue-eyed parents have blue eyes (recall Marie's first five children).
Like I said, strong improbability is not the same thing as impossibility; but it points to that direction. It's not unlike the situation with Empress Eugenie of the French, whose legal father was in prison during the biological timeframe in which she was conceived: it would theoretically have been possible for her mother to have visited Don Cipriano to visit him in prison and get pregnant by him. But slight possibility doesn't amount to probability (I'm assuming in all this that the stated facts are true).
As for King Edward IV of England being conceived, while the Duke of York was too far away for too great a period of time to have been his biological father, this would come to a fairly strong argument for nonpaternity -- assuming that the facts are true. Near certainty of nonpaternity, then, would amount to absolute proof only if the facts are irrefutable. That appears to be the main contingency, here.
Like I said, one has to use the science relative to the times -- when the persons lived, and when the authors wrote.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index