Theory on Alexandra's children

[Elizaveta]

It may be totally wacky of me to suggest it...

I just read an interesting article on how to determine the gender of a child. One study discovered that a woman of beauty has a higher likelihood of bearing a daughter than a son--to put it simple, a plain woman has a better chance to have a son while a beautiful woman is likely to give birth to a daughter. Some researchers believed it's related to our ancestors--men obviously go for pretty women, so plain women were dying out (the fittiest of survival, you know... and "pretty" genes thrive in future generations. It got me thinking of Alexandra Feodorovna. She was a very beautiful princess, and she delivered more daughters than sons (of course!  ). So, guys, do you think if she's born a plain princess, she might manage to deliver more sons than daughters??

[Romanov_fan]

That is interesting. Alexandra was very lovely, and so were her daughters. I think otma defintely got some looks from their father's side, but that their beauty came from their mother's side. They would not have been so stunning otherwise, which is aptly proved if you look at pictures of the sisters of Nicholas II. Romanov women were not that beautiful. But, I don't think the fact of Alexandra being beautiful had much to with her offspring's being girls, although it had much to do with their beauty.

[Elisabeth]

This sounds like utter nonsense to me. Princess Alice was no great beauty, in fact I think she was rather plain, but she mothered even more daughters than her daughter Alexandra did, - to be specific, five daughters and only two sons.

[Kimberly]

I agree Elisabeth, what tosh

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, this seems pretty silly. I think that there are many beautiful women who have had healthy sons, royal or otherwise. Think of Princess Diana, or Edward VII's wife Alexandra, or in more modern terms celebrities. But, beautiful women mostly do have great looking kids, whether boys or girls.

[Elizaveta]

I'm not saying that beautiful princesses couldn't produce healthy sons--I just suggested that their beauty genes may make it more likely for women to have more daughters than sons. Just look at Empress Frederick--she's a pretty lady, and she had more daughters than sons. Empress Sissi, the most beautiful queen in the world of her time, had three daughters and one son. Beautiful princesses CAN have boys, yes, absolutely, but they have a better chance to have a girl than a boy to pass on their beauty gene, same with plain princesses CAN have more girls than boys. Likelihood is a key word, according to the study. 

[Romanov_fan]

Where is the study from? Genetics is what determines whether you have a girl or a boy, but other than that, I am not sure there is any scientific way to say a beautiful woman will have more daughters than sons. Perhaps there are other ways to determine that though , I was just wondering how scientific that study was. I mean, even if it's not scientific, it might still be interesting.

[RichC]

I'm not saying that beautiful princesses couldn't produce healthy sons--I just suggested that their beauty genes may make it more likely for women to have more daughters than sons. Just look at Empress Frederick--she's a pretty lady, and she had more daughters than sons. Empress Sissi, the most beautiful queen in the world of her time, had three daughters and one son. Beautiful princesses CAN have boys, yes, absolutely, but they have a better chance to have a girl than a boy to pass on their beauty gene, same with plain princesses CAN have more girls than boys. Likelihood is a key word, according to the study. 

LOL 

Where do people get this stuff from?  Sperm determine the sex of a child at conception.  I learned this in 6th grade.  I doesn't matter what the mother looks like. 


Empress Frederick was pretty?

[Tsarfan]

Believe it or not, folks, this study was for real.  It was extracted in this month's edition of Discover magazine from the Journal of Theoretical Biology.  The title of the study was "Beautiful Parents Have More Daughters:  A Further Implication of the Generalized Trivers-Wllard Hypothesis (gTWH)".

A few excerpts:

"56% of the most beautiful people in the survey had a daughter first compared with only 48% of the merely attractive, average, homely, and downright ugly."

"This sounds weird, but a fifty-fifty sex ratio is not always the norm."

"It is theoretically possible that -- if physical attractiveness really does increase the reproductive success of daughters more than sons -- natural selection could find a way to make better-looking people more likely to have daughters."

Basically, the study was saying that males often get selected as mates for reasons other than their looks, whereas women are more frequently selected for their looks.  This creates an evolutionary premium for good-looking people to produce more daughters than sons . . . and nature will somehow find a way."

The authors of the study could put forward no specific mechanism for how this might occur.  They could only report that it did occur.

How credible is this study?  When I first read the story, I did think I detected a slight tongue-in-cheek tone in the way Discover covered it . . . but that might have been my own skepticism talking to me.

[Kimberly]

Tongue in cheek? It sounds a bit like the scientific study carried out over here a while ago which looked into why cornflakes go soggy when you put milk on them

[Sarushka]

"This sounds weird, but a fifty-fifty sex ratio is not always the norm."

That is true at least; males make up 49% of births, while females are 51%.

[RichC]

Well, thanks to Tsarfan, I stand corrected.  The Trivers–Willard hypothesis (gTWH) is one of the most celebrated theories in evolutionary biology.  Among other things the Trivers–Willard hypothesis (gTWH) suggests that, in an evolutionary sense, parents are able to pre-select the sex of a child based on which sex is most likely to survive to adulthood and, in turn, produce their own offspring.  At least I think that's what it means...

If this is true, it would make sense that female hemophiliac carriers are more likely to produce daughters, since daughters are more likely to live to reproduce.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Well I never.

However, I fail to understand how this can be accurate when beauty is a completely subjective thing.  There are a lot of famous people who are considered to be beautiful whom I don't find attractive at all.  So, who designated certain couples/mothers to be in the attractive and non attractive groups? What criteria were used to determine 'beauty'?

Rachel
xx

[Tsarfan]

Good point.  In fact, Discover mentioned that as one of the inherently subjective elements in the study.

I think this whole discussion, though, touches on a much more fundamental issue.  Nicholas, Alexandra, and their children were an undeniably handsome family.  Is there any chance that the romantic silliness they generate among their acolytes today has something to do with their looks?  If Nicholas had looked like Carrot Top, Alexandra had looked like Eleanor Roosevelt, and their children trotted around with braces and bad hair, would there be anything remotely like the fawning fascination they inspire on so many threads on this Forum . . . or the hand-wringing over their deaths?

[Grace]

No, there wouldn't be, Tsarfan, it's as simple as that. 

There would be interest from serious historians (as on this site) of course, on the reign of Nicholas and Alexandra, what happened up to and on the night of July 16, 1918, and to the whereabouts of the remains of the IF etc. but otherwise, certainly the zillion threads here and on other boards on "OTMA" and Alexis wouldn't exist.  Nor, I imagine, would the number of "family albums" be around either.