The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Genealogy

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 08-14-2013, 08:07 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
Did you direct this at Ish or myself?
But anyhow, I have no money. I'd want software that is free to use.
The Mormon program PAF is free. I just down loaded it from their site on the internet,

I just looked and discovered that the PAF if being discontinued, but there are 3 others listed as free. Look on FAMILYSEARCH.ORG I will have to decide which one I want to use.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 08-18-2013, 03:37 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: west palm beach, United States
Posts: 9
The Later Plantagenet Line of Succession and Rightful Heirs

Is the 1st son of the kings 3rd son any higher ranking than the second son of the kings second son? Like which one would become king if no others were left. Are all of the sons of the kings second son higher than any of those of the kings third son?

My questions really pertain to the children of Englands Edward III. If John of Gaunt was older than Edmund of Langley then why do most of the things I've read suggest that Elizabeth of York from Langleys line had more of a claim to the throne than Henry VII who came from Gaunts line. In fact shouldnt Henry VII have been king ahead of Edward IV or V or Richard III???? Or even his mother Margaret Beaufort should have been queen? Wikipedia says Henry VII claimed the throne through rights of conquest and his marriage to Elizabeth of York, but it seems as though it was his by right all along or at least his mothers or his grandfather or great grandfather.

I know at times some children were IIllegitimized and legitimized from the throne but with all of the politics aside wouldnt any of Gaunts kids have more claim to the throne than those of Langley?
.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 08-18-2013, 04:24 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by crymson77 View Post
Is the 1st son of the kings 3rd son any higher ranking than the second son of the kings second son? Like which one would become king if no others were left. Are all of the sons of the kings second son higher than any of those of the kings third son?
The second son of the King's second son would have a better claim to the throne than the 1st son of the King's 3rd son. Like the line of succesion today for instance.

Changing history to fit the example a little here but

We have King Charles on the throne, he has 3 sons William, Henry and George

William dies leaving no heirs which means Henry is next in line.

Henry has two sons (Philip and Peter), his heir (Philip) dies in battle leaving his second son (Peter) as his heir and by connection heir to his grandfathers throne.

George has three sons, Andrew, James and John.

John has to wait for Henry, Peter, George, Andrew and James to die before the throne is his.

Quote:
I've read suggest that Elizabeth of York from Langleys line had more of a claim to the throne than Henry VII who came from Gaunts line
This might answer this question;

Although Henry was descended from King Edward III, his claim to the throne was weak, due to the clause barring ascension to the throne by any heirs of the legitimized offspring of his great-great-grandparents, John of Gaunt (3rd son of King Edward III) and Katherine Swynford.

Quote:
In fact shouldnt Henry VII have been king ahead of Edward IV or V or Richard III???? Or even his mother Margaret Beaufort should have been queen?
When talking about the Kings during the War of The Roses, it has little to do with blood lines and more to do with battle. Margaret Beaufort would have never been Queen Regnant.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 08-18-2013, 05:26 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 212
Edward IV (and Elizabeth of York and Richard III) were also descendants of Edward III's SECOND son, Lionel Duke of Clarence, through his only child, his daughter Philippa. She married Edmund Mortimer Earl of March. Their granddaughter and eventual heir Anne Mortimer married into the York family (Langley) and was the grandmother of Edward IV - whose father Richard Duke of York claimed the throne via Philippa of Clarence. Henry VII and his mother Margaret Beaufort were descended from John of Gaunt and his mistress Katheryn Swynford. All the Beaufort children were conceived in double-adultery as both parents were married to other people at the time. After their marriage - Gaunt's third - the Beauforts were made legitimate EXCEPT for purposes of inheriting the crown - they were specifically excluded from it. The senior legitimate Lancastrian heirs to the English throne were the Portuguese royal family: King Joao II and his sister Joana, who were descendants of Philippa, Queen of Joao I, John of Gaunt's daughter by his first wife. Records in Portugal indicate that Joana was to be Richard III's second wife, while Elizabeth of York was to marry Joana's cousin Manuel, who would become King Manuel I. Bosworth of course negated these plans.

One of the points of contention during the Wars of the Roses was whether a claim to the throne could pass through a woman - succession wasn't as cut-and-dried as it is today. Under today's rules, the Yorks would be the unquestioned heirs as the senior heirs-in-line. As Henry Tudor's only blood claim came not only from his mother Margaret but through the Beaufort line he HAD to claim the throne by conquest: he had no legal claim to it!
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 08-18-2013, 06:49 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: west palm beach, United States
Posts: 9
So your saying technically Elizabeth of York is a decendant of both Edmund of York and Lionel Of Clarence???

I get the adultery thing and being legitimized but not able to inherit the throne but im just wondering for the sake of argument if hypothetically all of John of Gaunts Children were legit and from the same wife then I dont see how the Yorks claim could come before Henry VII as he was still from Gaunts line and after Richard II the throne did go to Guants line producing obviously Henry IV, V, & VI.

And are you saying that Edward IV did have more of a claim than Henry VI??? I guess he might if he is actually descended from Lionel.

No need to refight the war of the roses here but im just curious. This has always been my favorite time period. No expert just through movies and what I remember from college. But for some reason ive been obsessed hours a day for weeks researching this family tree to see where it went or where it should have went. I guess the new white queen series has re peaked my interest. Ive been reading on it about 8 hours today and my wife is like off with his head at this point.
Although I still would like my previous thoughts adressed I think I get it a little more and would like add another thought/question.

Basically if a king has an older son with a daughter and a yonger son with a son which child would be heir to the throne?

To relate to what you had mentioned. Lionel was higher than both John of Gaunt and
Edmund of Langley. So then would his children be too right? Like if Lionel had a son he probably would have been king after richard. But if he only had a girl like phillppia as an heir wouldn't Guant or the next oldest son or one of thier sons still be next Iine line to the throne especially over say phillippias childern or any of her heirs?
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 08-18-2013, 09:10 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,413
The reason that Phillipa wouldn't have been considered is the mind set that women would not make strong rulers and, as women would marry, power would devolve to their husband. That sets up an unknown AND a power-play. Much easier and pragmatic to stick with males. So Phillippa gets overlooked, in the same way Matilda did years earlier.

Elizabeth I knew the problems marriage could bring - she watched her sister marry Philip of Spain and the political (and religious) problems it caused.

In the example you gave, the daughter should inherit. She would do in any time since probably 1600. Before then, with the turmoil in the UK, it would be unlikely.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 08-19-2013, 12:52 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by crymson77 View Post
...Basically if a king has an older son with a daughter and a yonger son with a son which child would be heir to the throne?
And there was the quandry: could women transmit the right to the throne? Today if the main line fails, the daughter (or her descendants) of the older son would inherit before the son of a younger son: Elizabeth II (daughter of the second son) is on the throne by this principle, not her cousin Prince Richard Duke of Gloucester (son of the third son). This principle took hold, as was said, around 1600 or so. Like I said above, whether or not a claim to the throne could pass through a woman was one of the causes of the WOR. Under today's rules, the York family had the better blood claim but the Lancastrians (Henry IV, V, and VI) grabbed it by force and then Henry VII with the help of his army of French mercenaries did the same. Parliament had to practically force him to marry Elizabeth of York as he had promised to do. It's really ironic though: Edward III claimed the FRENCH throne through his mother...and that "claim" was not officially dropped until the early 1800s by George III.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 08-19-2013, 02:29 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
There are a few key things being forgotten and/or overlooked here.

First of all, while inheritance of the English throne through female lines had been established as possible, inheritence of women had not been established as possible and would not be established as such until Mary I came to the throne. The last time that a woman had almost come to the throne was Empress Matilda, who was immediately usurped and whose very existence and usurpation resulted in the Anarchy.

The second is that the Lancasters came to the throne by usurping Richard II. They were not the rightful heirs, but rather they pushed themselves onto the throne.

Thirdly, the claim to the throne that the Yorks held was not because they were descended from Edmund Langley, but rather because they were descended from Lionel of Antwerp.

Edward III had 5 sons who lived to adulthood and had children, In order Edward, Lionel of Antwerp, John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley, and Thomas of Woodstock.

Edward (the son) had one son, the future Richard II, while Lionel had one daughter, Philippa of Clarence. Both Edward and Lionel died before their father, so when Edward III died his eldest son's only child inherited. Richard didn't have any children of his own, while Philippa married Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March, and had 4 children, most importantly (for this argument) her eldest son, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March. During his reign Rogerwas named as the heir presumptive to Richard - thus in the event of Richard dying without issue, Roger was to become king.

The third son, John of Gaunt had several children through three marriages, his eldest surviving son being Henry of Bolingbroke. Henry had an inconsistent relationship with his cousin, Richard, but the significant thing is that when John died Richard wouldn't allow Henry to inherit his father's lands automatically, which eventually lead to Henry rebelling and usurping his cousin, becoming the first Lancaster monarch Henry IV. This was over the rightful king (who was the son of the first son of the last monarch), and his named heir (the grandson of the second son of the last monarch).

The Lancaster line continued, for a time at least, through the descendants of Henry IV. His heir was his eldest son, Henry V, whose heir was his own son, Henry VI. By the time of Henry VI, who wasn't exactly fit to rule, things had become shaky that the descendants of Philippa were able to put themselves forward as the rightful rulers.

Let's go back to Roger Mortimer. His only surviving son, Edmund, died without children, so his claim went to his eldest daughter, Anne. Anne married Richard, Earl of Cambridge, whose father was Edmund of Langley. Their son was Richard, 3rd Duke of York, who was put forth as the Yorkist claimant of the throne; his son, Edward, would later successfully conquer the throne and become Edward IV. Thus, Edward IV was of the House of York through paternal descent but had a claim to the throne of England - and a superior one to that of the actual King - through maternal descent.

As for Henry VII... Well, his claim was a shakey one at best, but basically in 1483 he was the senior male Lancaster claimant. In essence, he was the best claim that the Lancasters had, and in light of the way Richard III came to the throne he was able to also garner Yorkist support. He gained the throne not because he had the best claim - he certainly didn't - but because people who had better claims, or were on the throne, weren't appealing to the people who backed him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 08-19-2013, 08:58 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: west palm beach, United States
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
under today's rules, the York family had the better blood claim.
I think im getting it now. Not saying I like it but im getting it. I guess I would be on the Lancaster side here as it seems im trying to find any way to get them to have a stonger claim. Not sure how much it matters every king stole it from some other king at some point.

I know you were saying under todays rules, but I really want to know how it would have played out under the rules of the time. So ill just re-ask one last time.

Lionel was higher than both John of Gaunt and*Edmund of Langley. So then would his children be too right? Like if Lionel had a son he probably would have been king after richard. But if he only had a girl like phillppia as an heir wouldn't Guant or the next oldest son or one of thier sons still be next Iine line to the throne especially over say phillippias childern or any of her heirs?

To put it in terms my kids would understand we will go to the lion king. If simba was a girl and scar had a son wouldnt scars son have a stronger claim If both mufasa and scar were dead???
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 08-19-2013, 11:04 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey,, United States
Posts: 59
Another genealogy question.

I was curious to know the monarch or otherwise who had the most children--European, that is. So on Wikipedia I saw that it was Robert I, Duke of Parma, and also Juliana of Stolberg.
Just wondering--are they both related to Queen Elizabeth II?
I was going to ask if the Dukes of Wellington are too, but I found out via an article on Wikipedia that they are indeed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 08-19-2013, 11:23 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
As for Henry VII... Well, his claim was a shakey one at best, but basically in 1483 he was the senior male Lancaster claimant. In essence, he was the best claim that the Lancasters had, and in light of the way Richard III came to the throne he was able to also garner Yorkist support. He gained the throne not because he had the best claim - he certainly didn't - but because people who had better claims, or were on the throne, weren't appealing to the people who backed him.
Actually the senior male Lancastrian heir in 1483 was King Joao II of Portugal, as I pointed out above. Henry VII had no legal claim as his "Lancastrian" blood was via the Beauforts - who were specifically barred from the Throne by both civil and canon law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 08-20-2013, 01:51 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by crymson77 View Post
...Lionel was higher than both John of Gaunt and*Edmund of Langley. So then would his children be too right?
Under the rules of the day the descendants of Lionel (later the Yorks) had a better blood claim than the descendants of John. Daughter's couldn't inherit, but the sons of daughters could.

In Lion King terms, Mufasa (Richard II) was pushed off the throne and indirectly killed by Scar (Henry IV), while Mufasa's heir presumptive, Simba (Edward Mortimer) was pushed to the side. Go forward a bit and Simba's sister's son (Richard of York) is fighting Scar's grandson (Henry VI) for the throne.

The York claim to the throne was NOT through the York line, it was through their descent from Lionel. I'll map it out for you, italicized are women who were bypassed in favour of their sons. Bolded are the men who had or made a claim.

Edward III:
  1. Edward, the Black Prince
    1. Richard II (our Mufasa)
  2. Lionel of Antwerp
    1. Philippa of Clarence
      1. Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March
        1. Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March (our Simba), no issue
        2. Anne Mortimer
          1. Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York
            1. Edward IV
              1. Edward V
            2. Richard III
  3. John of Gaunt
    1. Henry IV (our Scar)
      1. Henry V
        1. Henry VI
    2. John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset
      1. John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset
        1. Margaret Beaufort
          1. Henry Tudor, later Henry VII


__________________
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 08-20-2013, 02:34 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
Actually the senior male Lancastrian heir in 1483 was King Joao II of Portugal, as I pointed out above. Henry VII had no legal claim as his "Lancastrian" blood was via the Beauforts - who were specifically barred from the Throne by both civil and canon law.
Actually... no.

The Lancaster line looks like this:

John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster
  1. John
  2. Edward
  3. John
  4. Henry IV
    1. Henry V
      1. Henry VI
        1. Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales
    2. Thomas of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Clarence
    3. John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford
    4. Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester
    5. Blanche of England
      1. Rupert, Hereditary Prince of the Palatinate
    6. Philippa of England
  5. John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset
    1. Henry Beaufort, 2nd Earl of Somerset
    2. John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset
      1. Lady Margaret Beaufort
        1. Henry VII, who claimed the throne in 1483, after everyone in the line before him was dead
    3. Thomas Beaufort, Count of Perche
      1. Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset
      2. His 10 children and their descendants
    4. Joan Beaufort
      1. Her 11 children and their descendants
    5. Margaret Beaufort
      1. Her 8 children and their descendants
  6. Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester
  7. Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter
  8. Philippa of Lancaster
    1. Edward of Portugal
      1. Afonso V of Portugal
        1. John, Prince of Portugal
        2. John II of Portugal
          1. His descendants
        3. Joan of Portugal
      2. Infante Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu
        1. His 5 children and their descendants
      3. Edward's 3 daughters and their descendants
    2. Philippa's other children and their descendants
  9. Elizabeth of Lancaster
    1. Her 5 children and their descendants
  10. Catherine of Lancaster
    1. Her 3 children and their descendants
  11. Joan Beaufort
    1. Her 16 children and their descendants
The question of the legitimacy and ability to inherit of the Beauforts is tricky and, in the end a bit irrelevant given as Henry did become king.

In 1397 Richard II legitimized the Beauforts with no restrictions on their ability to inherit the throne. As such, under male preferred primogeniture the sons of John of Gaunt, regardless of which wife they were born to, and their descendants inherited before the daughters of John of Gaunt and their descendants - thus Henry VII was higher in the succession than John of Portugal because Henry was descended from a son, while John was descended from a daughter.

Ten years later Henry IV re-legitimized the Beauforts, but made them ineligible to inherit the throne in a move of debatable legality. This put Henry's sisters, and their descendants, higher up in the succession, while removing his half-siblings from the succession.

Go forward a bit and in 1455 Henry VI arranged the marriage between his half brother, Edmund Tudor, and his closest male-line relation, Margaret Beaufort. While the marriage was short-lived it resulted in the birth of Henry VII and can be seen as Henry VI attempting to keep his family close together.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 08-20-2013, 03:18 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
Another genealogy question.

I was curious to know the monarch or otherwise who had the most children--European, that is. So on Wikipedia I saw that it was Robert I, Duke of Parma, and also Juliana of Stolberg.
Just wondering--are they both related to Queen Elizabeth II?
I was going to ask if the Dukes of Wellington are too, but I found out via an article on Wikipedia that they are indeed.
  1. Juliana of Stolberg
  2. Philip III of Hanau-Münzenberg
  3. Philip Louis I of Hanau-Münzenberg
  4. Philip Louis II of Hanau-Münzenberg
  5. Amalie Elisabeth of Hanau-Münzenberg
  6. William VI of Hesse-Kassel
  7. Charles I of Hesse-Kassel
  8. William VIII of Hesse-Kassel
  9. Frederick II of Hesse-Cassel
  10. Charles of Hesse-Cassel
  11. Louise Caroline of Hesse-Cassel
  12. Christian IX of Denmark
  13. Alexandra of Denmark
  14. George V of the United Kingdom
  15. George VI of the United Kingdom
  16. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Prince Philip is also descended from her; the line is the same up until Christian IX, who also fathered George I of Greece, who fathered Andrew of Greece and Denmark, who fathered Prince Philip.

They also both descend from her through a second line:
  1. Juliana of Stolberg
  2. William I "the Silent" of Orange
  3. Catherina Belgica of Nassau
  4. Amalie Elisabeth of Hanau-Münzenberg
  5. William VI of Hesse-Kassel
  6. Charles I of Hesse-Kassel
  7. William VIII of Hesse-Kassel
  8. Frederick II of Hesse-Cassel
  9. Charles of Hesse-Cassel
  10. Louise Caroline of Hesse-Cassel
  11. Christian IX of Denmark
  12. George I of Greece/Alexandra of Denmark
A third line is:
  1. Juliana of Stolberg
  2. Anna of Nassau-Dillenburg
  3. Louis II of Nassau-Weilburg
  4. William Louis of Nassau-Saarbrücken
  5. Walrad of Nassau-Usingen
  6. William Henry of Nassau-Usingen
  7. Charles of Nassau-Usingen
  8. Charles William of Nassau-Usingen
  9. Caroline of Nassau-Usingen
  10. William of Hesse-Kassel
  11. Louise of Hesse-Kassel
  12. George I of Greece/Alexandra of Denmark
A fourth line is:
  1. Juliana of Stolberg
  2. John IV of Nassau-Dillenburg
  3. George of Nassau-Dillenburg
  4. Louis Henry of Nassau-Dillenburg
  5. George Louis of Nassau-Dillenburg
  6. Henry of Nassau-Dillenburg
  7. Charlotte Amalia of Nassau-Dillenburg
  8. Charles of Nassau-Usingen
  9. Charles William of Nassau-Usingen
  10. Caroline of Nassau-Usingen
  11. William of Hesse-Kassel
  12. Louise of Hesse-Kassel
  13. George I of Greece/Alexandra of Denmark
A fifth line is:
  1. Juliana of Stolberg
  2. Juliana of Nassau-Dillenburg
  3. Louis Günther I of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
  4. Albert Anton of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
  5. Louis Frederick I of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
  6. Anne Sophie of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
  7. Charlotte Sophie of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
  8. Sophia Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
  9. Louise Charlotte of Denmark
  10. Louise of Hesse-Kassel
  11. George I of Greece/Alexandra of Denmark
Prince Philip also has a 6th line:
  1. Juliana of Stolberg
  2. Magdalena of Nassau-Dillenburg
  3. Philip Ernest of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
  4. Philippine Henriette of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
  5. Caroline of Nassau-Saarbrücken
  6. Caroline of Zweibrücken
  7. Frederick William III of Prussia
  8. Charlotte of Prussia
  9. Konstantin Nikolayevich of Russia
  10. Olga Konstantinova of Russia
  11. Andrew of Greece and Denmark
  12. Prince Philip
Neither the Queen nor Prince Philip are direct descendants of Robert I, Duke of Parma, although they are both related to his descendants through Johan Willem Friso of Orange. It should be noted that while Robert I had 12 children, only 3 of them went on to have children themselves.


The lines here are as such:
  1. Johan Willem Friso, Prince of Orange, married Landgravine Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel
  2. William IV, Prince of Orange, married Anne, Princess Royal
  3. Princess Caroline of Orange-Nassau, married Charles Christian, Prince of Nassau-Weilburg
  4. Princess Henriette of Nassau-Weilburg, married Duke Louis of Württemberg
  5. Duke Alexander of Württemberg, married Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde
  6. Francis, Duke of Teck, married Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge
  7. Princess Mary of Teck, married George V of the United Kingdom
  8. George VI of the United Kingdom, married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
  9. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh


  1. Johan Willem Friso, Prince of Orange, married Landgravine Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel
  2. Princess Amalia of Nassau-Dietz, married Frederick, Hereditary Prince of Baden-Durlach
  3. Charles Frederick, Grand Duke of Baden, married Landgravine Caroline Louise of Hesse-Darmstadt
  4. Charles Louis, Hereditary Prince of Baden, married Landgravine Amalie of Hesse-Darmstadt
  5. Princess Wilhelmine of Baden, married Louis II, Grand Duke of Hesse
  6. Princes Charles of Hesse and by Rhine, married Princess Elisabeth of Prussia
  7. Louis IV, Grand Duke of Hesse, married Princess Alice of the United Kingdom
  8. Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, married Admiral Louis Alexander Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven
  9. Princess Alice of Battenburg, married Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark
  10. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, married Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom


  1. Johan Willem Friso, Prince of Orange, married Landgravine Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel
  2. William IV, Prince of Orange, married Anne, Princess Royal
  3. Princess Caroline of Orange-Nassau, married Charles Christian, Prince of Nassau-Weilburg
  4. Frederick William, Prince of Nassau-Weilburg, married Burgravine Louise Isabelle of Kirchberg
  5. Princess Henriette of Nassau-Weilburg, married Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen
  6. Archduchess Marie Theresa of Austria-Teschen, married Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies
  7. Princess Maria Pia of the Two-Sicilies, married Robert I, Duke of Parma
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 08-20-2013, 11:15 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 648
Ah, there is our wonderful Johan Willem Friso of Orange again.
He does keep popping up, doesn't he.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 08-20-2013, 12:39 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
He does, he's useful like that!

I'm sure HM and the DoE are related to Robert I of Parma in other ways, but that was the only one I could show last night. I should note one error: they're only related to the children he had through his first marriage. I think 7 of his children (out of 12) from his second marriage went on to marry and have children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 08-20-2013, 05:38 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey,, United States
Posts: 59
Hey there Ish,

Wow, very interesting. I was confused about the lines though, since I never saw Robert's name or anyone connected to him on the lines you gave me.
Why is that?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 08-20-2013, 05:45 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
He appears in the third line, but isn't the direct descendant. He's not a descendant of Johan, but his first wife is.

Her line is:
  1. Johan Willem Friso, Prince of Orange, married Landgravine Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel
  2. William IV, Prince of Orange, married Anne, Princess Royal
  3. Princess Caroline of Orange-Nassau, married Charles Christian, Prince of Nassau-Weilburg
  4. Frederick William, Prince of Nassau-Weilburg, married Burgravine Louise Isabelle of Kirchberg
  5. Princess Henriette of Nassau-Weilburg, married Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen
  6. Archduchess Marie Theresa of Austria-Teschen, married Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies
  7. Princess Maria Pia of the Two-Sicilies, married Robert I, Duke of Parma
As such, Robert I's children through his first marriage are related to HM and the DoE through their common descent from Johan, but Robert himself and his children from his second marriage aren't related through this line.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 08-20-2013, 08:22 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: west palm beach, United States
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
They were not the rightful heirs, but...
Im wondering now how much it matters? ?? Arnt there any others who feel they had any claim to the throne from some other previous kings? So what im really saying here is what right did both the yorks and the lancasters really have. Didnt edward I, II or III have any brothers that could have fought just as much and still always felt the throne belonged to them???? Like I assume there are other kings that had battled other family members the same way these guys did. Like who challanged Edward I or II or some king way before that? I assume these guys have been battling with family members and 1st and 2nd cousins and like this for a while. Hasnt the throne switched familes even a few times? Like who was the first real king ever and at what point did it switch? Or am I completly off base here. Sorry for my lack of knowledge on this subject. My interest have always been from edward I through James I.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 08-20-2013, 08:51 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: west palm beach, United States
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Henry VII was higher in the succession than John of Portugal because Henry was descended from a son, while John was descended from a daughter.
Thanks for all ut awesome help by the way but I thought I understood everything untill I just read this. If this is true about henry VII and john of portugal then wouldnt Guants male children be higher in succession than philippa or her children.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ancestry, british royal family, china, countess of errol, crusades, descent, duke of edinburgh, edward iii, elizabeth ii, genealogy, marie bonaparte, napoleon, prince philip, prince william, queen elizabeth (the queen mother), queen elizabeth the queen mother, royal monarch line of succession heirs, tang dynasty


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:27 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]