questions raised on Queen's claim to throne!

[Bilge_Rat]

The bones of the king under the car park have delivered further shocks, 527 years after his death and more than two years after his remains were discovered in Leicester: Richard III was a blue-eyed blond, and the present Queen may not be descended from John of Gaunt and Edward III, the lineage on which the Tudor claim to the throne originated.

Since Richard’s identity was proved by his mitochondrial DNA, handed down in an unbroken chain through the female line from his sister to two living relatives, the conclusion is stark: there is a break in the claimed line of Beaufort descent, what the scientists described as “a false paternity event”, which may also affect the ancestry of their distant cousins, the Windsors.

Kevin Schürer, a genealogist and head of research at Leicester University, whose work with King on the ancestor is published this week in Nature Communications, said the results on the Y chromosomes, handed only from father to son, did not change history. “This is not a criminal investigation,” he said, pointing out that the Tudors took the crown because they killed Richard at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, not because they could prove the blood royal flowed through their veins.

However the Tudors did back up their claim to the throne through descent from John of Gaunt, son of Edward III and father of Henry IV – and ancestor of the Tudor dynasty through his legitimised Beaufort children after he married his mistress Katherine Swynford.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...queen-ancestry

Shocking...positively shocking.