Why is the term "bloodline" often used instead of "family tree"?
edit: The reason I find it an odd term is because human ancestry literally doesn't follow a line. It always branches off, even if only to just include two parents. It's a tree like structure, a line would misrepresent it
You are viewing a single comment
Blood line is a literal line of blood between the family. In-laws don’t count. It’s important when talking about royalty and you trace back whether someone has actual “royal blood” or is just an in law that married into the family.
When your family tree looks like a christmas wreath you understand why some of the lights are flickering.
Yeah, it only matters for old-school animal breeders and royal genealogists. It's a pre-scientific notion.
Ahh, so it's a side of a tree with some made up attribute?
I mean, the people of a bloodline are literal descendents of a specific person, while a family tree shows people who marry in as well.
The fact that you dont place value on knowing exactly how generically related you are to the person you wanna bang is fine, but to say its "made up" is stupid. Its made up in exactly the same way every part of human culture is made up.
Genetics isn't made up, and I'm not talking about incest either. Royalty however, is made up. Tracking that, especially after a couple generations is cool, but that's about it
I get you're trying to do, but it's almost disrespectful to say royalty is made up. Whether their grounds for ruling is still or not. Monarchies have had very, very lasting impacts on the world around us, almost never for the better. Going "Oh hahaha, look at them and their silliness" when many monarchs actively ruined countries, feels a little dismissive.
They definitely do have a massive impact! So did cyberpunk 2077 on gaming, which definitely was made and didn't occur naturally either.
Just because something was impactful doesn't mean it's a naturally occurring thing. Royalty is made up, but no silly. (well, some royals are)