Following on from "Parallel History"

We have all seen how the House of York has recovered in part, many of
it's members since Bosworth holding high office.
Now what of another Royal Family who were defeated in battle? The
Saxons, whom I define as Alfred, his descendants and immediate
ancestors.
English monarchs have once again all been of Saxon royal descent
since ..... 1603, because Edward the Confessor's great-niece was (St.)
Margaret of Wessex (c.1045-93) who married Malcolm III (Canmore, who
overcame Macbeth). Their descendant James IV, of course, married
another English Margaret, Henry VII's daughter.
Who is to say that Richard's collateral descendants will not return to
the British throne one day? Well, if none of George V's five sons had
reproduced - Edward VIII and Prince John failed - the Earls of Harewood
would have succeeded. It is possible.

Much earlier than that surely.

Wasn't Henry I's Queen, Edith of Scotland, the mother of Matilda and grandmother of Henry II, a descendant of the Saxon line.

I even read that William The Conqueror's Queen Matilda of Flanders was descended from Alfred by a junior line.

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
We have all seen how the House of York has recovered in part, many of
it's members since Bosworth holding high office.
Now what of another Royal Family who were defeated in battle? The
Saxons, whom I define as Alfred, his descendants and immediate
ancestors.
English monarchs have once again all been of Saxon royal descent
since ..... 1603, because Edward the Confessor's great-niece was (St.)
Margaret of Wessex (c.1045-93) who married Malcolm III (Canmore, who
overcame Macbeth). Their descendant James IV, of course, married
another English Margaret, Henry VII's daughter.
Who is to say that Richard's collateral descendants will not return to
the British throne one day? Well, if none of George V's five sons had
reproduced - Edward VIII and Prince John failed - the Earls of Harewood
would have succeeded. It is possible.






---------------------------------
On Yahoo!7
Photos: Unlimited free storage – keep all your photos in one place!

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
>
> Much earlier than that surely.
>
> Wasn't Henry I's Queen, Edith of Scotland, the mother of Matilda
and grandmother of Henry II, a descendant of the Saxon line.
>
> I even read that William The Conqueror's Queen Matilda of
Flanders was descended from Alfred by a junior line.
>
Thanks, Helen. Either of those could be true although I can
definitely authenticate the St. Margaret connection. She could have
been Edith of Scotland's grandmother or something like that, of
course.
The main difference, I suppose, is that James IV was a "male Saxon"
and Margaret Tudor a "female Norman". The time lapse from Conquest
to "union of the crowns" was 537 years. Currently, the House of York
has been absent for 521 years, unless it supplied an heiress that I
don't know of.
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> We have all seen how the House of York has recovered in
part, many of
> it's members since Bosworth holding high office.
> Now what of another Royal Family who were defeated in battle? The
> Saxons, whom I define as Alfred, his descendants and immediate
> ancestors.
> English monarchs have once again all been of Saxon royal descent
> since ..... 1603, because Edward the Confessor's great-niece was
(St.)
> Margaret of Wessex (c.1045-93) who married Malcolm III (Canmore,
who
> overcame Macbeth). Their descendant James IV, of course, married
> another English Margaret, Henry VII's daughter.
> Who is to say that Richard's collateral descendants will not return
to
> the British throne one day? Well, if none of George V's five sons
had
> reproduced - Edward VIII and Prince John failed - the Earls of
Harewood
> would have succeeded. It is possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> On Yahoo!7
> Photos: Unlimited free storage – keep all your photos in one place!
>
>
>

Helen wrote:

> I even read that William The Conqueror's Queen Matilda of
Flanders was descended from Alfred by a junior line.

There is certainly a direct descent from Alfred's daughter Alfthryth:

Alfred - Ealhswith
Alfthryth of Wessex - Baudouin II 'the Bald' Count of Flanders
Arnulf I, Count of Flanders - Adela de Vermandois
Baudouin III, Count of Flanders - Mathilde of Saxony
Arnulf II, Count of Flanders - Rosela Roxana of Italy
Baudouin IV, Count of Flanders - Otgiva de Luxembourg
Baudouin V, Count of Flanders - Adèle de France
Matilda of Flanders - William the Conquerer


> Stephen
> English monarchs have once again all been of
> Saxon royal descent since ..... 1603, because Edward
> the Confessor's great-niece was (St.) Margaret
> of Wessex (c.1045-93) who married Malcolm III ...

Ann:

Malcolm and Margaret's daughter Edith married Henry I, and all
English monarchs since Henry and Edith's grandson Henry II are [I
think] descended from them.

L.P.H.,

Ann

--- In , "Ann Sharp" <axsc@...>
wrote:
>
> Helen wrote:
>
> > I even read that William The Conqueror's Queen Matilda of
> Flanders was descended from Alfred by a junior line.
>
> There is certainly a direct descent from Alfred's daughter
Alfthryth:
>
> Alfred - Ealhswith
> Alfthryth of Wessex - Baudouin II 'the Bald' Count of Flanders
> Arnulf I, Count of Flanders - Adela de Vermandois
> Baudouin III, Count of Flanders - Mathilde of Saxony
> Arnulf II, Count of Flanders - Rosela Roxana of Italy
> Baudouin IV, Count of Flanders - Otgiva de Luxembourg
> Baudouin V, Count of Flanders - Adèle de France
> Matilda of Flanders - William the Conquerer
>
>
> > Stephen
> > English monarchs have once again all been of
> > Saxon royal descent since ..... 1603, because Edward
> > the Confessor's great-niece was (St.) Margaret
> > of Wessex (c.1045-93) who married Malcolm III ...
>
> Ann:
>
> Malcolm and Margaret's daughter Edith married Henry I, and all
> English monarchs since Henry and Edith's grandson Henry II are [I
> think] descended from them.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>
Good. That gives Richard Saxon ancestors as well.
One of the most irritating things about history is that regnal
numbers appear to have been reset at the Conquest. So far, it has
only affected Edwards but you never know what our Queen's
grandchildren will call their offspring.
If you gave the Saxon Edwards regnal numbers (others pre-conquest
Kings had them), the Confessor would be 0 and the Elder -2. Or
perhaps we should just add three to every subsequent King of that
name?