Lines of Descent

[fearghas]

...Well if Queen Elizabeth II had Charles, Princes of Wales and then Charles had William... yes they are an ancestor of Henry VIII. The only way they are a direct descendant of The House of Tudor is through Henry VII, then his daughter Margaret.

Ancestors come before someone. descendnats come after. You quite specifically name QEII, Prince Charles and William as ancestors of Henry VIII. THEY ARE NOT. Prince Charles is not the father, grandfather etc of Henry VIII. Which is what he would have to be if he was an ancestor. YOU have got it wrong.

 

[Lady Meg]

Ancestors come before someone. descendnats come after. You quite specifically name QEII, Prince Charles and William as ancestors of Henry VIII. THEY ARE NOT. Prince Charles is not the father, grandfather etc of Henry VIII. Which is what he would have to be if he was an ancestor. YOU have got it wrong.

I am quite aware that Prince Charles is not the father, grandfather of Henry VII or Henry VIII for that matter. The reason I put the word 'ancestor' in there is because I had no clue that people thought the word meant people that came before. To me, the word ancestor means someone that you are related to - no matter what. I was trying to state that because Henry VII is a great-grandfather of the monarchs he is their 'ancestor' but for some reason quite a few people use the word in a completely different context then what I meant. So I guess I have to change my wording now so that every time I talk about genealogy on here people understand that I am talking about descendants of Henry VII. Geez. You people are so rude. If you had read the rest of my posts you would have noticed that I explained this already in an earlier post.

 

[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.

 

[kacfansue]

Mary Boleyn is also my !4th great-grandma, through her daughter Catherine and granddaughter Anne Knollys-West! When I first discovered it, I thought “No way!”, tossed the whole line and started over…well, it re-appeared. so I have since delved deeper, checked and rechecked. It’s true and I am still amazed, if only because I have been fascinated with Mary’s history for 28 years, only to learn I was descended from her!!

 

[kacfansue]

Mary Boleyn is also my !4th great-grandma, through her daughter Catherine and granddaughter Anne Knollys-West! When I first discovered it, I thought “No way!”, tossed the whole line and started over…well, it re-appeared. so I have since delved deeper, checked and rechecked. It’s true and I am still amazed, if only because I have been fascinated with Mary’s history for 28 years, only to learn I was descended from her!!

 

[MarkUK]

...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?

It was more than just Henry VIII's will, it was an Act of Parliament passed in 1544 which specifically excluded the Scottish line of succession. I can't find any evidence that the 1544 Act was repealed before Elizabeth I's death in 1603, so technically James VI's accession was illegal. Try sorting that one out !

 

[Iluvbertie]

It was more than just Henry VIII's will, it was an Act of Parliament passed in 1544 which specifically excluded the Scottish line of succession. I can't find any evidence that the 1544 Act was repealed before Elizabeth I's death in 1603, so technically James VI's accession was illegal. Try sorting that one out !

It wasn't formally repealed but Elizabeth made it known that she supported James as her heir. Had anyone really wanted to oppose the true blood claim of James the parliament would have passed the necessary legislation - there was just no need at the time.

 

[MarkUK]

Presumably Elizabeth's unwillingness to nominate an heir until she was on her deathbed prevented Parliament from repealing the 1544 Act, otherwise I'm sure they would have done it some time in the 1590s to be on the safe side. Even so I'm surprised James didn't have it repealed as soon as he was in England. I would have done before the Crown was on my head.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As he was proclaimed King the same day Elizabeth died he didn't need to have it repealed as he had become King. As he moved to London he was greeted with cheering crowds, probably happy that his accession hadn't triggered a war or an invasion and also making it clear to anyone who was interested in arguing a better right than that of blood that they wouldn't get the support of the people and the lords etc. He was crowned 4 months after his accession (a British monarch doesn't need a coronation to be the monarch.)

 

[MarkUK]

All very true, but being of a cautious nature myself I would have had that law repealed pronto just so it wouldn't niggle me for the rest of my life, it would have been an simple thing to do.