They also have 2 lines both York and Lancaster and with the Stwart addition Elizabeth II has a third line that goes with the Scott Kings back to the Kings before William the Conqueror
and as proof their line continues to rule right ? , oh no the murdering asses are dead , not one left to rule , there are higher laws , that being christians call god , btw i descend from Margaret Tudor and Richard 111 , i am not ashammed of that fact because there is no proof he killed my cousins and plenty that said he was an honorable man with a kindly heart, i know my heart as long as i am not harmed or my loved ones i am a good person , if how ever you are stupid enough to strike me or mine , a black cloud covers my mind and when it clears their is usually some one is pulling me off a very hurt person dumb enough to attack , i am very much my ancestors descendant , i am not ashammed of being Margarets descendant or of being cousin of Owain Glyndwr but i am ashammed of henry and elizabeth , uuugghhh , to think i used to admire elizabeth, before i knew it was my ancestor she murdered, and henry's wives , he murdered my cousins because they could not give him a son , the reason they could not was his filthy penis ,he gave them syphilis, killing the babies in their womb , he lied and murdered , MY COUSINS , filthy monster ,My lines are Stewart , FitzAlan, Howard, Talbot , Boleyn , Seymore , Parr, Gray/Grey , Campbell, Owen , Tudor and this one makes me ashammed , btw i am autistic so , if i spelled something wrong , my spell check stopped working after i updated and my brother is too busy to fix it , this is me , if you look you will see my evidence , facebook.com/Jitaamesuluma
Frank Gibson Isn't that generally true for anyone of wealth and power, not just monarchs, in a ruthless age when the rule of law was weak to nonexistent and the masses were largely unable to mount an effective and lasting rebellion?
@@653j521 were the people bad to begin with, and as consequence have bad rulers, or did the bad rules take over the legitimate crown and created exploit, greed and war culture !?
It would certainly rock my world if I found out that my dad is, in fact, not a doctor, but a milkman. Though I did advise my Mom that if she has that kind of secret, she should just take it to her grave.
This just highlights what I have always regarded as stupid and unfathomable i.e. the line of succession being via the uncertain i.e. male parent, rather than the unequivocal i.e. female parent. I believe there is also a false paternity even further back with one of the Edwards.
This points out why men have been obsessed with controlling women, particularly their reproductive lives and certain (often older) men are fanatical about not allowing women to have reproductive control over themselves. Hence, they will side with even a rapist over a woman impregnated by rape.
Edward IV was a basterd without Edward III blood., so were his sons, the princes in the tower. Henry VII tried to make his claim to the throne stonger by marrying Edward IV daughter Anne of York but she was the daughter of an illegitimate king. Richard III was the rightful king and telling a family secret when he proclaimed that his brother and nephews were not of royal blood. His brother was conceived when his father was away on campaign and the christening was a sober event. But when George, the second son was born, there was a lavish event thrown. In fact, he was the first son of Edward III and his queen and the true heir to the throne. Richard was his second son. Richard stood by Edward IV as long as his brother lived but when he deceased took the throne, which was rightfully his, for himself.
@@roden70 I heard that too though defenders of the mother deny it being possible. The behavior of the family does support this, unless there is another credible reason for it.
Typical of Phillipa Gregory to get her wires crossed these days. Richard's paternity was never called into question... it was his eldest brother (father of the Princes in the Tower) that was shown to have been the son of an archer (as 'Dad' was away when their mother conceived her first born). So Richard WAS actually the rightful King as his nephews were basically the grandsons of an archer and not of a king.
Thank you for your clarification. It makes perfect sense, and is easy to follow. Yes, DNA is fascinating and fun, but it doesn't change history... well said.
Blood and Maternal DNA still is there no matter what no matter how far down the family tree of decent is! I inherited slight scoliosis in my spine and some facial resemblance of King Richard the third it's just there! LOL the DNA speaks out in the health issues even 19+ generation later! 🌹
Men were the ones who did the fighting and the provisioning in that age. No man wanted to bust his ass for a baby that wasn't his. (That's not how you spread your genes and your traits forward.) Hence the emphasis on establishing paternity. If the sexes were reversed and the women did all of the hard labor and your husband said "Darling, I know you worked hard, but I don't want your child. I want you to raise the child of this other woman whom I think is stronger and better looking than you," you can bet you'd be pretty upset and make damn sure YOUR kids were the ones that inherited the throne!
John of Gaunt is my 3rd cousin 20x removed with Henry III my 22nd great grandfather. Thank you for this video! I opened my family tree, watched it and stopped it in order to do research from Henry III forward. I found that Henry IV Bolingbroke, John Beaufort and Queen Catherine of Castille are all my 4th cousins 19x removed so I am related to all three of John of Gaunt's wives. I'm Richard III's 6th cousin 17x removed. What great fun it is to find videos like yours and dig into history and genaeology!
@@goldenlabradorskye Yes, I know that. I am from the DNA line of R1b1b2a1, which is Niall and the Nine Hostages line, which propagated into the O'Neil line (very interesting story). There are many more millions who cannot trace their tree back to royalty, right?
After watching The White Queen, and reading some of the history about how she, Elizabeth Woodville, was so despised by insiders for being a commoner and an upstart, and all the machinations and intrigue that reportedly went on to keep her sons off the throne (the princes in the Tower), I find it hilarious that her direct descendants (thru her daughter, mother of Henry VIII) are still on the throne today. Seems the commoner upstart got the last laugh, lol!
Nefer Anubis Unfortunately, it didn't matter that Jacquetta was the daughter of a Count and married to the Duke of Bedford. After Bedford died she married a mere knight. Thus her status took a severe tumble and she and her children by Woodvile were seen as commoners. So for this her family were despised by the nobility. Additionally, Jacquetta had many children and when Edward IV married her daughter, Elizabeth, many of her family were married off to the nobility leaving few marriageable children available. Another reason to despise them.
@@luvmuzik4me It is based on history, however imaginatively, but the base facts *are* facts: Jacquetta Woodville was the daughter of a Count & she married a knight after having been the wife of a Duchess. It was considered scandalous & she, specifically, was considered irresponsible. This tainted all of her children.
This was absolutely fascinating! I know this is an older video but I'd be interested in your take on the rumor of Edward IV being illegitimate, if you haven't done so already.
People are forgetting that Richard III's mother also descended from John of Gaunt! As in, John of Gaunt was his maternal grandfather! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecily_Neville,_Duchess_of_York
Well, to be fair they are probably also forgetting the fact that Richard Duke of York's mother was Anne De Mortimer, and she descended from Lionel of Clarence, the 2nd living son of Edward III. So even if Richard Earl of Cambridge was born from an affair between his mother and some noble, the York branch would still have a very good claim. That's just my two-sense.
Richard III DNA finds doesn't impact any ruler that came after and that goes to the present Queen as they all descends from Henry Tudor. We have to remember that Henry Tudor may have had a claim but in reality, he won his crown in battle. Also as mentioned The Act of Settlement is what determined the present-day royal family.
Thank you Thank you Thank you. I had heard about this and I understand about DNA but I never understood how they were able to pinpoint that it happened between Edward III and Richard III. Now I understand how: they didn't. Thank you also for the visuals. That was extremely helpful. I thoroughly enjoy your channel. Cheers, friend
Well yes and no about Edward IV, the Plantagenets ruled England for hundreds of years before they were Usurped by Henry V’s father. But yes the crown was won by conquest (to get it back for EdwardIV). And Henry Tudor was the only Lancastrian heir that was next in line even though his family was supposed to be banned from laying claim to the throne because he had no royal English blood since his grandfather was a servant and grandmother was a royal from France.
@@theunknownpersonism : That’s true, but Henry Tudor’s father was the child of a Welsh servant and Henry V’s widow who was a French princess a Valois. Unfortunately during those times they didn’t follow the lineage of the mothers side only the paternal links. If you look at the actual scroll 📜 of line of succession you will see a big black line going to his line, which means since he was part servant he could never be king.
@@Danielle-mg5lf if that was true then the Plantagenets won't have the right to the English throne since they've claimed it through Henry II's mother Matilda.
@@Danielle-mg5lf they were already called Plantagenet when Henry II became King of England. The name originated from his father Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou.
But don't forget HM Queen's pedigree also comes from other royal lines, for example, the Stuarts, who were a far more legitimate line to the original kings of Wessex than The Tudors ever would have been! James I The first to be king of both England & Scotland, was a direct descendant of Malcolm III, King of Scotland who married Saint Margaret, daughter of Edward The Elder, and brother of Alfred The Great, the grandfather of The First King of England Edward I. The German Hanover House only comes in because Elizabeth Stuart married Frederick V of Bohemia and her grandson became George I of England. But the most direct line to succession should have been Bonnie Prince Charlie, son of James Francis Stuart who married Maria Sobiewski a Polish noble woman, she was the grand daughter of The Polish King and Grand Duke of Lithuania John III Sobieski . James Francis Stuart was the legitimate son of James II and Mary Modena, who's father was the duke of Modena, Italy. James II was wrongfully oused by William King of Orange, Dutch, who married Mary II, he was her first cousin. Mary II claim to the English Throne was that she was the daughter of the executed Charles I. Charles I was the son of James VI of England & Scotland. My point is that the surplanters are the Tudors, not the line of our present Queen, apart from Margaret Tudor marring James IV, and Edward Tudor marring Margaret of Richmond, Beauford, who 'Claim' descent from The Plantagenets John of Guant. But it has come to light that this once or twice removed link for the Tudors was in fact an illegitimate son of a French archer! The Tudors have no other link to royals but these two ( one not a real one), they came from a welsh nobleline, thats all!
The Stuarts' claim to the English throne comes through the Tudors. Henry VII's daughter Margaret married the King of Scotland. Margaret's grand-daughter was Mary Queen of Scots who produced King James I of England.
Queen Elizabeth II is descended several times over from the royal houses of so many countries, including England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, it's hard to keep track. And why the male line counts more than than the female line is silly. Elizabeth Stuart counts as much in terms of passing on "royal" genes as her brother, Charles. And the English people wanted Protestant monarchs, not Catholic, or the religious instability would have continued even worse than what it was. Royal houses win some and lose some. The Jacobites need to get over it. Btw, I'm an American and am not affected by any of this, so I have a rather neutral view. Another point, my great, great-grandmother was a Stuart and I still think the English had a good reason to kick James II off the throne.
James II wasn't wrongly ousted. James created a constitutional crisis in England by attempting to impose Catholic measures by decree that the Protestant English Parliament had rejected. The outcome was him being ousted as Parliament asserted its primacy over the monarchy and in order to prevent what seemed an inevitable civil war.. The Scottish Convention similarly asserted that James had essentially forfeited the crown and that the monarchy derived from the will of Parliament and not by divine right of birth.
@Wednesday's Child And the Savoys are still with us even if they are no longer Kings of Italy. Emanuele Filiberto, the son of the current claimant to the Italian throne actually won the Italian version of "Strictly Come Dancing" a few years ago
Wonderful, cogent explanation by Claire. Thanks for doing this. I've been going back over the Richard III findings and was baffled about the kerfuffle over those false paternity issues. It seemed more like something that was blown out of proportion to get ratings and clicks for TV and news sites.
Someone asked if the Plantagenet Kings and the Tudors were related...in a way yes...up the line, through Edward the III. He had so many Children that most of the nobility of the time were related in some way.
Susan Falcone Henry VII the first Tudor King married Elisabeth of York a Plantagenet. And his own mother Margaret Beaufort was a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt. Everyone of Henry VIII six wives had Plantagenet blood.
Hell, most Europeans TODAY are related to him. According to the records I looked up, Edward the III was my 20th great grandfather. And given how long ago he lived and pedigree collapse, I'd reckon that most people of European descent have him as a direct ancestor. Most people's DNA wouldn't show that, though, since very few lines were through male descent only.
theproplady I am a descendant of Edward I possibly Edward III. Not everyone is through, you have to have ancestors who arrived in the USA from the U.K. during the 16th & 17th century.
@@notnek202 A cousin of mine in Wales traced our ancestry back to a man from Pembrokeshire in the 1620s. He had a brother who emigrated to the new world. That man was a direct ancestor of George W Bush. Of all the presidents I could have been related to it had to be Dubya!
Sort of unrelated but I went to the burial of Richard the Third!! I was only about 8 when we went so I don’t remember it much...I didn’t even know who’s burial it was because I wasn’t interested in history back then. But I remember it was cool!
There is some question on John Beaufort's father. He was born in 1373 and Hugh Swynford's death was around the same time so it is not certain who John's father was although John of Gaunt recognized him as his son.
All of those people were very closely related anyway, Plantagenet blood flowed in the male and the female lines from way back. It's so complicated, but checking the pedigrees of these people will show you that a supposed break in the bloodlines is almost impossible to detect.
Yes, but that's nuclear DNA other than the Y-chromosome, if they're testing mitochondrial DNA, which comes only through the direct female line, and/or Y-chromosome DNA, which comes only through the direct male line, a break is very obvious (unless the actual father had the same ancestor in the direct male line as the purported father).
Even if the current royal family were not related by blood to Richard III it does not matter, after all Henry VII took the throne by conquest. Otherwise Guillaume le Conquérant should not become king of England and we should revive the Witan to elect the new king just like the Anglo-Saxons did.
This is all a tempest in a teapot. Henry VII kicked Richard III 's ass, and took the crown. He was acclaimed king by the lords gathered at the coronation. That's all that really matters. All this "Divine right of kings" and bloodline crap be damned. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT when it comes to medieval kings.
Regarding the present Queen's claim to the Throne,you have instances where other relatives with very strong claims to the throne were passed over by Parlaiment. The Hanoverians being a great example. Plenty of Englishmen and women could have been chosen from within the country,but parlaiment chose to find an ancestor of James in Germany. Thus inadvertently the Queen. A descendant of a Protestant who was not ingrained in English politics. The perfect candidate! Oh my!
In fact the best Catholic claim after Bonnie Prince's Charlie's death was not British. It was the King of Sardinia. When that line ran out just before the unification of Italy the best Catholic claim then passed to the Kings of Bavaria. So it's a toss up between having a protestant monarch with roots in Germany or a Catholic one.
*All depends on the accuracy of the research, all associated variables, and then the accuracy of the interpretation AND truths in the information given to the public.*
Why do I feel like a Monty Python character is going to pop up stating "it's"... The "Royals" became "Royals" because they were the most proficiently ruthless. And yet it seems such mystique is assigned to them, such reverence for the " pure bloodlines" and entitlement. It all came down to who was king of the sandbox folks - the most proficient kicker. And the descendants are - well - the descendants. Or not. And maybe they don't (didn't ) kick or posture quite as effectively. But please don't misinterpret me, I think King Richard is fascinating and was quite excited that his bones were found. But all this dribble about rightful inheritance gives me a good chuckle.
@David A Mannock Seems to me American interest in those men peaked in the 50s-70s when there were so many westerns on tv and in the movies, and few care now. Royals are the ultimate soap opera, the seemingly neverending tale, although these days who knows? :)
11spiritwarrior As every good warrior knows, you won't win a lasting place at the top of the heap through ruthlessness alone. And that is where establishing the idea of bloodlines comes in. You can't get into power without your supporters, and you can't stay in power without making sure your supporters will get enough out of it to be willing to die in the attempt. And you can't do that if you are constantly at war because your supporters are getting killed off. You have to give them a respite to enjoy the rewards. And the most useful of maneuvers has been by having them agree that your bloodline is special and that your son can succeed you without having to go to war to get the position. It also means that your supporters can pass their lands and/or titles to the first born son and not have a battle over the estate. From the very first days of private land ownership, as opposed to communal ownership, the big problem was how to keep it in the family. As they knew nothing at first about the woman's role in reproduction, this male-oriented method seemed to work adequately, although there were always those who contended that they should be in charge instead. One might say it was the first steps toward a lawful, rather than a murderous, succession. If you kill the king, you better have a really good excuse why you shouldn't simply be executed and the king's son put in his place, and increasingly the really good excuse was that you had a stronger claim by blood, a family feud, as it were. :) The need for a stronger place in the family even led to women being seen as legitimate heirs and in some cases as queen. The supporters had to REALLY want your family to stay in power, and them along with it, to agree to THAT. :D
This is fascinating. There does seem to be a theme in monarchies that such-and-such a person is on the throne . . . but barely. There are always others with an equal or a better claim than yours, so that your hold on power is tenuous.
The Normans are a title land mad tribe that spent hundreds of years killing their brothers and cousins for such things, everyone else was forced or bribed to take sides. They aren't real western Europeans with R1B Bell Beaker Folk the well known top notch farmers and artistic potters. These Normans would rather build big artificial lakes in great big gardens, in the modern age they put solar panels on fields. The Saxon-Celt looks on with amusement.
Thank you for this well thought out and *grounded* video that gets everyone heated. I appreciate your videos and your thoughtful insights + explanations. Subscriber for life with the same heart you have for middle of the night research for research sake; it’s just so enjoyable to study it. I’ll take a look at your books. Plz keep this channel up forever and I’m LOVING the 2019 “this day” series. Love how you are finding ways of expanding x
Richard III's DNA does not mean Elizabeth II is not the rightful queen because: 1 - Henry VII took the throne of England by conquest, so he can be considered legitimate. Otherwise we would have to consider Harold II (Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England) the last legitimate king of England and all monarchs from William the Bastard of Normandy (later known as "the Conqueror") as usurpers and illegitimate kings/queens. William the Bastard himself also did not have royal blood (in fact, he was an illegitimate son of his father Robert II, and because of that he was called "Guillaume le Bâtard") and he took the throne by conquest, so the royal bloodline started with him. 2 - There are 19 links between Richard III and Henry Somerset, the Duke of Beaufort - and only two of these are the ones who affect Henry VII: the one between Edward III and his son John of Gaunt and the one between John of Gaunt and his son John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset - from which the Tudors descent. If the break occurred in any other of the 17 links it would not affect Henry VII's claim (which is a chance of 17/19, or almost 90%). 3 - Even if Henry VII were not related to Edward III, his wife Elizabeth of York was a descendant of Richard III's sister, so their descendants would still be "legitimate". 4 - Elizabeth II would still be the queen of Scotland since the Plantagenets never were kings of Scotland, she descends from James VI of Scotland, of the House of Stewart/Stuart. 5 - The Saxon kings were chosen by the Witan (a kind of "read of athelmen", or "council of noblemen" in our Frenchfied English) - the hereditary succession was introduced by Guillaume le Bâtard and his Norman French invaders after 1066. If the present Queen is not related to Richard III, wouldn't be rightful revive the Witan to choose the rightful king instead of trying to find a descendant of Richard III?
How far back does this DNA go?Also,is there any way to get an entire detailed family tree with ALL the connection?Or something that does this?I also have one good question-is it family tree or DNA that would count if someone out of oblivion came forward with the belief they were intact the one who should be on the thrown?The Royal Family tree has been my hobby for fifty years!
Kathie Johns DNA showed that Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia. Today the person would run a DNA test to even be considered credible enough to be a curiosity. :) But time has flowed by and you aren't going to get the British or any other throne by saying your many times great grandparent was cheated out of it. Let's face it, nobody today believes in the divine right of kings and most go along with the idea of royalty based on the feeling that for the present it benefits the country more than it hurts the country. Now it is all about whether the public likes and respects the current royals. You can go way back following your mother's mother's mother's line, or your father's mother's mother's line, among other methods of limited assistance in regard to personal family trees. In Europe there are a handful of lineages that most families from that part of the world go back to and then they go back to one of the "Eve" figures from Africa. So, for instance, my mother's line goes back to Maria Theresa, through one of her many children. So do perhaps those of hundreds of millions of other people. :) You might try one of the family tree websites like ancestry.com to look for a royal tree, but always use a pinch of salt with what people post on those sites because they aren't necessarily right. I like DNA research, too, and have seen that some people think it is funny to post misinformation to, I assume, see how many copy it into their charts. Deliberate or not, inaccurate data is a big problem.
Tracy Roberts - That seems a little too far back. Cecily Neville‘s brother, Edward Neville, was my 15th great grandfather. I’m 53 years old. Joan Beaufort, mother of Cecily and Edward, was my 16th great grandmother. You have a lot of very young mothers and/or oldest siblings in your line? 26 generations back puts me at William the Conqueror
@@plantagenetsurvivor8771 You would be surprised how many generation differences between siblings descendants can be. Your ancestors could have easily in this line of descent reproduced at slower rates or produced ancestors of yours at older ages. I have 1st cousins the same age as my grandchildren. I also have a great grandchild on the way. So it just doesn't work like that. It's very confusing. I'm actually older than my uncle too, Haha.
Thank you for mentioning the Act of Settlement. Whoever in the English line of succession in the Middle Ages was or was not an illegitimate child has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the present Queen Elizabeth II's being on the throne, as she is descended from the Hanoverian line, which was placed on the throne by the said Act of Parliament much later - in the 18th century. The Queen is not a Plantagenet but a Windsor (I.E. the descendant of the Houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). That documentary about the real King supposedly being an Australian individual is pure hokum.
Thankyou for such a clear report and the visuals. Very helpful to see and understand. What about the two princes in the Tower...will there be DNA investigations on their remains? It may throw up more questions but it is so fascinating to follow this.
It is doubtful whose remains they are, but it seems that at least some of the bones are female. Further analysis has been ruled out for several reasons. First, it would sensationalise human remains. Second, to have any meaningful analysis would mean opening other Royal tombs. Last, if it was proved beyond doubt not to be the princes, what would happen to their remains. I have been researching this for a new book, and it is unlikely that the princes were murdered. The eldest was known to be seriously ill already, and there is some evidence that the younger was still alive in 1486.
The problem with the princes isn't who their parents were, but that Edward's marriage to their mother may not have been valid - that he was already married. This was Richard III's claim to the throne.
@@mscott3918 I definitely do think it’s possible that one or both of them could’ve died of illness or accidents, since even today those are very common causes of death for young boys.
Claire, I have been with you since the beginning, when the website was more a blog. I have learned a lot from you. I don't always agree with you, but I found myself almost cheering at points you made here. And I must say, your clear loyalty and love for Her Majesty is touching. She is a Queen for the ages, no doubt. Thank you and Cheers ❤
To be a monarch today is a bit like being the Dalai Lama. The training for the job and the attitude that goes with it is more important than actual blood descent. This is why Edward VIII was such a disaster
Tony Robsinson's 'Fact or Fiction' about Richard iii showed his brother Edward's birth records in a church in France and the dates worked out Edward was conceived when the King was away at war.
@Snaggle Toothed the timelines don't match do they? I mean Edward was conceived when his father was away according to the time of when Edward was born. Otherwise, he would have been born premature which he wasn't. So how could he have been legitimate?
History is written by the victors and HenryVll was so insecure about his claim he went about tweaking history with gusto, plus it suited his agenda to throw possible untruths about the Plantagenets to make his claim seem stronger.
@Snaggle Toothed I wasn't convinced by the dates- not that they specified them very well, but it seemed like they jumped to a massive conclusion based on one record that only covered a short period of time. As you say, it's not like he was definitely away for so long it was literally impossible, & I'd want more than one obscure record of him being away before I concluded that anyway. And yes, as always, if something so dramatic happened, how did NO-ONE comment on it at the time? Lots of records have been lost, but surely not EVERY reference to it!
Wow. As an American, I now understand the lineage.....thank you for clearing this up for me....not that I have any say-so in this......I was led to believe the current lineage now seating the throne is, or was, in error......I now stand corrected. I would also like to state that even though you have an accent ( wink, wink) I understood everything you said, you were very concise in the explanations.....you were NOT talking down to people.....for that, I thank you again. I am told that my family tree ( on my mother's side) dates back to King Clovis, at least....with possibly Joan Of Arc in there, somewhere.....Peace and God bless.
The wife of Richard, Earl of Cambridge, was Anne Mortimer, the granddaughter of Phillipa who was the only child of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the second surviving son of Edward III. Even if the paternity of the Earl of Cambridge were suspect and not from Edmund Langley, the fourth son of Edward III, that of his wife was not and came before any descendants of John of Gaunt - of whom Richard III was one.
The papal dispensation for the marriage of Richard, Earl of Cambridge and Anne Mortimer would probably be overturned because Richard was illegitimate. So, her children would become illegitmate.
I have listened to this several times - but not because I’m terribly interested in Richard III. Near the end, you talk about family trees. You say something about how it’s not really the blood line that matters. It’s the lineage. We adopted our son from Romania, and I’ve wondered about passing our family tree and genealogy to him. He’s not our blood, but he’s part of our family’s storage. For a long time, my father left him off the genealogy charts he was working on. I protested, and now he’s there - not blood but still family. Can you address this further re:family genealogy charts.
What everyone seems to forget is Edward IV and Richard III claim to the throne came from Anne de Mortimer, that is their strong claim, not through the Dukes of York.
I am not a Tudor scholar by any means, but I have always understood that the Tudors took the crown by "right of conquest." Yes, they felt they had a tenuous, but legitimate (smirk), claim to throne and they strengthened this claim by marrying Elizabeth of York, but in reality they got the crown by killing the guy wearing it and taking it. In addition, even if Richard was legitimate, his claim was questioned at the time.
Thank you for the entertaining and informative video. I am an American citizen who belongs to the Plantagenet society as a descendant of the Plantagenet Kings of England. Richard III, of course, was a Plantagenet. I hope to have my DNA analyzed someday so that I can ascertain what possible genetic connection that I have to the Plantagenets! Wouldn't it be exciting if I had some genetic proof of a connection!
I have been tracking my family tree now for a year. I have came across some interesting finds. I use familysearch.com by Jesus of Ladder Day Saints. I also cannot wait to be able to have DNA testing done. I eventually hope to have a family reunion by memebers I have found through search and DNA.
I'm not english but I studied Tudor's history for hobby and love for the history, and in my personal opinion the matter never solved but the doubts remains forever also if the history never changed. I know that there have always been rumors about the illegittimate of John of Gaunt or Edward IV and if the brother is not the son of Richard of York probably also Richard III is not, he has not discendency and also Elizabeth of York married Henry Tudor and the problem does not exist. We can't never demonstrate for now if John of Gaunt or the discendency of Henry VII are not related to Richard, statistically with some generations the illegal affair probably took place after that but in contrary if is not, the Act of Settlement declared only legally Elizabeth II the presumptive rightful heir because also Sofia of Hannover discend to James I. Anyway I'm only curious to imagined different alternate stories but I will love them all the same!
Henry Tudor's claim to the throne was pretty dubious anyway. He was crowned because he won the battle of Bosworth after years of conniving and scheming. His DNA or lack thereof was never really relevant.
Hi Claire, I really enjoyed this presentation. What is your opinion of the fact that Henry VII could also make his claim to the throne by right of conquest?
Right of conquest isn't a legal concept. Conquerors always had to cook up some basis for their right by inheritance, however fictional or remote that claim might be.
John of Gaunt married his mistress Katherine Swynford in 1396, and their children, the Beauforts, were legitimised by King Richard II and the Church, but barred from inheriting the throne. This is where the break comes from. Their first child was born 1373 but who’s to say John of Gaunt was the father of any of the 4 Beaufort children Katherine gave birth to. Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset the great grandson of Katherine and John only had one child an illegitimate son by his mistress Joan Hill so that could be the break. From him descend the Earls and Marquesses of Worcester and the Dukes of Beaufort.
Go back to Normandy, pick up the rest of your clan and clear off back to Norway. You are not proper farmers like the R1B.. Turning good farmlands into big f**kin gardens with big artificial lakes and grey slab buildings that are a blot on the landscape. Go will you, Just Go.
Until 30 years ago, there was no way to prove paternity. How many fathers and children have lived their entire lives, and died not just believing their relation to be real, but never having ever fathomed it could be otherwise? How many mothers where secretly unsure who the father was, but thought it was more probable it was their husband's and so forced themselves to 100% believe that the child had to be their husbands. We all have false paternity events in our families. Contraception did not exist and abortion a life threating option that most woman wouldn't even entertain for fear of religious consequences and a highborn lady would have a hard time hiding, conducting secretly and getting away with even if she did survive the operation. Therefore its silly to think that anyone in this world is from a firm, uninterrupted martial lineage. This evidence suggests a least one false paternal event, but I would suspect in the 19 generations there where proberly multiple. All the testing can do is pick up that the paternal DNA between persons has been interupted and therefore not the same. All that can be proven is Richard the III and the modern Summerset descents don't share the same paternal DNA signiture, that doesn't suggest how many times an interruption occured. Just that at least one did. And as for Richard and his brother Edward, if one where to be illegitimate that in no way means the other had to be. Half brothers and sisters have existed since the dawn of time. Before the 21st century, there was no way of ever knowing beyond a doubt if a man or woman was their father's true child.
The Monarchy has right to the throne for two reasons. First, they are anointed and descendants of anointed (thus paternity is less relevant based on the chain of anointed succession). Second, Parliament has spoken on the issue, and confirmed the proper succession. It’s not that ancestry isn’t in the mix. But it’s far from the sole definitive point (as proven when Henry Tudor succeeded the throne, when he never really had any claim to it based on ancestry under even the best scenario). But as an anointed king and having been acclaimed by Parliament, he established his right.
Ce que je n'ai pas compris dans ce si intéressant exposé, c'est avec quel ADN celui de Richard lll a été comparé, un ADN qui lui était étranger, alors qu'il n'aurait pas dû l'être. Avec quel ADN d'aïeux le sien a t'il été comparé ? Si une personne connaît la réponse je serais très intéressée
Richard III may be the only one without a Plantagenet male ancestor. This has nothing to do with whether Edward IV was legitimate. If each birth has a 50/50 chance of being illegitimate, then the number of births for possible illegitimacies favors the John of Gaunt side. But, it only takes one, which means Richard III may be the only one.
Has Richard III DNA been compared to the skeletal remains of the two little boys they found a few years ago? I believe the princes were his nephews, so their DNA would have aligned. Has that been done? I haven’t heard anything about that. I know that researchers weren’t certain if the skeletal remains they found were the princes or not.
The DNA goes right back to Norway. They lack R1B and are Not Bell Beaker Folk and do all they can to cover this. They can't farm for toffee, they build big artificial lakes in great big gardens, they are now into putting solar panels on fields. The Saxon-Celt looks on with amusement.
Really interesting. Trouble is not knowing what really happened could drive you nuts....just, it seems, because some woman did what she did and didn't tell anyone.
Mater certus est, pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant . In other words, the mother was always known and before DNA testing, the father was always the one to whom marriage points. So in other words, unless a man was out beasting up the Saracens for a couple years, he would assume the child to be his own and the child would automatically be legitimate. So suck it up conspiracy theorists, the bones are Gloucester's and all you can achieve is embarrassment for the Somersets. Also QEII is Queen by act of Parliament , not some sheep farmer in Australia or an obscure fork lift driver.
The Somerset line was banned from any entitlement to the throne. In 1406, Henry IV decided that although the Beaufort`s had been made legitimate, their genetic line could not be used to make any claim to the throne. Therefore the Tudors had no legitimate claim other than by usurpation in 1485.
Whatever the status of Henry Tudor, he married Elizabeth of York who was heir to Edward IV. And since Richard had his nephews conveniently disappear under his watch, she had a right to the throne.
@@GoGreen1977 Exactly...It is doubtful whether Elizabeth of York would have given Henry Tudor a second glance, had he not usurped the throne off Richard III, as Richard would have still been King and already had designs on Elizabeth following the death of his own wife Ann Neville in 1485.. If they had both died in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, Elizabeth of York could have become Queen in her own right, as her brothers Edward and Richard had vanished, therefore anyone marrying her before or after she had become Queen would at best become Prince Consort or Prince, but not King. However, Edward IV may have been illegitimate and so the plot thickens
The biggest shock would’ve been finding no false paternity through 20 generations.
😂
that is very very sad, like to think people were better in those times and wouldn't do such disgusting things
@@uggy7693 Disgusting things? It´s natural.
@@Calucifer13 you are disgusting person. If a sociopath like you had a baby Im sure you wouldn't mind that child been swapped in hospital.
This
And oh my love...have you read anyone's history? People have been peopleing a long time ya dig
The Tudors most certainly rightly have the throne because they got it the old fashioned way - they killed for it.
Just like William the Conqueror.
They also have 2 lines both York and Lancaster and with the Stwart addition Elizabeth II has a third line that goes with the Scott Kings back to the Kings before William the Conqueror
Trial by combat. Bottom line: Henry Tudor won, Richard lost. No amount of armchair quarterbacking changes that fact.
They all did ! John of Gaunt is my 19x great grandfather.
and as proof their line continues to rule right ? , oh no the murdering asses are dead , not one left to rule , there are higher laws , that being christians call god , btw i descend from Margaret Tudor and Richard 111 , i am not ashammed of that fact because there is no proof he killed my cousins and plenty that said he was an honorable man with a kindly heart, i know my heart as long as i am not harmed or my loved ones i am a good person , if how ever you are stupid enough to strike me or mine , a black cloud covers my mind and when it clears their is usually some one is pulling me off a very hurt person dumb enough to attack , i am very much my ancestors descendant , i am not ashammed of being Margarets descendant or of being cousin of Owain Glyndwr but i am ashammed of henry and elizabeth , uuugghhh , to think i used to admire elizabeth, before i knew it was my ancestor she murdered, and henry's wives , he murdered my cousins because they could not give him a son , the reason they could not was his filthy penis ,he gave them syphilis, killing the babies in their womb , he lied and murdered , MY COUSINS , filthy monster ,My lines are Stewart , FitzAlan, Howard, Talbot , Boleyn , Seymore , Parr, Gray/Grey , Campbell, Owen , Tudor and this one makes me ashammed , btw i am autistic so , if i spelled something wrong , my spell check stopped working after i updated and my brother is too busy to fix it , this is me , if you look you will see my evidence , facebook.com/Jitaamesuluma
This lady has given a precise and easily understandable explanation.
Sherry Duggar And, as always, well researched and thoroughly documented.
TheAuntieBa : definitely true! Claire will not say anything without it being well researched by contemporary sources, etc.
If we trace the idea of rule by monarchs back it always shows the same trend. The family which is most cunning, cruel and murderous will get the job.
Frank Gibson Isn't that generally true for anyone of wealth and power, not just monarchs, in a ruthless age when the rule of law was weak to nonexistent and the masses were largely unable to mount an effective and lasting rebellion?
So true...so true
Oh yes this is true in all walks of life , from the Mafia to big business !
@@653j521 *rule of law is weak
@@653j521 were the people bad to begin with, and as consequence have bad rulers, or did the bad rules take over the legitimate crown and created exploit, greed and war culture !?
I doubt that there is any family line that doesn’t have a oops in it somewhere.
In 19 generations? There'd better be or we are a boring species.
And a Alley Oops, at that!
It would certainly rock my world if I found out that my dad is, in fact, not a doctor, but a milkman. Though I did advise my Mom that if she has that kind of secret, she should just take it to her grave.
This just highlights what I have always regarded as stupid and unfathomable i.e. the line of succession being via the uncertain i.e. male parent, rather than the unequivocal i.e. female parent. I believe there is also a false paternity even further back with one of the Edwards.
Shirley Swaine, agreed. Just one of the many flaws of patriarchy.
This points out why men have been obsessed with controlling women, particularly their reproductive lives and certain (often older) men are fanatical about not allowing women to have reproductive control over themselves. Hence, they will side with even a rapist over a woman impregnated by rape.
Holy shit. This is a lot of internet connected kitchen appliances. Your husbands are great men.
Edward IV was a basterd without Edward III blood., so were his sons, the princes in the tower. Henry VII tried to make his claim to the throne stonger by marrying Edward IV daughter Anne of York but she was the daughter of an illegitimate king. Richard III was the rightful king and telling a family secret when he proclaimed that his brother and nephews were not of royal blood. His brother was conceived when his father was away on campaign and the christening was a sober event. But when George, the second son was born, there was a lavish event thrown. In fact, he was the first son of Edward III and his queen and the true heir to the throne. Richard was his second son.
Richard stood by Edward IV as long as his brother lived but when he deceased took the throne, which was rightfully his, for himself.
@@roden70 I heard that too though defenders of the mother deny it being possible. The behavior of the family does support this, unless there is another credible reason for it.
I followed the search for Richard III closely and was excited when the mission was successful and Richard finally be given his proper resting place.
Proper resting place he wanted to be buried in York
Too bad the nephews he disinherited were denied a respectable burial, whether he was responsible for their death or not.
@@ladyv5655 I think the bones that were found in the Tower stairwell were entombed respecfully.
Richards remains were found in the proper resting place.
@@r0ky_M Correct. The place he was found was a church
Phillips Gregory never heard a salacious rumor that she didn’t buy into wholeheartedly.
Typical of Phillipa Gregory to get her wires crossed these days. Richard's paternity was never called into question... it was his eldest brother (father of the Princes in the Tower) that was shown to have been the son of an archer (as 'Dad' was away when their mother conceived her first born). So Richard WAS actually the rightful King as his nephews were basically the grandsons of an archer and not of a king.
@@annwilliams6438 Agreed!
And I love her for it 😂
Ann Williams well, Edward won by right of conquest. Edward was king so his sons were his heirs.
She’s probably writing a book and needs some drama to ad to it
Thank you for your clarification. It makes perfect sense, and is easy to follow. Yes, DNA is fascinating and fun, but it doesn't change history... well said.
Charles Butler it doesn't change history, however it can rewrite it....
Blood and Maternal DNA still is there no matter what no matter how far down the family tree of decent is! I inherited slight scoliosis in my spine and some facial resemblance of King Richard the third it's just there! LOL the DNA speaks out in the health issues even 19+ generation later! 🌹
History or Shakespeare???
"DNA findings today DO NOT change history." Period.
Pretty good argument for lineage to be traced through the female line
Men were the ones who did the fighting and the provisioning in that age. No man wanted to bust his ass for a baby that wasn't his. (That's not how you spread your genes and your traits forward.) Hence the emphasis on establishing paternity. If the sexes were reversed and the women did all of the hard labor and your husband said "Darling, I know you worked hard, but I don't want your child. I want you to raise the child of this other woman whom I think is stronger and better looking than you," you can bet you'd be pretty upset and make damn sure YOUR kids were the ones that inherited the throne!
I read your comment. Is that a dig against omen?
Lines are always followed by the mother's side in EVERY family.
One could take the alternative approach and confine the royal consort(s) to a harem guarded by eunuchs.
🇭🇲🦘 As Claire said "DNA findings today do not change history"! Such research, and a great explanation! A WONDERFUL VIDEO! "Thank you" Claire 💓👑👍
It's quite a fascinating story actually. I mean that they even found the remains.
And under a parking space numbered "3"! It was like he was begging to be found.
Yes, truly amazing!
In the mid 1980s someone told me that Richard was buried under a car park in Leicester,wish I remembered who it was,I would shake their hand
John of Gaunt is my 3rd cousin 20x removed with Henry III my 22nd great grandfather. Thank you for this video! I opened my family tree, watched it and stopped it in order to do research from Henry III forward. I found that Henry IV Bolingbroke, John Beaufort and Queen Catherine of Castille are all my 4th cousins 19x removed so I am related to all three of John of Gaunt's wives. I'm Richard III's 6th cousin 17x removed. What great fun it is to find videos like yours and dig into history and genaeology!
There are millions of people who can trace their tree back to some royalty.
That's so interesting, I hope you love history! 👌
@@goldenlabradorskye Yes, I know that. I am from the DNA line of R1b1b2a1, which is Niall and the Nine Hostages line, which propagated into the O'Neil line (very interesting story). There are many more millions who cannot trace their tree back to royalty, right?
After watching The White Queen, and reading some of the history about how she, Elizabeth Woodville, was so despised by insiders for being a commoner and an upstart, and all the machinations and intrigue that reportedly went on to keep her sons off the throne (the princes in the Tower), I find it hilarious that her direct descendants (thru her daughter, mother of Henry VIII) are still on the throne today. Seems the commoner upstart got the last laugh, lol!
OGSpaceCadet Elizabeth wydville wasn't a commoner her mother was high end royalty her father was a night
Nefer Anubis Unfortunately, it didn't matter that Jacquetta was the daughter of a Count and married to the Duke of Bedford. After Bedford died she married a mere knight. Thus her status took a severe tumble and she and her children by Woodvile were seen as commoners. So for this her family were despised by the nobility. Additionally, Jacquetta had many children and when Edward IV married her daughter, Elizabeth, many of her family were married off to the nobility leaving few marriageable children available. Another reason to despise them.
OGSpaceCadet g
The White Queen is a novel and has little to do with actual history.
@@luvmuzik4me It is based on history, however imaginatively, but the base facts *are* facts: Jacquetta Woodville was the daughter of a Count & she married a knight after having been the wife of a Duchess. It was considered scandalous & she, specifically, was considered irresponsible. This tainted all of her children.
This was absolutely fascinating!
I know this is an older video but I'd be interested in your take on the rumor of Edward IV being illegitimate, if you haven't done so already.
I was so fascinated when they pulled him out of the ground. That link to our history.
People are forgetting that Richard III's mother also descended from John of Gaunt! As in, John of Gaunt was his maternal grandfather! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecily_Neville,_Duchess_of_York
Well, to be fair they are probably also forgetting the fact that Richard Duke of York's mother was Anne De Mortimer, and she descended from Lionel of Clarence, the 2nd living son of Edward III. So even if Richard Earl of Cambridge was born from an affair between his mother and some noble, the York branch would still have a very good claim. That's just my two-sense.
Bloody Normans
Richard III DNA finds doesn't impact any ruler that came after and that goes to the present Queen as they all descends from Henry Tudor. We have to remember that Henry Tudor may have had a claim but in reality, he won his crown in battle. Also as mentioned The Act of Settlement is what determined the present-day royal family.
So all you're saying is the the crown is up for taking? Storm the castle and bring down the illegitimate whóre bastards, yeah?
Thank you Thank you Thank you. I had heard about this and I understand about DNA but I never understood how they were able to pinpoint that it happened between Edward III and Richard III. Now I understand how: they didn't. Thank you also for the visuals. That was extremely helpful. I thoroughly enjoy your channel. Cheers, friend
Edward 4 and Henry 7 were kings by right of conquest
Well yes and no about Edward IV, the Plantagenets ruled England for hundreds of years before they were Usurped by Henry V’s father. But yes the crown was won by conquest (to get it back for EdwardIV). And Henry Tudor was the only Lancastrian heir that was next in line even though his family was supposed to be banned from laying claim to the throne because he had no royal English blood since his grandfather was a servant and grandmother was a royal from France.
@@Danielle-mg5lf but Henry's mom is a Beaufort which had English Royal blood through John of Gaunt.
@@theunknownpersonism : That’s true, but Henry Tudor’s father was the child of a Welsh servant and Henry V’s widow who was a French princess a Valois. Unfortunately during those times they didn’t follow the lineage of the mothers side only the paternal links. If you look at the actual scroll 📜 of line of succession you will see a big black line going to his line, which means since he was part servant he could never be king.
@@Danielle-mg5lf if that was true then the Plantagenets won't have the right to the English throne since they've claimed it through Henry II's mother Matilda.
@@Danielle-mg5lf they were already called Plantagenet when Henry II became King of England. The name originated from his father Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou.
But don't forget HM Queen's pedigree also comes from other royal lines, for example, the Stuarts, who were a far more legitimate line to the original kings of Wessex than The Tudors ever would have been!
James I The first to be king of both England & Scotland, was a direct descendant of Malcolm III, King of Scotland who married Saint Margaret, daughter of Edward The Elder, and brother of Alfred The Great, the grandfather of The First King of England Edward I.
The German Hanover House only comes in because Elizabeth Stuart married Frederick V of Bohemia and her grandson became George I of England.
But the most direct line to succession should have been Bonnie Prince Charlie, son of James Francis Stuart who married Maria Sobiewski a Polish noble woman, she was the grand daughter of The Polish King and Grand Duke of Lithuania John III Sobieski .
James Francis Stuart was the legitimate son of James II and Mary Modena, who's father was the duke of Modena, Italy. James II was wrongfully oused by William King of Orange, Dutch, who married Mary II, he was her first cousin. Mary II claim to the English Throne was that she was the daughter of the executed Charles I. Charles I was the son of James VI of England & Scotland.
My point is that the surplanters are the Tudors, not the line of our present Queen, apart from Margaret Tudor marring James IV, and Edward Tudor marring Margaret of Richmond, Beauford, who 'Claim' descent from The Plantagenets John of Guant. But it has come to light that this once or twice removed link for the Tudors was in fact an illegitimate son of a French archer! The Tudors have no other link to royals but these two ( one not a real one), they came from a welsh nobleline, thats all!
The Stuarts' claim to the English throne comes through the Tudors. Henry VII's daughter Margaret married the King of Scotland. Margaret's grand-daughter was Mary Queen of Scots who produced King James I of England.
Countess Palatine of Burgundy
One little slip: Mary II was the granddaughter of Charles I through his son James II. Otherwise, a good analysis! 👑
Queen Elizabeth II is descended several times over from the royal houses of so many countries, including England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, it's hard to keep track. And why the male line counts more than than the female line is silly. Elizabeth Stuart counts as much in terms of passing on "royal" genes as her brother, Charles. And the English people wanted Protestant monarchs, not Catholic, or the religious instability would have continued even worse than what it was. Royal houses win some and lose some. The Jacobites need to get over it. Btw, I'm an American and am not affected by any of this, so I have a rather neutral view. Another point, my great, great-grandmother was a Stuart and I still think the English had a good reason to kick James II off the throne.
James II wasn't wrongly ousted. James created a constitutional crisis in England by attempting to impose Catholic measures by decree that the Protestant English Parliament had rejected. The outcome was him being ousted as Parliament asserted its primacy over the monarchy and in order to prevent what seemed an inevitable civil war.. The Scottish Convention similarly asserted that James had essentially forfeited the crown and that the monarchy derived from the will of Parliament and not by divine right of birth.
@Wednesday's Child And the Savoys are still with us even if they are no longer Kings of Italy. Emanuele Filiberto, the son of the current claimant to the Italian throne actually won the Italian version of "Strictly Come Dancing" a few years ago
Wonderful, cogent explanation by Claire. Thanks for doing this. I've been going back over the Richard III findings and was baffled about the kerfuffle over those false paternity issues. It seemed more like something that was blown out of proportion to get ratings and clicks for TV and news sites.
Thank you!
Thank you for a thorough, and enlightening discussion of the results.
As I recall it was settled in battle. Richard lost and Henry won!
Someone asked if the Plantagenet Kings and the Tudors were related...in a way yes...up the line, through Edward the III. He had so many Children that most of the nobility of the time were related in some way.
Susan Falcone Henry VII the first Tudor King married Elisabeth of York a Plantagenet. And his own mother Margaret Beaufort was a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt. Everyone of Henry VIII six wives had Plantagenet blood.
Hell, most Europeans TODAY are related to him. According to the records I looked up, Edward the III was my 20th great grandfather. And given how long ago he lived and pedigree collapse, I'd reckon that most people of European descent have him as a direct ancestor. Most people's DNA wouldn't show that, though, since very few lines were through male descent only.
theproplady I am a descendant of Edward I possibly Edward III. Not everyone is through, you have to have ancestors who arrived in the USA from the U.K. during the 16th & 17th century.
@@notnek202 A cousin of mine in Wales traced our ancestry back to a man from Pembrokeshire in the 1620s. He had a brother who emigrated to the new world. That man was a direct ancestor of George W Bush. Of all the presidents I could have been related to it had to be Dubya!
They still are. Prince Charles has a strong resemblance to the Prince of Greece.
Sort of unrelated but I went to the burial of Richard the Third!! I was only about 8 when we went so I don’t remember it much...I didn’t even know who’s burial it was because I wasn’t interested in history back then. But I remember it was cool!
There is some question on John Beaufort's father. He was born in 1373 and Hugh Swynford's death was around the same time so it is not certain who John's father was although John of Gaunt recognized him as his son.
All of those people were very closely related anyway, Plantagenet blood flowed in the male and the female lines from way back. It's so complicated, but checking the pedigrees of these people will show you that a supposed break in the bloodlines is almost impossible to detect.
Yes, but that's nuclear DNA other than the Y-chromosome, if they're testing mitochondrial DNA, which comes only through the direct female line, and/or Y-chromosome DNA, which comes only through the direct male line, a break is very obvious (unless the actual father had the same ancestor in the direct male line as the purported father).
Thank you sooo much Claire for your excellent research and explanation of the findings!
Even if the current royal family were not related by blood to Richard III it does not matter, after all Henry VII took the throne by conquest. Otherwise Guillaume le Conquérant should not become king of England and we should revive the Witan to elect the new king just like the Anglo-Saxons did.
This is all a tempest in a teapot. Henry VII kicked Richard III 's ass, and took the crown. He was acclaimed king by the lords gathered at the coronation. That's all that really matters. All this "Divine right of kings" and bloodline crap be damned. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT when it comes to medieval kings.
Very clear explanation. Absolutely first-class.
Thank you for making this video and clearing up what has been said.
Regarding the present Queen's claim to the Throne,you have instances where other relatives with very strong claims to the throne were passed over by Parlaiment. The Hanoverians being a great example. Plenty of Englishmen and women could have been chosen from within the country,but parlaiment chose to find an ancestor of James in Germany. Thus inadvertently the Queen. A descendant of a Protestant who was not ingrained in English politics. The perfect candidate! Oh my!
In fact the best Catholic claim after Bonnie Prince's Charlie's death was not British. It was the King of Sardinia. When that line ran out just before the unification of Italy the best Catholic claim then passed to the Kings of Bavaria. So it's a toss up between having a protestant monarch with roots in Germany or a Catholic one.
This added a great deal of clarity. Thank you.
*All depends on the accuracy of the research, all associated variables, and then the accuracy of the interpretation AND truths in the information given to the public.*
Please, do a bookshelf tour!
Why do I feel like a Monty Python character is going to pop up stating "it's"... The "Royals" became "Royals" because they were the most proficiently ruthless. And yet it seems such mystique is assigned to them, such reverence for the " pure bloodlines" and entitlement. It all came down to who was king of the sandbox folks - the most proficient kicker. And the descendants are - well - the descendants. Or not. And maybe they don't (didn't ) kick or posture quite as effectively. But please don't misinterpret me, I think King Richard is fascinating and was quite excited that his bones were found. But all this dribble about rightful inheritance gives me a good chuckle.
@David A Mannock Seems to me American interest in those men peaked in the 50s-70s when there were so many westerns on tv and in the movies, and few care now. Royals are the ultimate soap opera, the seemingly neverending tale, although these days who knows? :)
11spiritwarrior As every good warrior knows, you won't win a lasting place at the top of the heap through ruthlessness alone. And that is where establishing the idea of bloodlines comes in. You can't get into power without your supporters, and you can't stay in power without making sure your supporters will get enough out of it to be willing to die in the attempt. And you can't do that if you are constantly at war because your supporters are getting killed off. You have to give them a respite to enjoy the rewards. And the most useful of maneuvers has been by having them agree that your bloodline is special and that your son can succeed you without having to go to war to get the position. It also means that your supporters can pass their lands and/or titles to the first born son and not have a battle over the estate. From the very first days of private land ownership, as opposed to communal ownership, the big problem was how to keep it in the family. As they knew nothing at first about the woman's role in reproduction, this male-oriented method seemed to work adequately, although there were always those who contended that they should be in charge instead. One might say it was the first steps toward a lawful, rather than a murderous, succession. If you kill the king, you better have a really good excuse why you shouldn't simply be executed and the king's son put in his place, and increasingly the really good excuse was that you had a stronger claim by blood, a family feud, as it were. :) The need for a stronger place in the family even led to women being seen as legitimate heirs and in some cases as queen. The supporters had to REALLY want your family to stay in power, and them along with it, to agree to THAT. :D
This is fascinating. There does seem to be a theme in monarchies that such-and-such a person is on the throne . . . but barely. There are always others with an equal or a better claim than yours, so that your hold on power is tenuous.
The Normans are a title land mad tribe that spent hundreds of years killing their brothers and cousins for such things, everyone else was forced or bribed to take sides. They aren't real western Europeans with R1B Bell Beaker Folk the well known top notch farmers and artistic potters. These Normans would rather build big artificial lakes in great big gardens, in the modern age they put solar panels on fields. The Saxon-Celt looks on with amusement.
Thank you for this well thought out and *grounded* video that gets everyone heated. I appreciate your videos and your thoughtful insights + explanations. Subscriber for life with the same heart you have for middle of the night research for research sake; it’s just so enjoyable to study it. I’ll take a look at your books. Plz keep this channel up forever and I’m LOVING the 2019 “this day” series. Love how you are finding ways of expanding x
thank-you for your time and clearing up the muddy water as well as you did
Thanks for explaining the DNA testing and clearing it up somewhat! A good video where I learned something new. Kudos to your work! ^^
Richard III's DNA does not mean Elizabeth II is not the rightful queen because:
1 - Henry VII took the throne of England by conquest, so he can be considered legitimate. Otherwise we would have to consider Harold II (Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England) the last legitimate king of England and all monarchs from William the Bastard of Normandy (later known as "the Conqueror") as usurpers and illegitimate kings/queens. William the Bastard himself also did not have royal blood (in fact, he was an illegitimate son of his father Robert II, and because of that he was called "Guillaume le Bâtard") and he took the throne by conquest, so the royal bloodline started with him.
2 - There are 19 links between Richard III and Henry Somerset, the Duke of Beaufort - and only two of these are the ones who affect Henry VII: the one between Edward III and his son John of Gaunt and the one between John of Gaunt and his son John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset - from which the Tudors descent. If the break occurred in any other of the 17 links it would not affect Henry VII's claim (which is a chance of 17/19, or almost 90%).
3 - Even if Henry VII were not related to Edward III, his wife Elizabeth of York was a descendant of Richard III's sister, so their descendants would still be "legitimate".
4 - Elizabeth II would still be the queen of Scotland since the Plantagenets never were kings of Scotland, she descends from James VI of Scotland, of the House of Stewart/Stuart.
5 - The Saxon kings were chosen by the Witan (a kind of "read of athelmen", or "council of noblemen" in our Frenchfied English) - the hereditary succession was introduced by Guillaume le Bâtard and his Norman French invaders after 1066. If the present Queen is not related to Richard III, wouldn't be rightful revive the Witan to choose the rightful king instead of trying to find a descendant of Richard III?
Thank you so much for clearing up the confusion we are hearing in the media.... fascinating!
of course as Prince Philip is one of the grandsons of King Paul of Greece.
How far back does this DNA go?Also,is there any way to get an entire detailed family tree with ALL the connection?Or something that does this?I also have one good question-is it family tree or DNA that would count if someone out of oblivion came forward with the belief they were intact the one who should be on the thrown?The Royal Family tree has been my hobby for fifty years!
Kathie Johns DNA showed that Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia. Today the person would run a DNA test to even be considered credible enough to be a curiosity. :) But time has flowed by and you aren't going to get the British or any other throne by saying your many times great grandparent was cheated out of it. Let's face it, nobody today believes in the divine right of kings and most go along with the idea of royalty based on the feeling that for the present it benefits the country more than it hurts the country. Now it is all about whether the public likes and respects the current royals.
You can go way back following your mother's mother's mother's line, or your father's mother's mother's line, among other methods of limited assistance in regard to personal family trees. In Europe there are a handful of lineages that most families from that part of the world go back to and then they go back to one of the "Eve" figures from Africa. So, for instance, my mother's line goes back to Maria Theresa, through one of her many children. So do perhaps those of hundreds of millions of other people. :)
You might try one of the family tree websites like ancestry.com to look for a royal tree, but always use a pinch of salt with what people post on those sites because they aren't necessarily right. I like DNA research, too, and have seen that some people think it is funny to post misinformation to, I assume, see how many copy it into their charts. Deliberate or not, inaccurate data is a big problem.
Lord John Neville, Cecily Neville (mother of Edward IV) half oldest brother is my 28th Great grandfather.
Tracy Roberts - That seems a little too far back. Cecily Neville‘s brother, Edward Neville, was my 15th great grandfather. I’m 53 years old. Joan Beaufort, mother of Cecily and Edward, was my 16th great grandmother. You have a lot of very young mothers and/or oldest siblings in your line? 26 generations back puts me at William the Conqueror
@@plantagenetsurvivor8771 You would be surprised how many generation differences between siblings descendants can be. Your ancestors could have easily in this line of descent reproduced at slower rates or produced ancestors of yours at older ages. I have 1st cousins the same age as my grandchildren. I also have a great grandchild on the way. So it just doesn't work like that. It's very confusing. I'm actually older than my uncle too, Haha.
I'm related to the Plantagenets through two family lines, one of which was Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham.
Explained beautifully and simply.
Thank you Claire for the clarity on this matter!
Thank you for mentioning the Act of Settlement. Whoever in the English line of succession in the Middle Ages was or was not an illegitimate child has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the present Queen Elizabeth II's being on the throne, as she is descended from the Hanoverian line, which was placed on the throne by the said Act of Parliament much later - in the 18th century. The Queen is not a Plantagenet but a Windsor (I.E. the descendant of the Houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). That documentary about the real King supposedly being an Australian individual is pure hokum.
Thankyou for such a clear report and the visuals. Very helpful to see and understand. What about the two princes in the Tower...will there be DNA investigations on their remains? It may throw up more questions but it is so fascinating to follow this.
We don't know for sure that the remains found did actually belong to them but there are no plans to test them in any way. Thank you!
It is doubtful whose remains they are, but it seems that at least some of the bones are female. Further analysis has been ruled out for several reasons. First, it would sensationalise human remains. Second, to have any meaningful analysis would mean opening other Royal tombs. Last, if it was proved beyond doubt not to be the princes, what would happen to their remains. I have been researching this for a new book, and it is unlikely that the princes were murdered. The eldest was known to be seriously ill already, and there is some evidence that the younger was still alive in 1486.
The problem with the princes isn't who their parents were, but that Edward's marriage to their mother may not have been valid - that he was already married. This was Richard III's claim to the throne.
@@mscott3918 I definitely do think it’s possible that one or both of them could’ve died of illness or accidents, since even today those are very common causes of death for young boys.
I must commend your politeness in dealing with these stupid people.
I love that you said , it does not change history. I agree with you 😇
Claire, I have been with you since the beginning, when the website was more a blog. I have learned a lot from you. I don't always agree with you, but I found myself almost cheering at points you made here. And I must say, your clear loyalty and love for Her Majesty is touching. She is a Queen for the ages, no doubt. Thank you and Cheers ❤
To be a monarch today is a bit like being the Dalai Lama. The training for the job and the attitude that goes with it is more important than actual blood descent. This is why Edward VIII was such a disaster
Tony Robsinson's 'Fact or Fiction' about Richard iii showed his brother Edward's birth records in a church in France and the dates worked out Edward was conceived when the King was away at war.
@Snaggle Toothed the timelines don't match do they? I mean Edward was conceived when his father was away according to the time of when Edward was born. Otherwise, he would have been born premature which he wasn't. So how could he have been legitimate?
History is written by the victors and HenryVll was so insecure about his claim he went about tweaking history with gusto, plus it suited his agenda to throw possible untruths about the Plantagenets to make his claim seem stronger.
@Snaggle Toothed I wasn't convinced by the dates- not that they specified them very well, but it seemed like they jumped to a massive conclusion based on one record that only covered a short period of time. As you say, it's not like he was definitely away for so long it was literally impossible, & I'd want more than one obscure record of him being away before I concluded that anyway.
And yes, as always, if something so dramatic happened, how did NO-ONE comment on it at the time? Lots of records have been lost, but surely not EVERY reference to it!
Wow. As an American, I now understand the lineage.....thank you for clearing this up for me....not that I have any say-so in this......I was led to believe the current lineage now seating the throne is, or was, in error......I now stand corrected. I would also like to state that even though you have an accent ( wink, wink) I understood everything you said, you were very concise in the explanations.....you were NOT talking down to people.....for that, I thank you again. I am told that my family tree ( on my mother's side) dates back to King Clovis, at least....with possibly Joan Of Arc in there, somewhere.....Peace and God bless.
The wife of Richard, Earl of Cambridge, was Anne Mortimer, the granddaughter of Phillipa who was the only child of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the second surviving son of Edward III. Even if the paternity of the Earl of Cambridge were suspect and not from Edmund Langley, the fourth son of Edward III, that of his wife was not and came before any descendants of John of Gaunt - of whom Richard III was one.
The papal dispensation for the marriage of Richard, Earl of Cambridge and Anne Mortimer would probably be overturned because Richard was illegitimate. So, her children would become illegitmate.
very thorough examination of the findings, thanks.
I thought so too. Backed up by great research! 👍
Very well explained. Thank you. Today there is a insatiable appetite to re-write history.
I have listened to this several times - but not because I’m terribly interested in Richard III. Near the end, you talk about family trees. You say something about how it’s not really the blood line that matters. It’s the lineage. We adopted our son from Romania, and I’ve wondered about passing our family tree and genealogy to him. He’s not our blood, but he’s part of our family’s storage. For a long time, my father left him off the genealogy charts he was working on. I protested, and now he’s there - not blood but still family. Can you address this
further re:family genealogy charts.
What everyone seems to forget is Edward IV and Richard III claim to the throne came from Anne de Mortimer, that is their strong claim, not through the Dukes of York.
I love how you made clear that ancestry findings today does not change history! That's very much the point isn't it?! :)
the Yorkish claim was thru Anne Mortimer the female line
A finer point in English... you've confused the words "probabilistically" and "statistically." They don't share the same meaning.
Robert Lawton English language or Mathematics language?
@@teambeining
Both.
I am not a Tudor scholar by any means, but I have always understood that the Tudors took the crown by "right of conquest." Yes, they felt they had a tenuous, but legitimate (smirk), claim to throne and they strengthened this claim by marrying Elizabeth of York, but in reality they got the crown by killing the guy wearing it and taking it. In addition, even if Richard was legitimate, his claim was questioned at the time.
Thank you for the entertaining and informative video. I am an American citizen who belongs to the Plantagenet society as a descendant of the Plantagenet Kings of England. Richard III, of course, was a Plantagenet. I hope to have my DNA analyzed someday so that I can ascertain what possible genetic connection that I have to the Plantagenets! Wouldn't it be exciting if I had some genetic proof of a connection!
I have been tracking my family tree now for a year. I have came across some interesting finds. I use familysearch.com by Jesus of Ladder Day Saints. I also cannot wait to be able to have DNA testing done. I eventually hope to have a family reunion by memebers I have found through search and DNA.
I am still trying to figure out how my maternal genetic testing and his are the same.
Tis a wise child who knows his own father.
I'm not english but I studied Tudor's history for hobby and love for the history, and in my personal opinion the matter never solved but the doubts remains forever also if the history never changed. I know that there have always been rumors about the illegittimate of John of Gaunt or Edward IV and if the brother is not the son of Richard of York probably also Richard III is not, he has not discendency and also Elizabeth of York married Henry Tudor and the problem does not exist. We can't never demonstrate for now if John of Gaunt or the discendency of Henry VII are not related to Richard, statistically with some generations the illegal affair probably took place after that but in contrary if is not, the Act of Settlement declared only legally Elizabeth II the presumptive rightful heir because also Sofia of Hannover discend to James I. Anyway I'm only curious to imagined different alternate stories but I will love them all the same!
Henry Tudor's claim to the throne was pretty dubious anyway. He was crowned because he won the battle of Bosworth after years of conniving and scheming. His DNA or lack thereof was never really relevant.
Hi Claire, I really enjoyed this presentation. What is your opinion of the fact that Henry VII could also make his claim to the throne by right of conquest?
Right of conquest isn't a legal concept. Conquerors always had to cook up some basis for their right by inheritance, however fictional or remote that claim might be.
John of Gaunt married his mistress Katherine Swynford in 1396, and their children, the Beauforts, were legitimised by King Richard II and the Church, but barred from inheriting the throne. This is where the break comes from. Their first child was born 1373 but who’s to say John of Gaunt was the father of any of the 4 Beaufort children Katherine gave birth to. Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset the great grandson of Katherine and John only had one child an illegitimate son by his mistress Joan Hill so that could be the break. From him descend the Earls and Marquesses of Worcester and the Dukes of Beaufort.
The Settlement Act trumps it all in any case.
judy churley True
Thank you for the charts and explanation on Richard the 3rd family line
From Henry 8 onwards the royal are legit either through H7 or Elizabeth of York
Richard III and Edward IV had Plantagenet blood from both parents so they definitely had a claim to the throne.
And Edward IV, like Henry VII, also took the throne in battle.
Some of us still have direct line all the way back to king Robert de Bruce 1312
I follow my families genealogy! And I found out I am the 9th Great Granddaughter of Henry Somerset 1st Duke of Beaufort!
Go back to Normandy, pick up the rest of your clan and clear off back to Norway. You are not proper farmers like the R1B.. Turning good farmlands into big f**kin gardens with big artificial lakes and grey slab buildings that are a blot on the landscape. Go will you, Just Go.
Thank you for making it easy to understand. Where can we find the chart you used?
this is so good , you teach very good I love this subject now.
Thank you!
Thank you Clare. Very nice explanation.
Try that argument in a child custody case.
Forget all that! What about Edward IV?
Hard to expect someone who wrote The Other Boleyn Girl to care about facts!
Your information is mind blowing thank you 🙏
Until 30 years ago, there was no way to prove paternity. How many fathers and children have lived their entire lives, and died not just believing their relation to be real, but never having ever fathomed it could be otherwise? How many mothers where secretly unsure who the father was, but thought it was more probable it was their husband's and so forced themselves to 100% believe that the child had to be their husbands. We all have false paternity events in our families. Contraception did not exist and abortion a life threating option that most woman wouldn't even entertain for fear of religious consequences and a highborn lady would have a hard time hiding, conducting secretly and getting away with even if she did survive the operation. Therefore its silly to think that anyone in this world is from a firm, uninterrupted martial lineage. This evidence suggests a least one false paternal event, but I would suspect in the 19 generations there where proberly multiple. All the testing can do is pick up that the paternal DNA between persons has been interupted and therefore not the same. All that can be proven is Richard the III and the modern Summerset descents don't share the same paternal DNA signiture, that doesn't suggest how many times an interruption occured. Just that at least one did. And as for Richard and his brother Edward, if one where to be illegitimate that in no way means the other had to be. Half brothers and sisters have existed since the dawn of time. Before the 21st century, there was no way of ever knowing beyond a doubt if a man or woman was their father's true child.
The Monarchy has right to the throne for two reasons. First, they are anointed and descendants of anointed (thus paternity is less relevant based on the chain of anointed succession). Second, Parliament has spoken on the issue, and confirmed the proper succession. It’s not that ancestry isn’t in the mix. But it’s far from the sole definitive point (as proven when Henry Tudor succeeded the throne, when he never really had any claim to it based on ancestry under even the best scenario). But as an anointed king and having been acclaimed by Parliament, he established his right.
Henry Tudor claimed first by right of Conquest. Then after repealing Titulus Regius, by right of blood in lieu of his wife.
And what of the headless remains of Richard Plantagenet / Richard of Eastwell?
I should have said "in the absence of Richard of York": I am thinking of the line descended from Lionel 1st Duke of Clarence as having the claim.
The present Queen is descended from Mary Queen of Scots and son James VI and I, so has an incontrovertible claim that way, surely?
Thanks for clearing it all up :)
Ce que je n'ai pas compris dans ce si intéressant exposé, c'est avec quel ADN celui de Richard lll a été comparé, un ADN qui lui était étranger, alors qu'il n'aurait pas dû l'être. Avec quel ADN d'aïeux le sien a t'il été comparé ?
Si une personne connaît la réponse je serais très intéressée
Richard III may be the only one without a Plantagenet male ancestor. This has nothing to do with whether Edward IV was legitimate. If each birth has a 50/50 chance of being illegitimate, then the number of births for possible illegitimacies favors the John of Gaunt side. But, it only takes one, which means Richard III may be the only one.
OK then let's dig em all up and test all of them..
Has Richard III DNA been compared to the skeletal remains of the two little boys they found a few years ago? I believe the princes were his nephews, so their DNA would have aligned. Has that been done? I haven’t heard anything about that. I know that researchers weren’t certain if the skeletal remains they found were the princes or not.
No, the bones have never been tested...
Is there any mitochondrial DNA that can be tested, since that passes through the mother's side?
Joshua S. Yes they used Richards sister
The DNA goes right back to Norway. They lack R1B and are Not Bell Beaker Folk and do all they can to cover this. They can't farm for toffee, they build big artificial lakes in great big gardens, they are now into putting solar panels on fields. The Saxon-Celt looks on with amusement.
I am not Neil , See Tony Robins film on RUclips " Britain's Real Monarch " points out that it was King Edward IV that was illegitimate .
I was looking for this comment!!!!
꧁Miss Marquise꧂ , I am not Neil , actually his name is Tony Robinson , oops
Really interesting. Trouble is not knowing what really happened could drive you nuts....just, it seems, because some woman did what she did and didn't tell anyone.
You can't make any claim about where the "false paternity event" occurred. You can only say it happened.
Mater certus est, pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant .
In other words, the mother was always known and before DNA testing, the father was always the one to whom marriage points. So in other words, unless a man was out beasting up the Saracens for a couple years, he would assume the child to be his own and the child would automatically be legitimate. So suck it up conspiracy theorists, the bones are Gloucester's and all you can achieve is embarrassment for the Somersets. Also QEII is Queen by act of Parliament , not some sheep farmer in Australia or an obscure fork lift driver.
The Somerset line was banned from any entitlement to the throne. In 1406, Henry IV decided that although the Beaufort`s had been made legitimate, their genetic line could not be used to make any claim to the throne. Therefore the Tudors had no legitimate claim other than by usurpation in 1485.
Whatever the status of Henry Tudor, he married Elizabeth of York who was heir to Edward IV. And since Richard had his nephews conveniently disappear under his watch, she had a right to the throne.
@@GoGreen1977 Exactly...It is doubtful whether Elizabeth of York would have given Henry Tudor a second glance, had he not usurped the throne off Richard III, as Richard would have still been King and already had designs on Elizabeth following the death of his own wife Ann Neville in 1485..
If they had both died in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, Elizabeth of York could have become Queen in her own right, as her brothers Edward and Richard had vanished, therefore anyone marrying her before or after she had become Queen would at best become Prince Consort or Prince, but not King.
However, Edward IV may have been illegitimate and so the plot thickens