DNA issues

I would just like to mention a programme by Tony Robinson which was
screened on Channel 4 a few years ago. He traced an alternative claimant to
the throne of England who was now living in Australia. I can't remember
what the line of descent was but I believe it was from one of Richard's
sisters. Herewith a link to the programme page on the Channel $ site:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-real-monarch/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

Having refreshed my memory, the programme was based on the theme that
Edward IV was illegitimate, based on a study of the baptismal records in
Rouen Cathedral. Obviously that is quite a contentious argument, but the
relevant point for this thread is that Robinson did trace a descendant of
the Plantagenet line, who was rather embarrassed to be told that he was the
true heir to the British throne!

A couple of trivial points: I 'shared' the link to the very interesting
article on Richard's burial site on Facebook. And one of my friends also
shared a link to a piece about the execution of Edward, Earl of Warwick,
from the web-site of the Henry VII Appreciation Society. I left a comment
and do not know whether it was allowed by the moderators).

Cheers

Jessica Saunders

The person was the Earl of Loudoun the senior descendant of the Duke of Clarence who might have a claimto the throne if Edward IV
was illegitimate. Robinson's claim to have found him was rather over the top and the Earl's surprise at the news was I am surefor the benefit of TV.  The information was availablein in number of  popular books  including"The Book Of Royal Lists" 
Alan


________________________________
From: Jessica Rydill <jessica.rydill@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 8 March 2012, 12:49
Subject: DNA issues



 

I would just like to mention a programme by Tony Robinson which was
screened on Channel 4 a few years ago. He traced an alternative claimant to
the throne of England who was now living in Australia. I can't remember
what the line of descent was but I believe it was from one of Richard's
sisters. Herewith a link to the programme page on the Channel $ site:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-real-monarch/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

Having refreshed my memory, the programme was based on the theme that
Edward IV was illegitimate, based on a study of the baptismal records in
Rouen Cathedral. Obviously that is quite a contentious argument, but the
relevant point for this thread is that Robinson did trace a descendant of
the Plantagenet line, who was rather embarrassed to be told that he was the
true heir to the British throne!

A couple of trivial points: I 'shared' the link to the very interesting
article on Richard's burial site on Facebook. And one of my friends also
shared a link to a piece about the execution of Edward, Earl of Warwick,
from the web-site of the Henry VII Appreciation Society. I left a comment
and do not know whether it was allowed by the moderators).

Cheers

Jessica Saunders

Any such claim assumed, of course, that all the ancestors of such person were themselves legitimate. Go figure!
Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: ALAN BOND
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues



The person was the Earl of Loudoun the senior descendant of the Duke of Clarence who might have a claimto the throne if Edward IV
was illegitimate. Robinson's claim to have found him was rather over the top and the Earl's surprise at the news was I am surefor the benefit of TV. The information was availablein in number of popular books including"The Book Of Royal Lists"
Alan


________________________________
From: Jessica Rydill <jessica.rydill@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 8 March 2012, 12:49
Subject: DNA issues




I would just like to mention a programme by Tony Robinson which was
screened on Channel 4 a few years ago. He traced an alternative claimant to
the throne of England who was now living in Australia. I can't remember
what the line of descent was but I believe it was from one of Richard's
sisters. Herewith a link to the programme page on the Channel $ site:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-real-monarch/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

Having refreshed my memory, the programme was based on the theme that
Edward IV was illegitimate, based on a study of the baptismal records in
Rouen Cathedral. Obviously that is quite a contentious argument, but the
relevant point for this thread is that Robinson did trace a descendant of
the Plantagenet line, who was rather embarrassed to be told that he was the
true heir to the British throne!

A couple of trivial points: I 'shared' the link to the very interesting
article on Richard's burial site on Facebook. And one of my friends also
shared a link to a piece about the execution of Edward, Earl of Warwick,
from the web-site of the Henry VII Appreciation Society. I left a comment
and do not know whether it was allowed by the moderators).

Cheers

Jessica Saunders

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Any such claim assumed, of course, that all the ancestors of such person were themselves legitimate. Go figure!
> Annette
>
>
Yes, only your mother knows who your father was, and she may not be sure! Multiply that by a few generations ...

On 8 Mar 2012, at 12:49, Jessica Rydill wrote:

> the Henry VII Appreciation Society.


Woooo!! There really is such a group?
Can't imagine it being very big!!! :-)
Paul



Richard Liveth Yet!

Do you think it may be more of an anti-Richard III society?
Vickie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues


 

On 8 Mar 2012, at 12:49, Jessica Rydill wrote:

> the Henry VII Appreciation Society.

Woooo!! There really is such a group?
Can't imagine it being very big!!! :-)
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Oh, my, it does exist: http://henrytudorsociety.wordpress.com/category/the-king-henry-vii-appreciation-society/


On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

>
> On 8 Mar 2012, at 12:49, Jessica Rydill wrote:
>
> > the Henry VII Appreciation Society.
>
> Woooo!! There really is such a group?
> Can't imagine it being very big!!! :-)
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>

Sorry for the late reply, but my mother-in-law has been ill.

Of course you are all quite right about the issue of legitimate descent. My point wasn't really about the Earl of Loudoun's (sp?) putative claim to the throne, more about the possibility of using his DNA. I am sure I recall seeing a post or posts on this forum mentioning that the mitochondrial DNA of Richard III was extant in living individuals (maybe not the Earl of Loudon as he is a man?).

As for Tony Robinson's claim to have 'discovered' the Earl and his line, I have to confess that it was news to me that such descendants existed. I had thought that Henries VII and VIII had extinguished the Yorkist line fairly thoroughly and was not aware of the books referred to such as the 'Book of Royal Lists'.

Re: the Henry VII Appreciation society - well, I see they quote Desmond Seward as a source!

Jessica


--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, my, it does exist: http://henrytudorsociety.wordpress.com/category/the-king-henry-vii-appreciation-society/
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> >
> > On 8 Mar 2012, at 12:49, Jessica Rydill wrote:
> >
> > > the Henry VII Appreciation Society.
> >
> > Woooo!! There really is such a group?
> > Can't imagine it being very big!!! :-)
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

This means that we may end up with an Adolf Hitler Appreciation society.

The contemporary Spanish ambassador summed up Henry VII nicely by saying he was much feared and respected, but loved NOT AT ALL!


--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, my, it does exist: http://henrytudorsociety.wordpress.com/category/the-king-henry-vii-appreciation-society/
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> >
> > On 8 Mar 2012, at 12:49, Jessica Rydill wrote:
> >
> > > the Henry VII Appreciation Society.
> >
> > Woooo!! There really is such a group?
> > Can't imagine it being very big!!! :-)
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Paul!

Maybe the "appreciators" are descended from bastard descendants of HVIII? They wouldn't exist if not for H8's dad. 

My own mother's family tree lists a bastard son of James I of Scotland. Then in the early 20th C., we had an ax murderer.

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues


 

On 8 Mar 2012, at 12:49, Jessica Rydill wrote:

> the Henry VII Appreciation Society.

Woooo!! There really is such a group?
Can't imagine it being very big!!! :-)
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Vickie, that's probably it. 

When you figure even Thomas More couldn't quite bring himself to write praise about Henry. (And if you read Utopia, More does a pretty sly number on Morton; makes him sound a bit like a horse's nether part.)

Sometimes I wonder if his Richard III isn't a sort of satire; the errors themselves are so egregious as to be laughable (what baby isn't born after about nine months? and he gets wrong so many small things, which might have slipped by unnoticed) More shelved the book, unfinished. Perhaps he realized it was "dangerous" going forward.  

I don't think More was a member of the HVII Appreciation group....
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues


 
Do you think it may be more of an anti-Richard III society?
Vickie

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues

 

On 8 Mar 2012, at 12:49, Jessica Rydill wrote:

> the Henry VII Appreciation Society.

Woooo!! There really is such a group?
Can't imagine it being very big!!! :-)
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Several Hitler groups ("skinheads"). And when I was in college, we were "honoured" by a visit by the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. After the speech, there was a Q&A. We, er, nailed him as a Hitler admirer, after a bit of huminahumina.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: HI <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: DNA issues


 
This means that we may end up with an Adolf Hitler Appreciation society.

The contemporary Spanish ambassador summed up Henry VII nicely by saying he was much feared and respected, but loved NOT AT ALL!

--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, my, it does exist: http://henrytudorsociety.wordpress.com/category/the-king-henry-vii-appreciation-society/
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> >
> > On 8 Mar 2012, at 12:49, Jessica Rydill wrote:
> >
> > > the Henry VII Appreciation Society.
> >
> > Woooo!! There really is such a group?
> > Can't imagine it being very big!!! :-)
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

My researches via the resources of the American Medical Assoc. indicate the Sweating Sickness first showed up in Wales with the arrival of Henry, followed his procession, then appeared in London about the same day as Henry got there. And Thomas Stanley used it as an excuse for holding back. Hmm. And who had he been communicating with...? 

That wouldn't endear Henry to many, I trow.
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: HI <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: DNA issues


 
This means that we may end up with an Adolf Hitler Appreciation society.

The contemporary Spanish ambassador summed up Henry VII nicely by saying he was much feared and respected, but loved NOT AT ALL!

--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, my, it does exist: http://henrytudorsociety.wordpress.com/category/the-king-henry-vii-appreciation-society/
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> >
> > On 8 Mar 2012, at 12:49, Jessica Rydill wrote:
> >
> > > the Henry VII Appreciation Society.
> >
> > Woooo!! There really is such a group?
> > Can't imagine it being very big!!! :-)
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Judy - I entirely agree with you about Thomas More writing satire. Alison Hanham in "Richard III and his Early Historians" put forward an eloquent case for this, based on an awful lot that we actually do know about More, his manner of interaction/communication, his fascination with the theatre, and of course his other writings. I find that if you regard his "History of Richard III" as a 'satirical drama', it really does explain why he was no more concerned with being an accurate historian than Shakespeare was when he wrote plays that he called 'history', e.g. "The Famous History of King Henry the Eighth". Oh, and yes, More had no time at all for Henry VII, who had punished More's father (threw him in gaol, IIRC) for Thomas's being uppity in Parliament.

I don't think More feared it was dangerous to finish it, my theory is that he took the broad brush-strokes for his story from the anti-Richard treatise written by John Morton, and when he reached the point where that was about to end (with Morton about to flee abroad), he realised he would have to fill in the remaining details himself. That was when he started to have to ask his own questions, and that was when he realised that Morton's version of events didn't always chime with the answers he was hearing. So it was a toss-up between continuing a dramatic piece of literature in which he'd invested many years, but was obviously flawed, or doing the work needed to put it right. I think that was the reason he never got to finish it. There may be some true facts in More, just like there may be some true facts in Shakespeare, but I wouldn't use either of them for historical research!
Cheers, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues



Vickie, that's probably it.

When you figure even Thomas More couldn't quite bring himself to write praise about Henry. (And if you read Utopia, More does a pretty sly number on Morton; makes him sound a bit like a horse's nether part.)

Sometimes I wonder if his Richard III isn't a sort of satire; the errors themselves are so egregious as to be laughable (what baby isn't born after about nine months? and he gets wrong so many small things, which might have slipped by unnoticed) More shelved the book, unfinished. Perhaps he realized it was "dangerous" going forward.

I don't think More was a member of the HVII Appreciation group....

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues



Do you think it may be more of an anti-Richard III society?
Vickie

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues



On 8 Mar 2012, at 12:49, Jessica Rydill wrote:

> the Henry VII Appreciation Society.

Woooo!! There really is such a group?
Can't imagine it being very big!!! :-)
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Right on, Annette! More was a very smart man.

I remember when I read, then saw A Man for All Seasons (theatre and film), I did some research, and there was a piece by the playwright in which he talked about More's defense in court. Sir Thomas parsed the letter of the law to the point he might have prevailed if H8 wasn't ready to execute him on any pretext. (The one argument that still stands out was "Silence implies consent," or the fact he didn't say No to the divorce, etc., supports the argument he didn't object, but his final slip up was in confiding to a third-rate clerk the remark "The King hath no such power..." over the law of the Church, though the subject discussed was something else.)

Ah, the Good Old Days!

By the way, I'm looking for a partner-in-crime, preferably someone with a background in Musicology. For many years, I've pondered the lyrics to a traditional song entitled Nottamun Town. My own mother, whose ancesters came to America in the 1780s, brought a version I've never seen or heard elsewhere. "Nottamun" has been generally agreed to be a corruption of Nottingham, but there's debate about how far the song goes back. Would love to annotate something about this....

I encourage people to look this up. Some say it's 17th C., some say 15th C. One musicologist friend says the melody is older than 17th C., but she can't offer an expert opinion on the words. But when you read the lyrics (keeping in mind they've become somewhat nonsensical and topsy-turvy), see if you don't pick up some, well, peculiar bits, especially the last verse [in the version my mother taught me, the one line went: "I took off my hat for to keep my head on...".

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues


 
Hi Judy - I entirely agree with you about Thomas More writing satire. Alison Hanham in "Richard III and his Early Historians" put forward an eloquent case for this, based on an awful lot that we actually do know about More, his manner of interaction/communication, his fascination with the theatre, and of course his other writings. I find that if you regard his "History of Richard III" as a 'satirical drama', it really does explain why he was no more concerned with being an accurate historian than Shakespeare was when he wrote plays that he called 'history', e.g. "The Famous History of King Henry the Eighth". Oh, and yes, More had no time at all for Henry VII, who had punished More's father (threw him in gaol, IIRC) for Thomas's being uppity in Parliament.

I don't think More feared it was dangerous to finish it, my theory is that he took the broad brush-strokes for his story from the anti-Richard treatise written by John Morton, and when he reached the point where that was about to end (with Morton about to flee abroad), he realised he would have to fill in the remaining details himself. That was when he started to have to ask his own questions, and that was when he realised that Morton's version of events didn't always chime with the answers he was hearing. So it was a toss-up between continuing a dramatic piece of literature in which he'd invested many years, but was obviously flawed, or doing the work needed to put it right. I think that was the reason he never got to finish it. There may be some true facts in More, just like there may be some true facts in Shakespeare, but I wouldn't use either of them for historical research!
Cheers, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues

Vickie, that's probably it.

When you figure even Thomas More couldn't quite bring himself to write praise about Henry. (And if you read Utopia, More does a pretty sly number on Morton; makes him sound a bit like a horse's nether part.)

Sometimes I wonder if his Richard III isn't a sort of satire; the errors themselves are so egregious as to be laughable (what baby isn't born after about nine months? and he gets wrong so many small things, which might have slipped by unnoticed) More shelved the book, unfinished. Perhaps he realized it was "dangerous" going forward.

I don't think More was a member of the HVII Appreciation group....

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues

Do you think it may be more of an anti-Richard III society?
Vickie

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues

On 8 Mar 2012, at 12:49, Jessica Rydill wrote:

> the Henry VII Appreciation Society.

Woooo!! There really is such a group?
Can't imagine it being very big!!! :-)
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> This means that we may end up with an Adolf Hitler Appreciation society.
>
> The contemporary Spanish ambassador summed up Henry VII nicely by saying he was much feared and respected, but loved NOT AT ALL!



He was the first British Monarch since the Conquest, if not earlier, who had to organize a group of personal bodyguards to protect him from his own people. That was the origin of the Beefeaters.

Katy

Fun guy, huh? He out Cesare'd Borgia; I forget the original pub date for Il Principe, but Henry probably got the ARC, if not the "galley proofs." : )

A pal read me a quote from some great arts historian who alleged the Tudors destroyed more art, books, buildings, and lives than in the whole of the preceding post-Conquest.

And the Star Chamber wasn't a, um, stellar place for budding Nick of Cusa wannabes. (Note, so as not to sound pompous: Cusa postulated there were probably other suns with other "earths" and quite possibly other people; apparently much more diplomatic than the later G.Bruno or Galileo, since nobody in the Church got twisted knickers over his writings - just gave him a nice red hat).

In matters Italian, I'm still bummed about that Torregiano bust in the V&A. Should have been Richard!!! Yes, a Holbein painting would have been great, but those Italiani  sure  knew the portrait bust business. (Flattery only up to point; if you had a big nose, they gave you one heck of a nose, bumps and all. See Lorenzo de Medici at D.C.'s National Art Gallery; not pretty, but you feel like he's about to tell you something very important.) We'd know almost exactly how Richard looked...and what he was thinking, at the time.
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues


 


--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> This means that we may end up with an Adolf Hitler Appreciation society.
>
> The contemporary Spanish ambassador summed up Henry VII nicely by saying he was much feared and respected, but loved NOT AT ALL!

He was the first British Monarch since the Conquest, if not earlier, who had to organize a group of personal bodyguards to protect him from his own people. That was the origin of the Beefeaters.

Katy

sorry if this shows twice; my Spam Blocker caught it, so I'm not sure it went out

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues, art, et al.


 
Fun guy, huh? He out Cesare'd Borgia; I forget the original pub date for Il Principe, but Henry probably got the ARC, if not the "galley proofs." : )

A pal read me a quote from some great arts historian who alleged the Tudors destroyed more art, books, buildings, and lives than in the whole of the preceding post-Conquest.

And the Star Chamber wasn't a, um, stellar place for budding Nick of Cusa wannabes. (Note, so as not to sound pompous: Cusa postulated there were probably other suns with other "earths" and quite possibly other people; apparently much more diplomatic than the later G.Bruno or Galileo, since nobody in the Church got twisted knickers over his writings - just gave him a nice red hat).

In matters Italian, I'm still bummed about that Torregiano bust in the V&A. Should have been Richard!!! Yes, a Holbein painting would have been great, but those Italiani  sure  knew the portrait bust business. (Flattery only up to point; if you had a big nose, they gave you one heck of a nose, bumps and all. See Lorenzo de Medici at D.C.'s National Art Gallery; not pretty, but you feel like he's about to tell you something very important.) We'd know almost exactly how Richard looked...and what he was thinking, at the time.
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: DNA issues


 

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> This means that we may end up with an Adolf Hitler Appreciation society.
>
> The contemporary Spanish ambassador summed up Henry VII nicely by saying he was much feared and respected, but loved NOT AT ALL!

He was the first British Monarch since the Conquest, if not earlier, who had to organize a group of personal bodyguards to protect him from his own people. That was the origin of the Beefeaters.

Katy