Lines of Descent

[lac2003]

(7) Kate Middleton's family history is not well documented in the 18th century. She may be a descendant of Mary Boleyn. William is descended from both children of Mary Boleyn. Of course, both children are suspected of being fathered by Henry the 8th. If she does become Queen, I suspect that some graves will be interred to do DNA testing.

I can see it now, engagement announced and grave digging commences that night!! Just imagine what a newspaper like The Sun or News of the World would do with that!! I love the silliness of the whole thing!

[pacomartin]

Does this extend to those of us who descent from the Anglo-Norman families also? What an interesting bit of info..... my interests lies with my great-great-great-great-great grandfather, John Bruce. He was born in Edinburgh in 1757 and immigrated to South Carolina in 1770/71.

Caroline, you probably are descended from Edward I, II, or III. The time span between their lives and the time you ancestor John Bruce was over 4 centuries.

I am not just pulling these numbers out of my keister. They are the result of some serious study in geneology. I have corresponded with some of the research and shared some of my own work.

I can see it now, engagement announced and grave digging commences that night!! Just imagine what a newspaper like The Sun or News of the World would do with that!! I love the silliness of the whole thing!

lac2003. It may seem silly, but I have no doubt that the gravedigging will commence once the engagement is announced. Like I said the family connection between every monarch and their spouse was well known (except Anne Hyde and Wallis Simpson). Curiousity will get the best of people. In Kate Middleton's case, I believe that only one or two graves will need to be exhumed. There is a critical link that they are unsure of. They won't need to dig up whole cemeteries.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by pacomartin

... I believe that only one or two graves will need to be exhumed. There is a critical link that they are unsure of. They won't need to dig up whole cemeteries.

The amount of red tape they would have to go through, the permissions that would have to be sought (all living descendants that would have to be notified), the chances of nobody objecting would be remote. Were they buried in a single plot each, has it been reused, will it disturb any other graves, will the law allow it, the church etc. The resultant publicity would preclude any such action, IMO.

[pacomartin]

I believe that there is a generally accepted lineage that places that makes Kate a 21xg-granddaughter of Edward III. It has been traced through her (14xg-) great-grandmother, who lived in the early 16th century, Anne Gascoigne Fairfax. This is virtually no suprise since it is estimated that over 99.9% of people with English blood are descended from Edward III. Being English and being descended from the Edwards is virtually synonymous.
---------------
The critical link that would tie Kate Middleton to the Tudors and the Boleyns is the suspicion that her 7xg-grandfather William Davenport (d. 1723) is the son born in 1679 at Worfield in Shropshire to Henry Davenport of Hollon and his wife Elizabeth Talbot. That would establish a much closer link between her and the royal family.
-------------
Of course it all is kind of silly. Logically every two people have a millions or billions of common ancestors. Does it really matter if Kate and Williams most recent common ancestor lived in the 14th century or the 17th century? However, it is one of the oldest obsessions in the world, since geneologies are some of the earliest known writings of man.

[pacomartin]

Prince William of Wales has 2,925 known bloodlines that go back to Edward III that range from 20 to 27 generations. There are 1,934 bloodlines through his father, and 991 through his mother (1934+991=2925). The mathematics of ancestry gets very complex as you keep tracing back to multiple generations. You can only inbreed so far before genetic disease kills you. That's why it is estimated that Edward III has 100 million living descendants alive today.
---------
This bloodline is probably the best known, because over half it's members are sovereigns. It would make Edward his 21g-grandfather.
{ G } Name (Regal #)
{ 0 } Prince William
{ 1 } Prince Charles
{ 2 } Elizabeth II
{ 3 } George VI
{ 4 } George V
{ 5 } Edward VII
{ 6 } Victoria
{ 7 } Edward
{ 8 } George III
{ 9 } Frederick
{ 10 } George II
{ 11 } George I
{ 12 } Sophia
{ 13 } Elizabeth Stuart
{ 14 } James I / James VI
{ 15 } Mary Queen of Scots
{ 16 } James V
{ 17 } Margaret Tudor
{ 18 } Henry VII
{ 19 } Margaret Beaufort
{ 20 } John Beaufort
{ 21 } John Beaufort
{ 22 } John of Gaunt
{ 23 } Edward III
===============
It is also why the idea expressed in the DaVinci Code that Jesus could have a single living descendant alive today is statistically just one step short of impossible. Of anyone from the year zero has a descendant alive today, he is more than likely the ancestor of a large majority of the people on the planet on all the continents. Most scientists think that there is a person who lived as early as 2000-5000 years ago that is in the ancestry of every single living human being alive today. The statistical likelihood favors 2000 years ago.

[Lady Meg]

Ok, call me late to finding this info.. but I would love to know why Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven did not become Queen. For that matter, her father Fernando, 5th Earl of Derby Stanley. Anyone know why this line was passed over for James of Scotland?

The act of Succession of Henry VIII followed this line... after Elizabeth I

1. Henry VII of England
2. Mary Tudor, Queen of France, third daughter, sixth line of Henry
3. Lady Eleanor Brandon, second daughter, third line of Mary
4. Lady Margaret Clifford, only daughter, third line of Eleanor
5. Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby, first son of Margaret
6. Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven, first daughter, first line of Ferdinando
7. George Brydges, 6th Baron Chandos, first son of Anne
8. Margaret Brydges, first daughter, first line of George
9. George Brydges Skipwith, first son of Margaret
10. Elizabeth Brownlow, first daughter, second line of Margaret
11. George Brownlow Doughty, first son of Elizabeth
12. Henry Doughty, only child of George
13. Henry Doughty, only son of Henry
14. Elizabeth Doughty, only daughter of Henry Snr

Since Lady Anne Stanley’s line is thought to have become extinct with the death of Elizabeth Doughty, the line then passes to the descendants of Lady Anne's sister, Lady Frances Stanley:

1. Lady Frances Stanley, second daughter, second line of Ferdinando
2. John Egerton, 2nd Earl of Bridgewater, first son of Frances
3. John Egerton, 3rd Earl of Bridgewater, first son of John
4. Scroop Egerton, 1st Duke of Bridgewater, third son of John, 3rd Earl
5. Lady Anne Egerton, first daughter, fifth line of Scroop
6. George Villiers, 4th Earl of Jersey, only child of Anne
7. George Child Villiers, 5th Earl of Jersey, first son of George, 4th Earl
8. George Child Villiers, 6th Earl of Jersey, first son of George, 5th Earl
9. Victor Child Villiers, 7th Earl of Jersey, only son of George, 6th Earl
10. George Child Villiers, 8th Earl of Jersey, first son of Victor
11. George Child Villiers, 9th Earl of Jersey, first son of George
12. Lady Caroline Child Villiers, only child of George's first marriage

Alternative Succession of Royal Houses
Descendants of Mary Tudor
House of Tudor: Henry VII • Henry VIII • Edward VI •
Mary • Elizabeth I
House of Stanley: Anne
House of Brydges: George I • Margaret
House of Skipwith: George II
House of Doughty: Henry IX • Henry X • Elizabeth II
House of Villiers: George III • George IV • Victor •
George V • George VI • Caroline

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Lady Meg

The act of Succession of Henry VIII followed this line... after Elizabeth I
1. Henry VII of England
2. Mary Tudor, Queen of France, third daughter, sixth line of Henry

I don't understand why you have Henry VII coming after Elizabeth 1 as he died nearly 100 years before her?

When Henry VIII died his will instructed that his heirs were his three children in order of Edward, Mary and then Elizabeth if the earlier ones didn't marry and have children.

His will also dealt with the sister who married into the Scottish family and her claim by excluding her but she did have a claim in law and her descendents would have fought for it. Elizabeth I, fearing a civil war or a war with Scotland named the heir of her father's eldest sister as her heir on her deathbed.

In other words at the time that Henry VIII became heir to the throne, having no younger brothers his sisters were his immediate heirs. His will wanted to exclude the elder sister and go to the younger but following strict laws of inheritance boys in order of age followed by girls in order of age the Stuarts had a stronger claim being descended from the elder sister, which is why James VI and I succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I.


In the end, despite Henry's will, the correct succession was followed - Henry's children - boy first then girls in order, followed by his elder sister's line with the younger sister's line being pushed further and further away from the throne. The succession has followed that since except for those who were barred, after the 1701 Act of Settlement.

[Lady Meg]

Um, I was just posting what I found... the way the Act would look under the succession of Mary Tudor. I am aware that he died before Elizabeth. I'm not stupid thank you. I've been researching this stuff for quite some time now. I was showing the full line.. the way it would have been.

According to the will of Henry VIII, Ferdinando was second-in-line heir to Elizabeth I following after his mother. But he predeceased his mother by two years and the queen by nine years.

From his marriage to Alice Spencer he had his eldest daughter, Anne, in 1580. According to Henry VIII's will she should have become queen in 1603, but she did not. Elizabeth was succeeded by James of Scotland, the descendant of a senior branch of Henry VII, Margaret's. So?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Lady Meg

Um, I was just posting what I found... the way the Act would look under the succession of Mary Tudor. I am aware that he died before Elizabeth. I'm not stupid thank you. I've been researching this stuff for quite some time now. I was showing the full line.. the way it would have been.

According to the will of Henry VIII, Ferdinando was second-in-line heir to Elizabeth I following after his mother. But he predeceased his mother by two years and the queen by nine years.

From his marriage to Alice Spencer he had his eldest daughter, Anne, in 1580. According to Henry VIII's will she should have become queen in 1603, but she did not. Elizabeth was succeeded by James of Scotland, the descendant of a senior branch of Henry VII, Margaret's. So?

I never meant to imply that you were stupid and I apologise if that is what you thought.

I just found the way you worded your post confusing so I asked a question.

I have spend most of my adult life researching in this period and teach it as well so I do have a solid grasp of the time period which is why I explained what happened rather that what might have been - Elizabeth decided to overturn her father's will and follow normal procedure of the elder female line following the male lines - rather simple really.

[SLV]

Are there graphics (as in a drawn family tree) of how this worked?
All those names make my eyes cross.
Any visualisation would be very appreciated. :)

Found something myself.
Now everything you all wrote, makes much more sense.
Descent of Elizabeth II from William I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scroll down for family-tree.

[Iluvbertie]

LadyMeg you are using the term ancestors to mean both ancestors and descendents which is actually wrong - it can't mean both those who come before and those who came after.

Ancestry is a more generic term that relates to the study of one's family but as you can't be studying those yet to come it also relates only to those who came before and so again usually only relates to those that came before.

When you say that "Elizabeth II, Charles and William are ancestors of Henry VII' you are wrong in your terminology as they simply can't be ancestors of Henry VII as they came over 400 years after him. - "in my mind meaning that they are descendants.. " you are now contradicting yourself as an ancestor is the opposite of a descendent with a particular person being in the middle e.g. Elizabeth II is a descendent of all those who came before her - her parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents etc while she is the ancestor of Charles, William, Harry, Anne, Peter, Zara, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Louise and James but she is NOT an ancestor of anyone else - she may be related to them but she isn't an ancestor for instance of the Linley's although they have some common ancestors such as George VI and Elizabeth the Queen Mother as Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret have common ancestors being siblings. Lord Linley's ancestors are Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon and their ancestors but not Queen Elizabeth II who is his aunt. "meaning they are related through Henry VII being their great-grandfather how many times removed." Henry is the ancestor of all of them but they are NOT the ancestor of Henry but the descendents only. "The terminology between us for some reason is mixed up." This is because you are using ancestor and descendent as being the same thing when they aren't.

I hope this clears up the problem as your use of terminology is making things very hard to follow some of your posts.

Ancestry is a study of the family - and as I said because you can't study those still to come it in 98% of the time related to those who came before but can occasionally include those already here e.g. if you have children you would put them on a family tree but they are NOT your ancestors but rather your descendents. In ancestry people include in their family tree all the branches of their family but that doesn't mean that they are all ancestors only that they are from the same tree. e.g. I have the same ancestors as my brother but I am not an ancestor of his children but do appear on their family tree as a sibling of their father.

[Lady Meg]

I totally understood from the first time someone called me out on it. I was just explaining why I said what I said - why I used the word incorrectly - because I thought it meant something completely different.

[lumutqueen]

Ancestry of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prince William of Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
x