FW: Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Parsons

FW: Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av John Parsons » 01 aug 2005 20:13:02

I doubt it would be possible to prove any living descendants of Richard I by
means of genetic testing. In the first place, we no longer possess his
earthly remains, which would be the necessary starting point in identifying
any descendants. So his DNA isn't available to us.

In any event, even if Richard's bones could be identified, the only
still-identifiable link to any male-line descendants of his would be his Y
chromosome. (Since he was indisputably a genetic male, identifying
descendants by mitochondrial DNA would not be an option since that is
inherited only from the mother--Richard's issue could not have inherited
his.)

The Plantagenet/Angevin Y chromosome exists today in at least one line of
descent: certainly in the Somerset family (dukes of Beaufort), & possibly
in male-line descendants of the Cornewalle & Warren families (lines that
Antony Wagner thought might survive in cadet branches). Consequently even
if genetic searching were to turn up somebody named Jones or Smith who
carried a Y chromosome identical to that of Richard I (again assuming his
remains were found & identified with certainty), we still would lack certain
proof that Smith or Jones was a direct male-line descendant of Richard I,
since that Y chromosome could have come from some other Angevin descendant.

All of which, of course, depends upon whether all past duchesses of Beaufort
were honest spouses. If any of them played her husband false and produced a
"cuckoo in the nest"--not an uncommon occurrence in the homes of the British
upper classes at any period--the discovery of Mr Smith or Mr Jones with what
was thought to be a Somerset/Plantagenet Y chromosome might only prove that
somewhere along the line, a duchess had temporarily set up housekeeping with
Mr Smith or Mr Jones' great-great-grandfather. (Parallel example: finding a
Mr de Grancy today who has a Y chromosome identical to that of the Marquess
of Milford Haven, and assuming on those grounds that Mr de Grancy somehow
derived his male-line descent from the house of Hesse. As we all know, the
likelihood is very strong that it's the other way 'round--Lord Milford Haven
probably derives his male-line descent from the de Grancys, not the house of
Hesse.)

Regards

John P.



From: Sheila J <mydoggie@shaw.ca
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:39:33 GMT

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

You don't read at an adult level.

No other bastards of Richard I 'The Lion-Hearted' are known to have
existed.

Richard I had no legitimate children.

Philip of Cognac had no known progeny. So Richard's line died out with
Philip.

Therefore, as I stated previously, no one today can claim to be a
descendant of Richard I -- and expect to be believed.

.

Genealogy hinges on evidence of descent -- not just some airy-fairy
hunch that he "might have had additional bastards that were not
thought to have been of importance."


Ridiculous. Genetists are today putting together the largest genealogy
project in motion as we speak. At some point, it would not be beyond belief
that a line of Richard's ancestors might exist. Just because only one
child was acknowledged doesn't mean that he couldn't have fathered others
and that a genetists could not prove the claim.



I answered your question. Be grateful.

'Nuff Said.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:a3kHe.80268$5V4.51745@pd7tw3no...

| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > It died out with Philip of Cognac.
|
| > No one today can claim to be a descendant of Richard I 'The
| > Lionhearted', whereas King John has tens of millions of descendants.
|
| Not necessarily. He might have had additional bastards that were not
| thought to have been of importance.
|
|
| > DSH
|
| > "Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| > news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
|
| > | > | We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love,
| > | > | because he had a son.
| > |
| > | > Right!
| > |
| > | > Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
| > |
| > | > Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge
| > | > in _King John_.
| > |
| > | ...does anyone know what has become of
| > | Philip of Cognac's line?


D. Spencer Hines

Re: Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 aug 2005 20:35:02

"Sheila J."

Read, Mark, Learn And Inwardly Digest.

John 5:14.

Deus Vult.

DSH

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY107-F1591B86B046E02CDA33DA4B2C30@phx.gbl...

| I doubt it would be possible to prove any living descendants of
Richard I by
| means of genetic testing. In the first place, we no longer possess
his
| earthly remains, which would be the necessary starting point in
identifying
| any descendants. So his DNA isn't available to us.
|
| In any event, even if Richard's bones could be identified, the only
| still-identifiable link to any male-line descendants of his would be
his Y
| chromosome. (Since he was indisputably a genetic male, identifying
| descendants by mitochondrial DNA would not be an option since that is
| inherited only from the mother--Richard's issue could not have
inherited
| his.)
|
| The Plantagenet/Angevin Y chromosome exists today in at least one line
of
| descent: certainly in the Somerset family (dukes of Beaufort), &
possibly
| in male-line descendants of the Cornewalle & Warren families (lines
that
| Antony Wagner thought might survive in cadet branches). Consequently
even
| if genetic searching were to turn up somebody named Jones or Smith who
| carried a Y chromosome identical to that of Richard I (again assuming
his
| remains were found & identified with certainty), we still would lack
certain
| proof that Smith or Jones was a direct male-line descendant of Richard
I,
| since that Y chromosome could have come from some other Angevin
descendant.
|
| All of which, of course, depends upon whether all past duchesses of
Beaufort
| were honest spouses. If any of them played her husband false and
produced a
| "cuckoo in the nest"--not an uncommon occurrence in the homes of the
British
| upper classes at any period--the discovery of Mr Smith or Mr Jones
with what
| was thought to be a Somerset/Plantagenet Y chromosome might only prove
that
| somewhere along the line, a duchess had temporarily set up
housekeeping with
| Mr Smith or Mr Jones' great-great-grandfather. (Parallel example:
finding a
| Mr de Grancy today who has a Y chromosome identical to that of the
Marquess
| of Milford Haven, and assuming on those grounds that Mr de Grancy
somehow
| derived his male-line descent from the house of Hesse. As we all
know, the
| likelihood is very strong that it's the other way 'round--Lord Milford
Haven
| probably derives his male-line descent from the de Grancys, not the
house of
| Hesse.)
|
| Regards
|
| John P.
|
|
|
| >From: Sheila J <mydoggie@shaw.ca>
| >To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| >Subject: Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
| >Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:39:33 GMT
| >
| >D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| >
| >>You don't read at an adult level.
| >>
| >>No other bastards of Richard I 'The Lion-Hearted' are known to have
| >>existed.
| >>
| >>Richard I had no legitimate children.
| >>
| >>Philip of Cognac had no known progeny. So Richard's line died out
with
| >>Philip.
| >>
| >>Therefore, as I stated previously, no one today can claim to be a
| >>descendant of Richard I -- and expect to be believed.
| >>
| >.
| >>
| >>Genealogy hinges on evidence of descent -- not just some airy-fairy
| >>hunch that he "might have had additional bastards that were not
| >> thought to have been of importance."
| >
| >
| >Ridiculous. Genetists are today putting together the largest
genealogy
| >project in motion as we speak. At some point, it would not be beyond
belief
| >that a line of Richard's ancestors might exist. Just because only
one
| >child was acknowledged doesn't mean that he couldn't have fathered
others
| >and that a genetists could not prove the claim.
| >
| >
| >>
| >>I answered your question. Be grateful.
| >>
| >>'Nuff Said.
| >>
| >>Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
| >>
| >>D. Spencer Hines
| >>
| >>Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >>
| >>Vires et Honor
| >>
| >>"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| >>news:a3kHe.80268$5V4.51745@pd7tw3no...
| >>
| >>| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| >>|
| >>| > It died out with Philip of Cognac.
| >>| >
| >>| > No one today can claim to be a descendant of Richard I 'The
| >>| > Lionhearted', whereas King John has tens of millions of
descendants.
| >>|
| >>| Not necessarily. He might have had additional bastards that were
not
| >>| thought to have been of importance.
| >>|
| >>| >
| >>| > DSH
| >>| >
| >>| > "Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| >>| > news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
| >>| >
| >>| > | > | We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual
love,
| >>| > | > | because he had a son.
| >>| > | >
| >>| > | > Right!
| >>| > | >
| >>| > | > Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
| >>| > | >
| >>| > | > Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of
Faulconbridge
| >>| > | > in _King John_.
| >>| > | >
| >>| > | ...does anyone know what has become of
| >>| > | Philip of Cognac's line?

Sheila J

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Sheila J » 01 aug 2005 21:52:35

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

"Sheila J."

Read, Mark, Learn And Inwardly Digest.


and..? It still doesn't make it impossible for Richard I to have sired
another child beyond the one that he recognized. What is so hard about
that concept?


John 5:14.

Deus Vult.

DSH

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY107-F1591B86B046E02CDA33DA4B2C30@phx.gbl...

| I doubt it would be possible to prove any living descendants of
Richard I by
| means of genetic testing. In the first place, we no longer possess
his
| earthly remains, which would be the necessary starting point in
identifying
| any descendants. So his DNA isn't available to us.
|
| In any event, even if Richard's bones could be identified, the only
| still-identifiable link to any male-line descendants of his would be
his Y
| chromosome. (Since he was indisputably a genetic male, identifying
| descendants by mitochondrial DNA would not be an option since that is
| inherited only from the mother--Richard's issue could not have
inherited
| his.)
|
| The Plantagenet/Angevin Y chromosome exists today in at least one line
of
| descent: certainly in the Somerset family (dukes of Beaufort), &
possibly
| in male-line descendants of the Cornewalle & Warren families (lines
that
| Antony Wagner thought might survive in cadet branches). Consequently
even
| if genetic searching were to turn up somebody named Jones or Smith who
| carried a Y chromosome identical to that of Richard I (again assuming
his
| remains were found & identified with certainty), we still would lack
certain
| proof that Smith or Jones was a direct male-line descendant of Richard
I,
| since that Y chromosome could have come from some other Angevin
descendant.
|
| All of which, of course, depends upon whether all past duchesses of
Beaufort
| were honest spouses. If any of them played her husband false and
produced a
| "cuckoo in the nest"--not an uncommon occurrence in the homes of the
British
| upper classes at any period--the discovery of Mr Smith or Mr Jones
with what
| was thought to be a Somerset/Plantagenet Y chromosome might only prove
that
| somewhere along the line, a duchess had temporarily set up
housekeeping with
| Mr Smith or Mr Jones' great-great-grandfather. (Parallel example:
finding a
| Mr de Grancy today who has a Y chromosome identical to that of the
Marquess
| of Milford Haven, and assuming on those grounds that Mr de Grancy
somehow
| derived his male-line descent from the house of Hesse. As we all
know, the
| likelihood is very strong that it's the other way 'round--Lord Milford
Haven
| probably derives his male-line descent from the de Grancys, not the
house of
| Hesse.)
|
| Regards
|
| John P.
|
|
|
| >From: Sheila J <mydoggie@shaw.ca
| >To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| >Subject: Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
| >Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:39:33 GMT
|
| >D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| >>You don't read at an adult level.
|
| >>No other bastards of Richard I 'The Lion-Hearted' are known to have
| >>existed.
|
| >>Richard I had no legitimate children.
|
| >>Philip of Cognac had no known progeny. So Richard's line died out
with
| >>Philip.
|
| >>Therefore, as I stated previously, no one today can claim to be a
| >>descendant of Richard I -- and expect to be believed.
|
| >.
|
| >>Genealogy hinges on evidence of descent -- not just some airy-fairy
| >>hunch that he "might have had additional bastards that were not
| >> thought to have been of importance."
|
|
| >Ridiculous. Genetists are today putting together the largest
genealogy
| >project in motion as we speak. At some point, it would not be beyond
belief
| >that a line of Richard's ancestors might exist. Just because only
one
| >child was acknowledged doesn't mean that he couldn't have fathered
others
| >and that a genetists could not prove the claim.
|
|
|
| >>I answered your question. Be grateful.
|
| >>'Nuff Said.
|
| >>Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
|
| >>D. Spencer Hines
|
| >>Lux et Veritas et Libertas
|
| >>Vires et Honor
|
| >>"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| >>news:a3kHe.80268$5V4.51745@pd7tw3no...
|
| >>| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| >>|
| >>| > It died out with Philip of Cognac.
| >>|
| >>| > No one today can claim to be a descendant of Richard I 'The
| >>| > Lionhearted', whereas King John has tens of millions of
descendants.
| >>|
| >>| Not necessarily. He might have had additional bastards that were
not
| >>| thought to have been of importance.
| >>|
| >>|
| >>| > DSH
| >>|
| >>| > "Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| >>| > news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
| >>|
| >>| > | > | We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual
love,
| >>| > | > | because he had a son.
| >>| > |
| >>| > | > Right!
| >>| > |
| >>| > | > Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
| >>| > |
| >>| > | > Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of
Faulconbridge
| >>| > | > in _King John_.
| >>| > |
| >>| > | ...does anyone know what has become of
| >>| > | Philip of Cognac's line?

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»