Imperial Twins?
- Thread starter hunter
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Hmm,
CTS8LDA-M page 46
Margaret I: oldest issue of Zhakirov. Born 684...
Paulo I: second issue of Zhakirov. Born 684...
MTIE page 10
Margaret I: oldest issue of Zhakirov. Born in 684...
Paulo I: second issue of Zhakirov. Born in 684...
They could be twins, but they could also have been born ten or so months apart, Paulo could have been premature...
CTS8LDA-M page 46
Margaret I: oldest issue of Zhakirov. Born 684...
Paulo I: second issue of Zhakirov. Born 684...
MTIE page 10
Margaret I: oldest issue of Zhakirov. Born in 684...
Paulo I: second issue of Zhakirov. Born in 684...
They could be twins, but they could also have been born ten or so months apart, Paulo could have been premature...
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Or...
Given the Imperial Nobility preference in some references (sorry not at hand) for cloning heirs perhaps they are both clones, kept on ice till needed. Margaret I was cloned before Paulo I making her the oldest issue by however long you want.
Both happen to have the same birth year, possibly even the same instant*, being the date that the clone was brought to maturity and out of the low-berth/maturation chamber.
* More likely though that cloned heirs would be kept well seperated until "born" to avoid having all your eggs in one basket so to speak.
This might imply Imperial order of precendence is based on the cloning incept date and not the actual "birth" date. So in this case Margaret I was cloned first and would be the first heir even if she were "born" years after Paulo I.
Just for another idea or two.
Given the Imperial Nobility preference in some references (sorry not at hand) for cloning heirs perhaps they are both clones, kept on ice till needed. Margaret I was cloned before Paulo I making her the oldest issue by however long you want.
Both happen to have the same birth year, possibly even the same instant*, being the date that the clone was brought to maturity and out of the low-berth/maturation chamber.
* More likely though that cloned heirs would be kept well seperated until "born" to avoid having all your eggs in one basket so to speak.
This might imply Imperial order of precendence is based on the cloning incept date and not the actual "birth" date. So in this case Margaret I was cloned first and would be the first heir even if she were "born" years after Paulo I.
Just for another idea or two.
I always assumed they were twins, without thinking about it too much.
With thought: it seems more probable than a pair of pregnancies that close together.
The clone option is interesting, and might make a decent storyline. On the other hand, it doesn't quite seem to match with MT's description of (subsequent) Imperial practice.
My guess would be twins, unless one of the alternatives is a better story.
Incidentally, I'm a big fan of the late 600s/early 700s period. It has so many interesting things going on that it deserves further exploration. It's on my "to do" list, although not at the top.
With thought: it seems more probable than a pair of pregnancies that close together.
The clone option is interesting, and might make a decent storyline. On the other hand, it doesn't quite seem to match with MT's description of (subsequent) Imperial practice.
My guess would be twins, unless one of the alternatives is a better story.
Incidentally, I'm a big fan of the late 600s/early 700s period. It has so many interesting things going on that it deserves further exploration. It's on my "to do" list, although not at the top.
Border Reiver
SOC-14 1K
I've never actually seen a canon list of Imperial consorts and it is culturally slightly presumptive to assume that they had the same mother. It is not unusual in Terran history to see monarchs have multiple consorts; produce recognised heirs out of wedlock; have illegitimate offspring challenge for the throne. Close together pregnancies are not that uncommon (especially as current thinking has it that breast feeding is a highly efficient contraceptive-WRONG), or even in vitro fertilisation of the Imperial couple's zygotes into several surrogates, after all an Empress' engagement are planned years ahead and she must look her best.
Personally though I always thought twins.
Personally though I always thought twins.
daryen
SOC-14 1K
I had thought of the multiple mothers thing, too, but rejected it because the Alkhalikoi line seems to be exclusively monogomous. (Not that there is no hanky-panky on the side, just that there is no official recognition of other than their single spouse.) So, I think Margaret and Paulo shared the same mother.
The chances of an 11 month separation between births is virtually zero. I understand it is statistically possible, and has probably happened, but the chances are very, very low. Most close births are on the order of 15 months of separation. (And don't forget that for the 11 month thing to work, the first one has to be right at the beginning of the year, and the second has to occur before the end of the year. Even if you get that turnaround, it is still a tight fit.) So, I doubt that happened earlier.
I also reject the clone idea. Historically, clones seem to be intended to be doubles, not heirs. The Norris/Seldrian situation seems to be considered a rare exception, not the normal situation. Besides, unlike Norris, Margaret and Paulo had both a mother and father, which eliminates and motivation to use clones.
So, if we want to restrict ourselves to "normal" births, Margaret and Paulo would need to be fraternal twins. It is the most reasonable solution that fits the known facts.
However, if we want to go outside the "normal" human reproductive process, and we subscribe to the existence of creches, the Margaret and Paulo could have been conceived using in vitro and been incubated in a creche. Using that, there is no compelling reason to assume they would be treated as twins, or that they would share a birthdate. (I doubt the use of surrogates, but that could be used instead of creches.)
That all said, I would say to go with the twins explanation. It fits the facts the best and doesn't use a forced explanation that will come back and bite you later.
The chances of an 11 month separation between births is virtually zero. I understand it is statistically possible, and has probably happened, but the chances are very, very low. Most close births are on the order of 15 months of separation. (And don't forget that for the 11 month thing to work, the first one has to be right at the beginning of the year, and the second has to occur before the end of the year. Even if you get that turnaround, it is still a tight fit.) So, I doubt that happened earlier.
I also reject the clone idea. Historically, clones seem to be intended to be doubles, not heirs. The Norris/Seldrian situation seems to be considered a rare exception, not the normal situation. Besides, unlike Norris, Margaret and Paulo had both a mother and father, which eliminates and motivation to use clones.
So, if we want to restrict ourselves to "normal" births, Margaret and Paulo would need to be fraternal twins. It is the most reasonable solution that fits the known facts.
However, if we want to go outside the "normal" human reproductive process, and we subscribe to the existence of creches, the Margaret and Paulo could have been conceived using in vitro and been incubated in a creche. Using that, there is no compelling reason to assume they would be treated as twins, or that they would share a birthdate. (I doubt the use of surrogates, but that could be used instead of creches.)
That all said, I would say to go with the twins explanation. It fits the facts the best and doesn't use a forced explanation that will come back and bite you later.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Occam's Razor applies. The simplest answer is the most likely answer.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I agree that twins is the easiest explanation in this case. Not neccesarily the best or most original but simple to do.
I think the most likely answer is a simple typo in the original work. Traveller is renowned for it's charming errata
Of course admitting such a mistake, compounded by repetition, at this late a date, even if it were the case...
Eureka, twins it is!
I think the most likely answer is a simple typo in the original work. Traveller is renowned for it's charming errata
Eureka, twins it is!
In this case we actually know that Zhakirov was married to Antiama. Furthermore, we know that this marriage introduced Vilani ancestry into the Imperial family. Since Margaret died without issue, we must presume that this ancestry passed down through Paulo, implying that Antiama was his mother as well.
Note: there is some weasel room around this in CT and MT. GT: Rim of Fire may have made it explicit. In any case, I think that the intent was that Antiama was the mother of both kids.
I sincerely doubt that it was a typo. Succession within the same generation is far from unknown. Margaret didn't have any kids, and her brother was next in line to the throne.
In the British royal family, incidentally, this kind of thing seems to happen about once a century!
I Lean toward the probabilty of twins rather than the probability of having natural birth 11 months apart in the same year. A twin boy and girl happen more often than twins of one gender (my wife has worked as a nurse in labor and delivery for many years).
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I sincerely doubt that it was a typo. Succession within the same generation is far from unknown. Margaret didn't have any kids, and her brother was next in line to the throne.
In the British royal family, incidentally, this kind of thing seems to happen about once a century! </font>[/QUOTE]From your reply I think I was unclear. The typo I refer to is the date of birth. It seems to me that it very easily could have been meant to be a year apart and just a slip in copying the date. I have no problem with succession in the same generation, never even mentioned it in fact
Sorry Chuck but such statements always bother me. That is, stating facts based on biased information, presented as valid because of the observers presumed expertise. I don't mean it personally, in fact my own sister has had that same job for a lot of years too and no doubt the same opinion, I'd ask but she might hurt me when I correct her
My guess would be for it to statistically break down pretty close to an even split between M/F, F/M, F/F, and M/M.
Good thing I decided to check my own guess too
after trying to convince her otherwise when she mentioned it years ago.It is possible your wife's observations are unique due to local influences skewing her observable data.
* Stats link below. I know
"...Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Matched sets by Gender
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Well it may not be the best answer for fiction purposes but it is the answer that requires the least hoop jumping. So I would have to say Twins. Besides the line is strangely devoid of twins otherwise.
It could be children born in the same year, rather than twins. Happened in my family, in fact. One sister was born Jan 2, the other Dec 24, of the same year. I think, due to the lack of any other mention in canon sources (ie, one that states that they ARE, in fact, twins), then the other explanation, that they ware not twins, but born in the same year, seems more likely.
Colin
Colin
Far Trader:
You are.....Right(Some of my keys must be sticking...LOL)
My wife says it is just in the hospital where she works (mostly with high risk pregencies) that has this high ratio.
You are.....Right(Some of my keys must be sticking...LOL)
My wife says it is just in the hospital where she works (mostly with high risk pregencies) that has this high ratio.
Well, _I_ think, due to the lack of any other mention in canon sources (ie, one that states that they are NOT, in fact, twins), then the other explanation, that they were twins, seems more likely.
...
Frankly, twins seem more probable, and the requirement that they should be specified as such is ridiculous.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Occassionally, there are multiple pregnancies that are technically twins, but are really separate eggs fertilized at slightly different intervals. The hormonal system that regulates things like ovulation is not perfect (in a mathematical sort of way). It is basically an issue of paternal twins with separate conception dates.
Now, the odds of them being more than a month apart....
Now, the odds of them being more than a month apart....
Well, _I_ think, due to the lack of any other mention in canon sources (ie, one that states that they are NOT, in fact, twins), then the other explanation, that they were twins, seems more likely.
...
Frankly, twins seem more probable, and the requirement that they should be specified as such is ridiculous.
OK...
My point was, that, given the issues involving twins and succession in the past, it seems likely that the source would have mentioned that they were twins. Since it just burped over any mention aside from the fact that they were born in the same year, I drew the conclusion that they weren't twins. Your opinion differs, which is fine. Not ridiculous, mind, but fine.
Of course, it's entirely possible that the Library Data was a typo, in which case any speculation is, well, moot.
Colin
2320AD writer
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Queen Victoria's first two children were born within a year of each other:
Victoria Adelaide, born Nov.21 1840
Albert Edward, born Nov.9 1841.
Ok, it's not the same year...
Victoria Adelaide, born Nov.21 1840
Albert Edward, born Nov.9 1841.
Ok, it's not the same year...
Well, OK, I don't think that it is significant that it wasn't mentioned. Nor do I consider it significant that the circumstances of Margaret's death are just mentioned in passing.
It is entirely possible that she was murdered. The fact that it doesn't say she was doesn't mean she wasn't.
As for the typo argument: we have absolutely no evidence to suggest that it was a typo, and it wouldn't matter if it was anyway. We should simply disregard the concept as idle speculation and a red herring. IMHO, of course.
Given the state of medicine ar tech 15 and highly likely the Imperials get tech 16 and even tech 17 care, pregnancies pretty soon after a previous birth wouldn't be a big deal. I tend toward the idea that clones are for doubles, as daryen posted.
I have serious doubts even high tech nobles will give up sex, and reproduce soley through cloning, except through impotence, which ain't likely, again because of the high tech levels.
I vote for the twins theory, though, just for grins surrounding the political implications.
I have serious doubts even high tech nobles will give up sex, and reproduce soley through cloning, except through impotence, which ain't likely, again because of the high tech levels.
I vote for the twins theory, though, just for grins surrounding the political implications.
Similar threads
