Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Social Status and Children of Concubines

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Social Status and Children of Concubines

    Solomon had 18 brothers, not including any other brothers born by concubines.

    DNA studies are particularly interesting for families before 1870. In America, the census shows that many people were children of concubines. Often the children's social status prevents them from examining their genealogy. Too me, it is interesting to jump into the amazing world of deep ancestry. Up to now, we could only read stories about kings. Now we can find our own stories . . . adding something special in our lives too. Personally, I find it interesting to find out suddenly about so many genetic cousins and that one 64/67 Y-DNA match . . . Who were they??? Well, most likely not Solomon.

    Still, the ancestor must have been someone in order for me to be here today

    Six of his brothers were born in Hebron of Judah: (from firstborn to sixth-born) Amnon, Kileab, Absalom, Adonijah, Shephatiah, and Ithream. (I Chronicles 3:1-4).

    Twelve of his brothers were born in Jerusalem of Judah: (chronological order not given) Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Ibhar, Elishua, Eliphelet, Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet (I Chronicles 3:5-9).

    These were the brothers of King Solomon, not including any other brothers born by concubines (I Chronicles 3:9)

  • #2
    social status preventing examination of genealogy

    Originally posted by GregKiroKHR1bL1 View Post
    In America, the census shows that many people were children of concubines. Often the children's social status prevents them from examining their genealogy.
    In the sense that more people don't because they are concerned about the label? I suspect there is some truth to that. There is certainly some truth that across the world y dna and surname do not always fit neatly. On reason for the common law rule that a child born during cohabitation must be conclusively presumed to be the child of the husband. There are also situations as I suspect was true in my family where the child of a family decimated by illness became adopted into a related family, maybe the wife's relative adopting the husband's surname. I am also aware of a custom from the late middle ages of a son-in-law adopting the more prestigious surname of his new father-in-law. I can understand a certain uneasiness at these prospects. On the other hand, much of the fabric of who we are comes from our upbringing in the home in which we live, so these non genetic dads become in a very meaningful way our cultural dads. It is part of the tapestry of who we are. Long spiel to say I agree with you assuming I understand your point.

    Comment


    • #3
      Road Blocks

      I was just wondering because people talk about road blocks.

      I thought it was interesting that my grandfather came to New York to visit his Uncle Duncan about 104 years ago. (Sounded like something out of Shakespear to me). And then the next week, I saw a movie, and after the stars left the boat, they had a mini-biography associated with them pop up like sub-titles.


      Originally posted by Deirwha View Post
      In the sense that more people don't because they are concerned about the label? I suspect there is some truth to that. There is certainly some truth that across the world y dna and surname do not always fit neatly. On reason for the common law rule that a child born during cohabitation must be conclusively presumed to be the child of the husband. There are also situations as I suspect was true in my family where the child of a family decimated by illness became adopted into a related family, maybe the wife's relative adopting the husband's surname. I am also aware of a custom from the late middle ages of a son-in-law adopting the more prestigious surname of his new father-in-law. I can understand a certain uneasiness at these prospects. On the other hand, much of the fabric of who we are comes from our upbringing in the home in which we live, so these non genetic dads become in a very meaningful way our cultural dads. It is part of the tapestry of who we are. Long spiel to say I agree with you assuming I understand your point.

      Comment


      • #4
        Centuries ago the 'Arabs' considered their children thru female slaves (from East Africa) to be their children and those children were their heirs and inherited from their fathers. And the concubines were treated well because they were the mothers of future Sultans.

        But in America, most men who had children thru slaves/concubines (from West Africa) did not treat their children as their children, but as slaves.

        Comment


        • #5
          slaves/concubines

          Maybe the movie Imitation of Life had a story to tell. The lighter the skin and the lighter the skin of the children of the slave/concubine produced more freedoms for these offspring. There seemed to be a three generation rule popping up in paper after paper as far as I can tell. Social acceptance of the first two generation of children keeps the numbers of these people sparse. And so, these children usually have strong family ties that have been carefully selected from the rest. Often they experienced a greater education experience, and they have a milder disposition. These families branched away from others into a direction of social climbing through professional careers, and often are organizers of their own branches of social clubs such as fraternities and such and such. The situation seemed to change as one moves from east to west. However, lighter skinned people often married lighter skinned people because they were not allowed to marry into the upper classes of Euro-Americans. And so, some higher class dark skinned men often had lighter skinned wives. Research shows that concubines from these relationships were often remembered because an historical record was kept. The dynamics between American states from Maryland to Eastern Texas developed a different type of segregated Afro-American communities than the rest of America. And so concubines and slaves in America might be studied from pre-colonial, pre-1600s, 1600 - 1660, 1660 - 1750, 1750 - 1800, 1800 - 1870, 1870 - 1920, 1920 -1960, 1960 - present.

          Originally posted by rainbow View Post
          Centuries ago the 'Arabs' considered their children thru female slaves (from East Africa) to be their children and those children were their heirs and inherited from their fathers. And the concubines were treated well because they were the mothers of future Sultans.

          But in America, most men who had children thru slaves/concubines (from West Africa) did not treat their children as their children, but as slaves.
          Last edited by GregKiroKHR1bL1; 1 May 2009, 07:41 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rainbow View Post
            Centuries ago the 'Arabs' considered their children thru female slaves (from East Africa) to be their children and those children were their heirs and inherited from their fathers. And the concubines were treated well because they were the mothers of future Sultans.

            But in America, most men who had children thru slaves/concubines (from West Africa) did not treat their children as their children, but as slaves.
            Race perhaps was valued more than biological bonds to an offspring in European culture at that time. Some times we forget our parents and grand parents lived thru the second world war when Jews were exterminated on the pretense they were a separate/ inferior race.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rainbow View Post
              Centuries ago the 'Arabs' considered their children thru female slaves (from East Africa) to be their children and those children were their heirs and inherited from their fathers. And the concubines were treated well because they were the mothers of future Sultans.

              But in America, most men who had children thru slaves/concubines (from West Africa) did not treat their children as their children, but as slaves.
              This is because of the Muslim law. Men had the right of 4 wives and as many concubines they can afford. All children were considered legitimate, while Christian law recognized only children born in marriage. They were not entitled to inheritance or any other privileges coming from the father even if their mother was not a slave.
              Interesting, richer Turks and Arabs in the past preferred to have slaves in their households as wives. It was possible to buy a girl of any race at the bazaar in Istanbul until the end of 19 century. They thought when the woman does not have the support of her family and is fully dependant on her husband, she will be more dedicated and grateful. Turkish sultans, for example, never officially married their harem concubines, dynasty marriages as in the European aristocracy were unknown to them.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by eastara View Post
                This is because of the Muslim law. Men had the right of 4 wives and as many concubines they can afford. All children were considered legitimate, while Christian law recognized only children born in marriage. They were not entitled to inheritance or any other privileges coming from the father even if their mother was not a slave.
                Interesting, richer Turks and Arabs in the past preferred to have slaves in their households as wives. It was possible to buy a girl of any race at the bazaar in Istanbul until the end of 19 century. They thought when the woman does not have the support of her family and is fully dependant on her husband, she will be more dedicated and grateful. Turkish sultans, for example, never officially married their harem concubines, dynasty marriages as in the European aristocracy were unknown to them.
                Even if the white man wanted to marry his black slave and had his baby with a black woman before he married any white woman, the black woman's baby could not inherit. So, lets not blame Christainity or Islam for what was good old European Racism. Although, I am not sure what this conversation has to do with haplogroups?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by eastara View Post
                  This is because of the Muslim law. Men had the right of 4 wives and as many concubines they can afford. All children were considered legitimate, while Christian law recognized only children born in marriage. They were not entitled to inheritance or any other privileges coming from the father even if their mother was not a slave.
                  Interesting, richer Turks and Arabs in the past preferred to have slaves in their households as wives. It was possible to buy a girl of any race at the bazaar in Istanbul until the end of 19 century. They thought when the woman does not have the support of her family and is fully dependant on her husband, she will be more dedicated and grateful. Turkish sultans, for example, never officially married their harem concubines, dynasty marriages as in the European aristocracy were unknown to them.
                  Just to clarify,

                  under Islamic law a man cannot have another wife if it is so stipulated in the marriage contract. In other words Islam allows these things to be negotiated, before marriage in the contract. For example, Caliph Ali was not permitted to marry while married to his first wife. As such, a Muslim man can marry a slave woman with a contract to not engage in polygamy, if this is what has been negotiated. A white Christian slave owner could not marry a black slave, whether he wanted to or not and could not pass his property on to his black children. Do you see the difference?

                  You are right, the Turkish Sultan pigs probably did prefer slave Christian wives over free Muslim women because Muslim women were so difficult to control. You see, unlike Christian wives who did not inherit from their fathers property, could not enter legal contracts, and effectively became the property of their husbands after marriage (without right to divorce), Muslim brides inherited from their fathers, kept their property separate, entered legal contracts using their own names and knew they had the right to divorce their husbands.
                  Last edited by bob_chasm; 11 May 2009, 11:35 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Let's try and steer this conversion back towards the genetic aspects of genealogy.

                    -Darren Marin
                    Family Tree DNA

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I could be wrong, but

                      Coming back to the topic of genetic genealogy, it seems to me that the J2 haplogroup/ haplotype of the Turkish Sultans is common in the same regions of Central Asia that the Ottoman Turks claim they lived in before invading Anatolia. I say this because I am just 3 micro sats away from the Sultan's 12 marker results and most of my matches are in Central Asia/ Black, Caspian and Aral Sea regions.
                      Last edited by bob_chasm; 12 May 2009, 11:27 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by eastara View Post
                        This is because of the Muslim law. Men had the right of 4 wives and as many concubines they can afford. All children were considered legitimate, while Christian law recognized only children born in marriage. They were not entitled to inheritance or any other privileges coming from the father even if their mother was not a slave.
                        Interesting, richer Turks and Arabs in the past preferred to have slaves in their households as wives. It was possible to buy a girl of any race at the bazaar in Istanbul until the end of 19 century. They thought when the woman does not have the support of her family and is fully dependant on her husband, she will be more dedicated and grateful. Turkish sultans, for example, never officially married their harem concubines, dynasty marriages as in the European aristocracy were unknown to them.
                        Originally posted by Darren View Post
                        Let's try and steer this conversion back towards the genetic aspects of genealogy.

                        -Darren Marin
                        Family Tree DNA
                        I wonder, does the population of Istanbul (and the surrounding area) have the widest variety of mtdna haplogroups?
                        (Compared to other places. Excluding mtdna in the USA/New World.)
                        I suppose at some point, if not already, women from Turkey and/or the Muslim world willl have their mtdna tested to see where their female line originated from, approximately.
                        Last edited by rainbow; 15 May 2009, 10:36 AM.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X