Richard III DNA shows British Royal family may not have royal bloodline

When the body of Richard III was discovered in a car park in Leicester in 2012 archaeologists knew it was a momentous find.

But little did they realise that it might expose the skeletons in the cupboard of the British aristocracy, and even call into question the bloodline of the Royal family.

In order to prove that the skeleton really was Richard III, scientists needed to take a DNA sample and match it to his descendants.

Genetic testing through his maternal DNA proved conclusively that the body was the King. However, when they checked the male line they discovered something odd. The DNA did not match showing that at some point in history an adulterous affair had broken the paternal chain.

Although it is impossible to say when the affair happened, if it occurred around the time of Edward III (1312- 1377) it could call into question whether kings like Henry VI, Henry VII and Henry VIII had royal blood, and therefore the right to rule.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/11268218/Richard-III-DNA-shows-British-Royal-family-may-not-have-royal-bloodline.html

ive been reading various articles on this.
Henry VII always made a stronger case for his succession as to might is right although he also did claim to rule through Elizabeth but he put emphasis on the first part.
now Richard claimed that brother Edward was illegitimate through their mother Cecily having an affair but maybe Richard was the one born on the wrong side of the blanket.
also he did too have children : Edward of Middleham, and John of Gloucester. and Katherine Plantagenet but neither were legitimatized.
I think the break happened in one of John of Gaunts female Beaufort relations.
Anyhoos this will NOT have implications for the present royal family as the Queen's right to reign was based on the 1791 Act of Settlement

bloody kindle....

1701 Act of Settlement that restricted it to Protestant decendents of Sophia if Hanover.

The true line was broken (or mis-directed/branched off) after The Glorious Revolution of 1688 when James II was over thrown as his son the Old Pretender (and his son the Young Pretender) should've been Kings instead of Mary (William III) and Anne.

Everyone who has ever seen the film Braveheart, knows that Edward II (Edward of Caernarfon), son of Longshanks Edward I, was gay. His favourite (often euphemistic for same-sex lover) was Piers Gaveston.  After Gaveston's death (he was murdered), Edward II took up with Hugh Despenser.

Edward II's wife was chosen for him, although the marriage took place after Longshanks died. Recalling that the Plantagenets (named later) were first and foremost a French family, the marriage was a political move to bring peace between the Plantagenets and Capets. She was Isabella of France, the daughter of Phillip the Fair (Phillip IV) Capet of France. Much as I champion and respect gay life, this poor girl was handed a really bad deal.

Isabella took up with a marcher lord, Roger Mortimer. We can hardly blame her.  We don’t know when the affair started; Mortimer appears in Paris after 1322, openly as Isabella’s lover.  My money is on Mortimer as the father of the successful and powerful Edward III, who then fathered many of the greats of English nobility: Black Prince Edward; John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster; Edmond, Duke of York; Lionel, Duke of Clarence; and Thomas Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester.  This would mean that the affair with Isabella had been going on for over a decade since Edward III was born in 1312, when she was just seventeen.  But she had been in England since she was twelve, in 1307.

A man as powerful as Edward III was bound to have powerful sons, and true to form two of the descendants were from the Lancaster and York branches of the family, primary contestants in the Wars of the Roses. Edward IV and Richard III were brothers, both sons of the Duke of York (well, aside from your point about Cecily, Cass...which is entirely plausible, but I have viewed it as more political than real).

If I am right, Roger Mortimer spawned one of the most powerful monarchies in Europe.  And he doesn't even get a cake.

Original Quill wrote:Everyone who has ever seen the film Braveheart, knows that Edward II (Edward of Caernarfon), son of Longshanks Edward I, was gay. His favourite (often euphemistic for same-sex lover) was Piers Gaveston.  After Gaveston's death (he was murdered), Edward II took up with Hugh Despenser.

Edward II's wife was chosen for him, although the marriage took place after Longshanks died. Recalling that the Plantagenets (named later) were first and foremost a French family, the marriage was a political move to bring peace between the Plantagenets and Capets. She was Isabella of France, the daughter of Phillip the Fair (Phillip IV) Capet of France. Much as I champion and respect gay life, this poor girl was handed a really bad deal.

Isabella took up with a marcher lord, Roger Mortimer. We can hardly blame her.  We don’t know when the affair started; Mortimer appears in Paris after 1322, openly as Isabella’s lover.  My money is on Mortimer as the father of the successful and powerful Edward III, who then fathered many of the greats of English nobility: Black Prince Edward; John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster; Edmond, Duke of York; Lionel, Duke of Clarence; and Thomas Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester.  This would mean that the affair with Isabella had been going on for over a decade since Edward III was born in 1312, when she was just seventeen.  But she had been in England since she was twelve, in 1307.

A man as powerful as Edward III was bound to have powerful sons, and true to form two of the descendants were from the Lancaster and York branches of the family, primary contestants in the Wars of the Roses. Edward IV and Richard III were brothers, both sons of the Duke of York (well, aside from your point about Cecily, Cass...which is entirely plausible, but I have viewed it as more political than real).

If I am right, Roger Mortimer spawned one of the most powerful monarchies in Europe.  And he doesn't even get a cake.

There is absolutley no chance he did:






- Isabella of France arrived in England on 7 February 1308, having married King Edward II at Boulogne on 25 January.  [1]  She had recently turned twelve at the time of her marriage and arrival in her new husband’s kingdom; her biographer* places her date of birth sometime during the winter of 1295/96.  [2]  (Edward II was born on 25 April 1284, so was about eleven and a half years his wife’s senior.)  Isabella never met her husband’s father Edward I (‘Longshanks’), who had died on 7 July 1307 – not, incidentally, on the same day as Wallace, as depicted in Braveheart.  She was never princess of Wales, as she married Edward II after his accession to the throne and became queen of England on marriage.
* Paul Doherty, but this is a properly-researched academic article, not a sensationalist, hopelessly inaccurate novel.

- Isabella’s first child, the future Edward III, was born at Windsor on 13 November 1312, more than seven years after William Wallace’s death.  As noted above, Isabella’s date of birth means that she was nine at the time of Wallace’s execution, and was still in France at the court of her father Philippe IV.  She was seventeen or shortly to turn seventeen at the time of her eldest child’s birth.

- Edward II and Isabella of France had four children together, not one, the others being: John of Eltham, earl of Cornwall (15 August 1316-13 September 1336); Eleanor of Woodstock, duchess of Gelderland (18 June 1318-22 April 1355); Joan of the Tower, queen of Scotland (5 July 1321-7 September 1362).  In addition, Isabella may have suffered a miscarriage in or shortly before November 1313, when pennyroyal was purchased for her (though this is disputed).  [3]  

- Edward and Isabella had been married exactly nineteen years when the king was forced to abdicate in favour of their son, following Isabella and Roger Mortimer’s invasion of his kingdom; the fourteen-year-old’s reign as Edward III began on 25 January 1327.  I make this point because there is a widespread misapprehension that Isabella overthrew her husband and ruled with Mortimer while her son – presumed to be her only child – was still only a toddler.  

A few writers, both in novels and online, have realised the impossibility of William Wallace’s fathering Edward III, but have unfortunately taken on board the notion that Isabella of France took a lover and have looked around for another possible father for her son.  This desperation to re-assign Edward III’s paternity appears to be based on the assumptions that a) Edward II was gay and therefore incapable of intercourse with women, and b) Isabella began a relationship with Sir Roger Mortimer, lord of Wigmore in late 1325, and therefore may well have committed adultery with him or another man a few years earlier.  The first ever suggestion that Edward III was not Edward II’s biological son is found in Paul Doherty’s novel Death Of A King, published in 1982 – 670 years after Edward III’s birth.  Doherty changes Edward III’s date of birth by eight months, from November 1312 to March that year, in order to put forward the theory that Roger Mortimer was the boy’s real father.  In fact, it is physically impossible for Mortimer to have fathered Edward III, as he was in Ireland, a country Isabella never visited, at the time of the boy’s conception in February/March 1312.  Mortimer was also in Ireland in the summer of 1311 nine months before March 1312, which puts paid to Doherty’s fictional theory, in Ireland in late 1315 and autumn 1317 when Edward and Isabella conceived their next two children, and on his way from Ireland to Herefordshire when their youngest was conceived in autumn 1320 (Isabella was at Westminster).  [4]  The notion that Roger Mortimer was Edward III’s biological father is also advanced in Charles Randolph Bruce and Carolyn Hale Bruce’s 2006 novel Bannok Burn, although Isabella manages to convince Edward that his own lover Piers Gaveston is the father.  There is nothing at all to indicate that Isabella and Roger Mortimer had any kind of relationship – beyond the normal courtly association of a baron and his queen – before late 1325.  Edith Felber’s 2006 novel Queen of Shadows has Edward III being fathered by a Scotsman who is never identified, with whom Isabella has an affair when she is ‘abandoned behind enemy lines’ in Scotland by her husband.  In reality, Isabella never set foot in Scotland, unless you count the port of Berwick-on-Tweed, which was in English hands anyway when she was there in 1311 and 1314.

Let me just repeat the salient point here for absolute clarity: Roger Mortimer was in Ireland and thus several hundred miles away from Isabella at the time of Edward III's conception.


http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.de/2011/02/edward-ii-and-his-children-and-why.html




Not only that Quill, and I know they are not the best for accuracy, but you can clearly tell from pictures of Edward I, II and III they look related.
Nice hypoethsis, but it falls apart being the fact Mortimer was miles away.

Yes, well...it's a theory.  Isabella was born in Paris on March 17, 1292.  So she was older than I had suggested.  Edward III was born on November 13, 1312 at Windsor Castle.  So Isabella was 20 when Edward was born.  

William Wallace was long dead, so I don't know why you bring him into the picture.  Are you sure that part of your answer wasn't prepared for another discussion?

We know Isabella had more children, but it is highly doubtful that any of them were by Edward II.  While Isabella was tolerated by Gaveston, she was detested by Hugh Despenser.  In any event, what would Edward want from a woman's bed anyway—itineraries notwithstanding?

I don't trust any source right down to the whereabouts of someone on any given, random night.  If it were a momentous day (or night) we could fix a date.  For example, 25 October 1415, shortly before the Battle of Agincourt, was St. Crispin's Day, so we know the precise date of that battle.  But some dude diddlin' a married female's privates??  I don't think they recorded such things very frequently.  Lol.  More likely they did the utmost to keep it quiet.

I don't see any substantiation for the precise whereabouts of Mortimer during the "season" of conception for Edward III.  Your source is really sketchy; she doesn’t even know that Isabella was born on March 17, 1292.  Itineraries?  I think a better methodology would have been to go to diaries.  At least they are after the fact.  And her argument about Lent shows she is confused and her theory tortured.  If intercourse was forbidden during Lent, and Edward III was conceived according to Catholic doctrine, this would go to the argument that we have the wrong date of Edward’s birth…not that his gay father was promiscuous.  Finally, I am not impressed with her credentials.  A MA degree from Manchester University…meh.  At which university does she presently teach…that will tell me more about what sources she has available to her.

As I say, none of us will ever know.  I can only say that Mortimer was the most likely candidate to have fathered Edward III.

You really do clutch at straws Quill, for a start are you now saying of which many men have done, is that homosexuals have not fathered children with their wife?
Seriously is that the claim you are making that this would be impossible?
So yes we do know, there has never even been any doubt on this until later writers of today.
So you do not trust documentation for the time, which does not place Mortimer in England for a start and you are now clearly claiming a conspiracy based off yet again no evidence to even refute this?

His adult life began in earnest in 1308, when he went to Ireland in person to enforce his authority. This brought him into conflict with the de Lacys, who turned for support to Edward Bruce, brother of Robert Bruce, King of Scots. Mortimer was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by Edward II on 23 November 1316. Shortly afterwards, at the head of a large army, he drove Bruce to Carrickfergus and the de Lacys into Connaught, wreaking vengeance on their adherents whenever they were to be found. He returned to England and Wales in 1318[7] and was then occupied for some years with baronial disputes on the Welsh border




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mortimer,_1st_Earl_of_March

Seriously behave

You didn't listen, Didge.  I'm saying Edward II did not father the children of Iasbella.  He might have fathered someone else's child, who knows?  But the politics precluded Isabella getting close to Edward's bed...at least during the "season" for conception of Edward III.

Mortimer was an active man, I know. He got around, as you point out, and as far as the Queen was concerned.

Original Quill wrote:You didn't listen, Didge.  I'm saying Edward II did not father the children of Iasbella.  He might have fathered someone else's child, who knows?  But the politics precluded Isabella getting close to Edward's bed...at least during the "season" for conception of Edward III.

Mortimer was an active man, I know.  He got around, as you point out, and as far as the Queen was concerned.

Again:
You have not a shred of evidence.
Seriously.
You have no evidence Edward did not father Edward III
Seriously, just unsubstanciated claims

Okay is as seen they know the DNA of Richard III, why is there no link to any descendants to the Mortimer's today?
Which there would be considering Richard was the great-great-grandchild of Edward III?
Explain this?

Brasidas wrote:Okay is as seen they know the DNA of Richard III, why is there no link to any descendants to the Mortimer's today?
Which there would be considering Richard was the great-great-grandchild  of Edward III?
Explain this?

Well, I don't know. The only kind of evidence that would be conclusive would be DNA test results, and I am not a bio-chemist. Nor has anyone else given the results of any conclusive test as yet.

I'm just saying, this would be a good place to look. Let's wait and see if there is more to this research.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Okay is as seen they know the DNA of Richard III, why is there no link to any descendants to the Mortimer's today?
Which there would be considering Richard was the great-great-grandchild  of Edward III?
Explain this?

Well, I don't know.  The only kind of evidence that would be conclusive would be DNA test results, and I am not a bio-chemist.  Nor has anyone else given the results of any conclusive test as yet.

I'm just saying, this would be a good place to look.  Let's wait and see if there is more to this research.

What do you think this article is on Quill?
His DNA mate, anyway have a good evening.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, I don't know.  The only kind of evidence that would be conclusive would be DNA test results, and I am not a bio-chemist.  Nor has anyone else given the results of any conclusive test as yet.

I'm just saying, this would be a good place to look.  Let's wait and see if there is more to this research.

What do you think this article is on Quill?
His DNA mate, anyway have a good evening.

Um...that's what I just said. Let's wait and see what the DNA evidence further reveals.

Cheers....