The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royal History (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/)
-   -   Lines of Descent (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/lines-of-descent-20874.html)

Incas 03-30-2009 07:38 PM

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

Iluvbertie 03-30-2009 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incas (Post 915741)
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 03-30-2009 08:40 PM

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 03-31-2009 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 915744)
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 03-31-2009 03:04 PM

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

Prince William of Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
x

Incas 03-31-2009 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 915744)
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.:flowers:

Iluvbertie 03-31-2009 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Ann (Post 915981)
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 03-31-2009 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ella Kay (Post 915767)
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 03-31-2009 04:35 PM

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 03-31-2009 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 916101)
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 03-31-2009 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Ann (Post 916115)
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 06-05-2009 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 915744)
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 06-09-2009 09:33 PM

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 06-15-2009 05:51 PM

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_...o_Elizabeth_II

CarolinaLandgrave 09-20-2009 10:53 PM

(8) :ohmy: 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 09-26-2009 06:34 PM

(7) :ermm: 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 10-02-2009 05:00 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 10-03-2009 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pacomartin (Post 999011)
... 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 10-31-2009 07:38 PM

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 10-31-2009 08:24 PM

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.



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises