What's the truth behind being Rh negative and royalty?

Question

I've read that the European Basques have the highest frequency of Rh -ve in their blood (around 35%), while Northern Europeans have the % of Rh -ve to be around 14%.

Rh -ve is nearly absent in African, Asian and Native American populations.

So if that were true, what is the case of African, Asian and Native American royalty and nobility??

Please explain...

Answer 1

Being Rh negative is a recessive trait, so it tends be be prevalent only in populations that are relatively closed to outside breeding.  I don't know if it's true with royalty, as you suggest, but for many centuries royal families mostly bred with each other, thus creating a closed population.

Answer 2

African and native American dont have royalty just a petty chief who claims to be royal in a mud hut

you see to be inferring that all royalty is related, no one claims that, all royalty isn't related

the Europeans would never marry the lessor races

you dont seem to have a logical point to make

Answer 3

"Royal" Families are known for their inbreeding.   No to other siblings but cousins.

Answer 4

in breeding...that is totally gross.

Answer 5

Just to correct bdsmslave's comment, there were true kingdoms in Africa and pre-Colombian America. In America there were the Mayan, Aztec and Inca empires, who built palaces, pyramids, etc. As for Africa, remember Egypt is in northern Africa.

Regarding the actual question: if a few nobles had Rh- in the beginning of the lineages, that would account for a higher percentage of Rh- in nobility, because of inbreeding.