Lines of Descent

[Incas]

IMO, nothing compared to having an ancester famous for chopping off his wives' heads, and not going to jail for them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

IMO, nothing compared to having an ancester famous for chopping off his wives' heads, and not going to jail for them.

Who is descended from him?

He had only three legitimate descendents who all died without legitimate issue and I have been unable to locate any descendents of his illegitimate children.

Certainly, as far as my research goes no member of the British royal family are descendents from such a person (assuming you are referring to Henry VIII).

 

[Ella Kay]

No legitimate descendants definitely, but if you buy into some historians' theories that Catherine Carey, mother of Lettice Knollys (who is a descendant of Diana, Princess of Wales), was actually the daughter of Henry VIII, there could be an illegitimate connection.

 

[Lady Ann]

Who is descended from him?

He had only three legitimate descendents who all died without legitimate issue and I have been unable to locate any descendents of his illegitimate children.

Certainly, as far as my research goes no member of the British royal family are descendents from such a person (assuming you are referring to Henry VIII).

Wiki says HM Queen Elizabeth II is descended from The House of Tudor therefore, wouldn't William also be??? I get your point where as they are not descended from Elizabeth I, Mary I, Or Edward VI, but some how they are all still ancesters which is what was stated in the first place .. I am not sure if this is how but Henry VIII's mother was Elizabeth of York daughter of Edward IV. I don't know but they all tie in somewhere I thought maybe this could be where ...

Through Victoria, as well as several other of her great-great-grandparents, Elizabeth is directly descended from many British royals: from the House of Stuart, from Mary Queen of Scots,Robert the Bruce, and earlier Scottish royal houses; from the House of Tudor and earlier English royal houses stretching back as far as the 7th century House of Wessex.

 

[Lumutqueen]

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

Prince William of Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
x

 

[Incas]

He had only three legitimate descendents who all died without legitimate issue and I have been unable to locate any descendents of his illegitimate children.

No I wasn't referring to blood descendant, only in the historical sense of Henry VIII being a King of England and William as an heir-in-waiting for the same.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Wiki says HM Queen Elizabeth II is descended from The House of Tudor therefore, wouldn't William also be??? I get your point where as they are not descended from Elizabeth I, Mary I, Or Edward VI, but some how they are all still ancesters which is what was stated in the first place .. I am not sure if this is how but Henry VIII's mother was Elizabeth of York daughter of Edward IV. I don't know but they all tie in somewher I thought maybe this could be were ...

Through Victoria, as well as several other of her great-great-grandparents, Elizabeth is directly descended from many British royals: from the House of Stuart, from Mary Queen of Scots,Robert the Bruce, and earlier Scottish royal houses; from the House of Tudor and earlier English royal houses stretching back as far as the 7th century House of Wessex.

The present Queen, Charles, William etc are all descendents of Henry VII, through his daughter Margaret, not descendents of Henry VIII.

Margaret married James IV of Scotland. Her son was James V of Scotland and his daughter was Mary, Queen of Scots. Her son was James VI of Scotland who became James I of England. From him the line to the present Queen doesn't go through his son and the rest of the Stuart monarchs but through his daughter Elizabeth whose youngest daughter was Sophia of Hanover, mother of George I.

Thus the present royals are descendents of the first of the Tudor monarchs and first of the Stuart monarchs but not through other Tudors or Stuarts. Of course William will be a descendent of Charles II through his mother Diana, who is a descendent through one or more of Charles' illegitmate children.

TUDOR descent to the start of the STUARTS - Henry VII, Elizabeth, James IV, James V, Mary I of Scotland, James VI and I
STUARTS to the present Queen - James I and VI, Elizabeth of Bohemia, Sophia of Hanover, George I, George II, Frederick, Prince of Wales, George III, Edward, Duke of Kent, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, George VI, Elizabeth II.

Since Henry VII - the following monarchs are not ancestors of the present Queen - Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I of England, Elizabeth I, Charles I, Charles II, James II (and VII), Mary II and William III, Anne, George IV, William IV and Edward VIII.

So since Henry VII there have been 22 monarchs and Elizabeth is descended from 9 of them. (1 Tudor, 1 Stuart, first three Georges, Victoria and her successors except Edward VIII).

As Henry VIII's children had no children they have no descendents and therefore are the ancestors of no one.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No legitimate descendants definitely, but if you buy into some historians' theories that Catherine Carey, mother of Lettice Knollys (who is a descendant of Diana, Princess of Wales), was actually the daughter of Henry VIII, there could be an illegitimate connection.

I am going to be picky here but as far as I am aware Diana, Princess of Wales only has two descendents - William and Harry.

I think you mean ancestor.

Diana may very well be a descendent of an illegitimate line from Henry VIII, which is why I was using the word legitimate.

As there is only a theory, which presumably means that Henry didn't acknowledge the child, then there is no evidence to support that claim. Many British people claim descent through illegitmate lines from kings because the wife made the claim that the king was the father rather than admit an affair with the appropriate penalties that a husband could apply to a straying wife. In ancient times the wife/woman claimed to have been impregnated by a god, in the middle ages, depending on the rank of the woman, the claim was a man higher in the social scale and thus unable to be attacked by the husband/father if woman unmarried. A peasant woman would claim the lord of the manor, a lord's wife/daughter would claim his overlord etc up the chain. Thus I don't put a lot of credence in claims that aren't substantiated or acknowledged by the father.

 

[Lady Ann]

The present Queen, Charles, William etc are all descendents of Henry VII, through his daughter Margaret, not descendents of Henry VIII.


Yes after I posted I read futher into is an relized it was his sister Maraget was the conncetion. Thank you for all your information. Question if you will why is Henry the VII ancestes to then and not henry vIII?

 

[Ella Kay]

I am going to be picky here but as far as I am aware Diana, Princess of Wales only has two descendents - William and Harry.

I think you mean ancestor.

Yes, I did -- a simple mistake. I think the meaning was clear regardless.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The present Queen, Charles, William etc are all descendents of Henry VII, through his daughter Margaret, not descendents of Henry VIII.


Yes after I posted I read futher into is an relized it was his sister Maraget was the conncetion. Thank you for all your information. Question if you will why is Henry the VII ancestes to then and not henry vIII?

Because they are descendents of Henry VII's daughter not his son.

Think of it this way - you are a descendent of your parents but you are not a descendent of your uncles/aunts. Your siblings are also descendents of your parents. Your children are your descendents but they aren't descendents of your brother/s or sister/s. However the children of your siblings, like your children, are descendents of your parents.

Henry VII was the father of both Henry VII and Margaret and thus all their descendents are descendents of his but Margaret's children aren't descendents of her brother. They are, however, descendents of her father because she is a descendent of her father. Her descendents are related to her brother but not descended from him as they didn't come from him (only his own children are his descendents).

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Who is descended from him?

He had only three legitimate descendents who all died without legitimate issue and I have been unable to locate any descendents of his illegitimate children.

Certainly, as far as my research goes no member of the British royal family are descendents from such a person (assuming you are referring to Henry VIII).

The hand-written date of the marriage of Francis Knollys and Catherine Carey and the births of their children, found in Francis' Latin dictionary, does seem to support the fact that Catherine was conceived during the time of Henry's affair with Mary Boleyn.

According to historical record, it also shows grants and favors made to Sir William Carey just before and after the birth of Catherine. As King, Henry VIII would have seen no use in acknowledging a bastard daughter, especially when the mother was already respectably married and he was losing interest in the affair, in favor of his affair with her sister Anne.

Whether Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon, was his son seems debatable. Henry was younger than Catherine, and he was rumored to be the King's son and bore a resemblance to him and to Queen Elizabeth. At the time the rumors surfaced, they were said to have been started by those supporting Queen Catherine (of Aragon). If that is the case, then there must have been some grain of truth to the rumors. Spreading lies would have served no political purpose to Catherine's supporters or her cause.

What is definitely known, is that both Catherine Carey and her brother Henry, were very much confidants of Queen Elizabeth, and held high positions of honor in her household. Both of them were trusted members of her court and never came under any suspicion of disloyalty, nor did they ever fall from her favor.

In fact, when Catherine Carey died, the Queen not only mourned her deeply, but paid over 400 British pounds for her funeral, an extreme sum in those days. She even offered Henry Carey an earldom, which he refused, but one of his sons was made Earl of Monmouth and one of Catherine's sons was ennobled as the Earl of Banbury.

Henry Carey's illegitimate son was the Bishop of Exeter, and his daughters married well too, Philadelphia becoming Lady Scrope of Bolton, Catherine was the Countess of Nottingham, and Mary was Lady Edward Hoby.

Of course, Catherine's daughters also did well; Lettice becoming the Countess of Essex and Leicester, Elizabeth was Lady Thomas Leighton of Feckenham, Anne was the Lady de la Warr, and Catherine was the Lady Offaly in Ireland.

If Catherine Carey is ever finally determined to be the illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII, which it appears she was, then I will be one of his many direct descendants. She was my 12th great-grandmother.

 

[Queen_of_Hearts]

I have Norfolk connections, which ties me to the Careys, but I'm a distant cousin of Anne Boleyn and Queen Elizabeth I.

 

[king of scotland]

Elizabeth II is somehow related to every monarch of Post William I England, starting with William the Conqueror who is her 22nd Great-Grandfather. She could trace her ancestry back to Cerdic, the first King of Wessex. Not all of them are direct such as King Henry VIII is her 12th Great-Granduncle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_descent_from_William_I_to_Elizabeth_II

 

[CarolinaLandgrave]

(8) Any two people with even a drop of English blood are probably at least as close as 30th cousin to each other. It is estimated that anyone with English blood has better than a 99.9% chance of being descended from Edward III, who lived through the black death. He is known to have many descendants in the first few generations at the same time most of his countrymen were dying of plague. The estimate is derived from using known rates of marriage, children, and cousin marriages in later eras.

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.

 

[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]

... 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

 

[Lady Meg]

Who is descended from him?

He had only three legitimate descendents who all died without legitimate issue and I have been unable to locate any descendents of his illegitimate children.

Certainly, as far as my research goes no member of the British royal family are descendents from such a person (assuming you are referring to Henry VIII).

That is correct. Some people do say that Mary Boleyn and others had illegit children so.. whatever. That doesn't really matter because the British line went the other way.. through another Tudor, Margaret(Henry's sister). So if the claim is true that they are related it's either through his father and mother or his sisters as cousins, etc.

Wiki says HM Queen Elizabeth II is descended from The House of Tudor therefore, wouldn't William also be??? I get your point where as they are not descended from Elizabeth I, Mary I, Or Edward VI, but some how they are all still ancesters which is what was stated in the first place .. I am not sure if this is how but Henry VIII's mother was Elizabeth of York daughter of Edward IV. I don't know but they all tie in somewhere I thought maybe this could be where ...

Through Victoria, as well as several other of her great-great-grandparents, Elizabeth is directly descended from many British royals: from the House of Stuart, from Mary Queen of Scots,Robert the Bruce, and earlier Scottish royal houses; from the House of Tudor and earlier English royal houses stretching back as far as the 7th century House of Wessex.

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That is correct. Some people do say that Mary Boleyn and others had illegit children so.. whatever. That doesn't really matter because the British line went the other way.. through another Tudor, Margaret(Henry's sister). So if the claim is true that they are related it's either through his father and mother or his sisters as cousins, etc.



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.

Can you tell me how people born in the 20th C and still alive can be ancestors of someone born in the 15th C and dying in the 16th C?

An ancestor comes before someone not after.

 

[Lady Meg]

Can you tell me how people born in the 20th C and still alive can be ancestors of someone born in the 15th C and dying in the 16th C?

An ancestor comes before someone not after.

What are you talking about?
An ancestor is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth).
Two individuals have a genetic relationship if one is the ancestor of the other, or if they share a common ancestor. In evolutionary theory, species which share an evolutionary ancestor are said to be of common descent. However, this concept of ancestry does not apply to some bacteria and other organisms capable of horizontal gene transfer.
Assuming that all of an individual's ancestors are otherwise unrelated to each other, that individual has 2n ancestors in the nth generation before him and a total of about 2g+1 ancestors in the g generations before him. In practice, however, it is clear that the vast majority of ancestors of humans (and indeed any other species) are multiply related (see Pedigree collapse). Consider n = 40: the human species is surely more than 40 generations old, yet the number 240, approximately 1012 or one trillion, dwarfs the number of humans that have ever lived.
Ignoring the possibility of other inter-relationships (even distant ones) among ancestors, an individual has a total of 2046 ancestors up to the 10th generation, 1024 of which are 10th generation ancestors. With the same assumption, any given person has over a billion 30th generation ancestors (who lived roughly 1000 years ago) and this theoretical number increases past the estimated total population of the world in around AD 1000. (All of these ancestors will have contributed to one's autosomal DNA is concerned: this excludes Y-chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA.)
Some cultures confer reverence to ancestors, both living and dead; in contrast, some more youth-oriented cultural contexts display less veneration of elders. In other cultural contexts, some people seek providence from their deceased ancestors; this practice is sometimes known as ancestor worship or, more accurately, ancestor veneration.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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]

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.

This was your post.

You state in this that Queen Elizabeth II, Charles and William ‘are an ancestor of Henry VIII’.

I asked how could this be?

Elizabeth, Charles and William are still alive and Henry has been dead for over 400 years so Elizabeth, Charles and William can’t be his ancestor as Henry came before them.

An ancestor is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth).

This is the start of your reply to my question in which you state that an ancestor has to come before which is what I was saying when I posed the question.

Your original post is the one that is wrong in the terminology used – Elizabeth II is an ancestor of Charles and William and Charles is an ancestor of William but none of them are ancestors of Henry VIII. They can’t be his ancestor as he died long before they were born and his ancestors have to have been born before he was born.

Do you see the problem?

Your original post has Henry as a descendent of people alive today when he has been dead for over 400 years.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

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.

 

[Lady Meg]

This was your post.
You state in this that Queen Elizabeth II, Charles and William ‘are an ancestor of Henry VIII’...
I asked how could this be?
...Your original post has Henry as a descendent of people alive today when he has been dead for over 400 years.

You are thinking still that an ancestor means you have to come before the person, then that they are descendants or something like that.

That is not what I meant with Henry being a descendant of people alive today. That's not possible. Well from where I grew up and the way we discuss Ancestry - our ancestors are those who are related to us in every way. This includes great-grandparents how many times removed, etc. I never said Henry was a descendant of people living today. I said that Elizabeth II, Charles and William are ancestors of Henry VII - in my mind meaning that they are descendants.. meaning they are related through Henry VII being their great-grandfather how many times removed. The terminology between us for some reason is mixed up.

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

Ok now that makes more sense to me. I think it's just the wording and being online. I swear, computers are making the world anti-social and have social skill problems. Thanks for clearing that up. No hard feelings. It's all good.

Descent of Elizabeth II from William I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Scroll down for family-tree.

Nice. I liked that. Just soooo much info overload. That was a handy article though. Thanks!!