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.

[Oberon]

Interesting, very interesting indeed. Wonder how it'll all pan out, obviously the Queen isn't going anywhere, but the history might need a little bit of rewriting in some places.

[Otto Harkaman]

I thought the British invited the Hanoverian house to rule them after they got rid of the Great Protector and the Stuarts?

been all while since I've read any royal British history so pardon any errors.

[Bilge_Rat]

yes, but the claim of George I, first hannoverian king, was based on his great-grandfather, James I, who was a direct decendant of Henry VII, the first Tudor who had defeated Richard at Bosworth, so their claim is tainted as well.

[vanjast]

AFAIK.. it is well known that the Tudors, murdered the prior heir apparent thus ensuring their rise to kingdom. I'm not sure of my royalty knowledge but I think this was just before Henry-8th. I wouldn't be surprised if this thing continues nowdays

[Dread Knot]

Aha! I always suspected she was Kenyan.

[Betonov]

No, I have proof of a Habsburg claim on the British throne.
I should have it typed in an hour

[Cybermat47]

I am now King.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

I am now King.

of the jailhouse?

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

I am now King.

Brings to mind this movie:





<O>

EDIT

Try Again...


<O>

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by vienna

Brings to mind this movie:





<O>

I'm sorry sir, but there is no video there nor a link to anywhere.

[STEED]

Up the Republic.

[Bilge_Rat]

The BBC being the "official" government propaganda site takes a more neutral stand. I smell a cover up.

The instance of female infidelity, or cuckolding, could have occurred anywhere in the numerous generations that separate Richard III from the 5th Duke of Beaufort (1744-1803), whose living descendants provided samples of male-line DNA to be compared against that of the Plantagenet king.

Richard III and his royal rival, Henry Tudor (later Henry VII), were both descendants of King Edward III. The infidelity could, in theory, have occurred either on the branch leading back from Henry to Edward or on the branch leading from Richard to Edward.

Henry's ancestor John of Gaunt was plagued by rumours of illegitimacy throughout his life, apparently prompted by the absence of Edward III at his birth. He was reportedly enraged by gossip suggesting he was the son of a Flemish butcher.

"Hypothetically speaking, if John of Gaunt wasn't Edward III's son, it would have meant that (his son) Henry IV had no legitimate claim to the throne, nor Henry V, nor Henry VI," said Dr Schurer.

The breakage was statistically more likely to have occurred in the part of the family tree which does not affect Royal succession - the most recent stretch - simply because more links in the chain exist there.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30281333

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

The BBC being the "official" government propaganda site takes a more neutral stand. I smell a cover up.

that's funny. Margaret Thatcher was the BBC's favourite punching bag when she was in office. Check out the Alexei Sayle skit about her using the TARDIS to travel backwards in time to a 1600s hospital, then forwards into one of her own hospitals.

[Jimbuna]

Illegitimacy has been going on around the world since the time dot....nothing new really but perhaps the opportune moment to stake my claim to the throne.