Was King Henry VIII of England the father of Mary Boleyn's Carey children?
Douglas Richardson
In 1997 Anthony Hoskins published an interesting and well written
paper in Genealogists’ Magazine 25 (1997): 345–352, in which he
advanced the theory that King Henry VIII may have been the father of
Mary Boleyn’s two Carey children. These children have traditionally
been assigned as the product of Mary Boleyn's lawful marriage to
William Carey, Esquire, which marriage took place in 1520. The chief
piece of evidence cited by Hoskins to support this theory consists of
a salacious piece of second hand gossip uttered by John Hale, vicar of
Isleworth, to the Council in April 1535. Hale was summarily executed
two weeks later at Tyburn for denying the king’s supremacy, not for
his accusation of bastardy against the king. While Hoskins terms his
argument “a powerful case,” he failed to present any serious evidence
that supports his “ineluctable conclusion” that the Careys “must have
been the king’s children.”
While it is true that the king by his own admission had an affair at
some point with Mary Boleyn, there appears to be no surviving evidence
to indicate exactly when their liaison occurred [see Jasper Ridley,
Henry VIII (1985): 152 who plainly states “Here again there is no
record of when the affair with Mary Boleyn began;” also Alison Weir,
The Six Wives of Henry VIII (2000): 133 (“… the affair was conducted
discreetely, and for this reason it is impossible to pinpoint when it
began or ended.”)]. More importantly, there is no indication in any
known contemporary record which suggests that either the king or his
successors at any time acknowledged the two Carey children as the
king’s issue. For example, when Queen Elizabeth I (the daughter of
King Henry VIII) mentioned Mary Boleyn’s son, Henry Carey, in a letter
dated 1579, she referred to him as “our cousin of Hunsdon,” not as her
brother [see Boyd, Cal. of the State Papers rel. to Scotland & Mary,
Queen of Scots 5 (1907): 358–360]. Mary Boleyn’s other child,
Katherine Carey, Lady Knollys, was similarly styled “kinswoman and
good servant” [not sister] of Queen Elizabeth I in a letter written in
1569 by Nicholas White [see Strickland, Letters of Mary, Queen of
Scots 2 (1848): 385–390].
For what it is worth, the liaison between Mary Boleyn and King Henry
VIII has been widely dated by one recent historian, Eric Ives, as
either the 1510s or early 1520s [see Eric Ives, The Life & Death of
Anne Boleyn (2004): 15]. In slim support of the latter date, there
exists the transcript of contemporary letter written in 1533 by Dr.
Pedro Ortiz, the Spanish theologian who was sent to Rome to defend the
interests of King Henry VIII’s first wife, Queen Katherine of Aragón.
Dr Ortiz wrote the Empress that King Henry VIII had previously
requested a dispensation from his Holiness to marry Anne Boleyn due to
the “affinity between them on account of his having committed adultery
with her sister.” [see Friedmann, Anne Boleyn: A Chapter of English
History, 1527–1536 2 (1884): 325, citing British Museum, Add. MSS.
28,585, fol. 217]. While the meaning of the word, adultery, as used
by Dr. Ortiz would have been carnal knowledge with a married woman,
the dispensation requested back in 1528 would not have involved the
marital status of Mary Boleyn at all; rather, the dispensation would
simply have stated that a potential affinity existed in the 1st degree
due to the king’s carnal knowledge of two sisters, one being his
former mistress, the other being his intended second wife. Indeed, as
Friedmann notes, up to this time canon law had been in force; and, in
that law, no difference was made between legitimate and illegitimate
intercourse [Friedmann, ibid., 326]. While the wording of Dr. Ortiz’s
letter suggests that that he had knowledge that Mary Boleyn was
married when the affair with King Henry VIII occurred, Dr. Ortiz being
a foreigner in the employ of the Emperor mitigates the usefulness of
this piece of evidence in dating Mary Boleyn’s affair with the king.
In fact, the historian James Farge has noted that the letters of Dr.
Ortiz “often became nothing more than the recounting of gossip” [see
James Farge, Biographical Reg. of Paris Doctors of Theology, 1500–1536
(Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Subsidia Mediaeval 10)
(1980): 352].
Thus, the argument that King Henry VIII fathered Mary Boleyn's two
Carey children remains at best a dubious theory whose merits lack
sufficient evidence to reach any satisfactory conclusion.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
girlvol
Nathaniel Taylor
<8dde1369-b4fe-475a...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> In 1997 Anthony Hoskins published an interesting and well written
> paper in Genealogistsą Magazine 25 (1997): 345352, in which he
> advanced the theory that King Henry VIII may have been the father of
> Mary Boleynąs two Carey children. ... While Hoskins terms his
> argument ła powerful case,˛ he failed to present any serious evidence
> that supports his łineluctable conclusion˛ that the Careys łmust have
> been the kingąs children.˛
<...>
> Thus, the argument that King Henry VIII fathered Mary Boleyn's two
> Carey children remains at best a dubious theory whose merits lack
> sufficient evidence to reach any satisfactory conclusion.
I think most of us who have read Tony's article would agree that his
interesting theory is far from proved. I would suggest that Tony may be
excused for (sometimes) overstating the 'ineluctibility' of the theory;
generally he has treated this theory very circumspectly. However, your
summary does not quite do justice to all the evidence Tony brings to
bear on it, and in your last sentence (given the common pejorative
connotation of 'dubious') you seem to imply that even to voice the
theory was in some way irresponsible. Yet in your first sentence you
accurately state that the point of Tony's article was to show why Henry
VIII *'may have been'* the father of the Boleyn-Carey children, and I
think Tony succeeded in that. To me that is a perfectly 'satisfactory
conclusion': I for one find well-argued speculations often to be more
enjoyable and edifying than cut-and-dried proofs or disproofs.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
WJho...@aol.com
Here it is, in more full: "She could not have failed to guess the reason for
the promotion of Sir Thomas Bolyn to the peerage as Viscount Rochford in
1525, just the latest in a string of honours accorded to a man who had been one
of Henry's favourite courtiers since 1511. Yet this latest honour had
undoubtedly been bestowed as a reward for services rendered to the King by Boleyn's
elder daughter Mary, who had for some time been Henry's mistress. As usual,
the affair was conducted discreetly, and for this reason it is impossible to
pinpoint when it began or ended. Mary Boleyn had married William Carey, a
gentleman of the King's household, in February 1520; the King attended their
wedding, offering 6s 8d, in the chapel. Mary accompanied Queen Katherine to
the Field of Cloth of Gold later that year. Henry had just discarded
Elizabeth Blount, and it would not be fanciful to concluded that Mary Boleyn was the
reason why he did so. In 1533, Mary's son Henry Carey, who had been born
around 1524, would claim he was 'our sovereign lord the King's son', but henry
never acknowledged him as such, which should be taken as conclusive evidence
that the boy was William Carey's, for the King had been eager enough to
acknowledge Henry FitzRoy as his own."
"...It seems likely that her affair with Henry VIII began around 1519-20,
and that it was still continuing in 1523....The relationship seems to have
ended in 1525, or thereabouts."
Will Johnson
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
Tony Hoskins
of King Henry VIII?" Note the question mark.
Eric Ives in 1987 accurately stated the affair's chronology. He erred
in his understanding of the chronology of the Careys' births. Hence,
the need to air this subject in 1997. It seems Eric Ives has not
re-examined his view since, though more than once it has been reprinted
[see his _ODNB_ bio of Henry VIII].
As careful reading of my article shows, I describe the royal paternity
of the Careys as "probable" never "certain". Mr. Richardson's
addressing of this is most welcome, clerely animated as he is by the
impartial search for truth.
I'm glad people still mull over the arguments I raised back in 1997. I
hope this continues. I continue to be pleased that Tudor scholars find
the theory gripping and significant.
G.W. Bernard finds the possibility of the case strong, and mentions it
in his _The King's Reformation_
and he informs me he mentions it again in his soon-to-be published (and
authoritative) biography of Anne Boleyn.
And, the _Oxford Dictionary of National Biography_ as well:
"Knollys [n*e Carey], Katherine, Lady Knollys (c.1523–1569),
courtier, was undoubtedly the daughter of Mary Boleyn [see Stafford,
Mary, (c.1499–1543)], but although she and her brother Henry Carey
(later first Baron Hunsdon) were recognized as the children of Mary's
first husband William Carey (c.1500–1528), their mother's affair with
Henry VIII, between about 1522 and 1525, has always raised questions
about the paternity of her children. Henry Carey's date of birth (4
March 1526) suggests that his conception may have postdated the affair;
but Katherine was probably the elder of the two and the king's
daughter." [Sally Varlow]
--
"It is not known exactly when the liaison ended and when Mary began to
cohabit with her husband. Royal grants to William Carey between 1522 and
1525 can be interpreted as recognition of his wife's status as the
king's mistress during these years; likewise the existence of a ship
named the Mary Boleyn in 1523. But it is likely that the affair was over
by the time Mary was pregnant with her son Henry Carey, born on 4 March
1526. Supporters of Katherine of Aragon later spread the rumour that
Henry was the king's bastard son; in 1535 John Hale, vicar of Isleworth,
told before his execution for refusing to take the oath of supremacy,
how ‘Mr Skydmore dyd show to me yongge Master Care, saying that he was
our suffren lord the Kynge's son by our suffren lady the Qwyen's syster,
whom the Qwyen's grace myght not suffer to be yn the cowrte’ (LP Henry
VIII, 8, no. 567). There is no evidence to support such allegations,
however." [Jonathan Hughes]
So, thanks to Mr. Richardson for his thoughts.
This interesting case is of course unproved. It is up to the individual
reader to establish his or her own views on its relative plausibility.
There is plenty of room for all opinions. What seems beyond question to
me about the case is its historical signioficance. For instance, I long
for a serious scholar to re-examine Elizabeth I's complex and deeply
conflicted relationship with the Earl of Essex, possibly a secret great
grandson of Henry VIII.
If of interest, my article is available online:
http://www.genealogymagazine.com/boleyn.html
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
Sonoma County Archivist
Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
WJho...@aol.com
himself* also said it.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 10/28/2008 9:25:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
hos...@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
http://www.genealogymagazine.com/boleyn.html
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message
Douglas Richardson
I'll make it perfectly clear.
Here is the contemporary evidence that King Henry VIII was the father
of Mary Boleyn's two Carey children:
Nothing.
Tony Hoskins
Tony Hoskins
King Henry VIII was the father of Mary Boleyn's two Carey children:
Nothing."
John Hale, vicar of Isleworth to the Council, 20 April 1535.
"Morever, Mr. Skydmore dyd show to me yongge Master Care, saying that
he was our suffren Lord the Kynge's son by our suffren Lady the
Qwyen's syster, whom the Qwyen's grace might not suffer to be yn
the Cowrte."
Tony Hoskins
"I'll make it perfectly clear. Here is the contemporary evidence that
King Henry VIII was the father of Mary Boleyn's two Carey children:
Nothing."
Though the following does not mention children, it is telling and
certainly contemporary.
Reginald Pole's letter to Henry VIII, 1536.
"At your age of life, with all your experience of the world, you were
enslaved by your passion for a girl. But she would not give you your
will unless you rejected your wife, whose place she longed to take. The
modest woman would not be your mistress; no, but she would be your wife.
She had learned, I think, if from nothing else, at least from the
example of her own sister, how soon you got tired of your mistresses;
and she resolved to surpass her sister in retaining you as her lover….
Now what sort of person is it whom you have put in place of your
divorced wife? Is she not the sister of her whom first you violated and
for a long time after kept as your concubine? She certainly is. How is
it, then, that you now tell us of the horror you have of illicit
marriage? Are you ignorant of the law which certainly no less prohibits
marriage with the sister of one with whom you have become one flesh,
than with one with whom your brother was one flesh? If the one kind of
marriage is detestable, so is the other. How do I prove that? Because,
at the very time that you were rejecting your brother’s widow, you
were doing your very utmost to get leave from the Pope to marry the
sister of your former concubine."
In any case, Mr Richardson, we find ourselves again apparently at cross
purposes. I never wrote or said the case for the Careys' likely being
Henry VIII's children was proved by contemporary evidence. So, your
statement that there is no contemporary evidence is 1) incorrect and 2)
another red herring.
Let me be clear: my article relies on the analysis of an assemblage of
facts to *suggest the strong likelihood* that the Careys were likely
Henry VIII's children.
But, am I correct in inferring from this that you think proof only
resides in contemporary evidence? This is certainly not the belief with
professional historians.
Dr. Faris - your predecessor with the first edition of _Plantagenet
Ancestry_ - was a gentleman who kindly expressed admiration for my work,
and took a different view to your own. He included the Careys as likely
being Henry VIII's children in that first _PA_. And, of course, you
chose - as well you are able to - not to fowwlo Dr. Faris's view in your
own edition. It's a free country and I respect your opinion, though
remaining convinced you miss the point. But, hey, that's OK!
Onward.
Douglas Richardson
< John Hale, vicar of Isleworth to the Council, 20 April 1535.
< "Morever, Mr. Skydmore dyd show to me yongge Master Care, saying
that
< he was our suffren Lord the Kynge's son by our suffren Lady the
< Qwyen's syster, whom the Qwyen's grace might not suffer to be yn
V the Cowrte."
Hale's comments are merely salacious second hand gossip. That's all.
For a brief discussion of the historical background of this gossip,
see E.W. Ives, Anne Boleyn (1986), pg. 250.
As for Dr. Ortiz' allegation that King Henry VIII committed adultery
with Mary Boleyn, the historian James Farge has basically labelled
Ortiz a gossipmonger. See James Farge, Biographical Reg. of Paris
Doctors of Theology, 1500–1536 (Pontifical Institute of Medieval
Studies, Subsidia Mediaeval 10) (1980): 352.
So, you essentially have two scraps of gossip. Neither party was an
eye witnesses. One was executed. The other person has a poor
reputation.
History should be based on the interpretation of actual events, not
court gossip.
Douglas Richardson
< Though the following does not mention children, it is telling and
< certainly contemporary.
No children are mentioned? No surprise there.
All you have two scraps of gossip, that's all.
Duvall, Jeffery A
Jeff Duvall
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:13 PM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Was King Henry VIII of England the father of Mary Boleyn's Carey children?
On Oct 29, 10:18 am, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
< John Hale, vicar of Isleworth to the Council, 20 April 1535.
< "Morever, Mr. Skydmore dyd show to me yongge Master Care, saying
that
< he was our suffren Lord the Kynge's son by our suffren Lady the
< Qwyen's syster, whom the Qwyen's grace might not suffer to be yn
V the Cowrte."
Hale's comments are merely salacious second hand gossip. That's all.
For a brief discussion of the historical background of this gossip,
see E.W. Ives, Anne Boleyn (1986), pg. 250.
As for Dr. Ortiz' allegation that King Henry VIII committed adultery
with Mary Boleyn, the historian James Farge has basically labelled
Ortiz a gossipmonger. See James Farge, Biographical Reg. of Paris
Doctors of Theology, 1500-1536 (Pontifical Institute of Medieval
Studies, Subsidia Mediaeval 10) (1980): 352.
So, you essentially have two scraps of gossip. Neither party was an
eye witnesses. One was executed. The other person has a poor
reputation.
History should be based on the interpretation of actual events, not
court gossip.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
AdrianBnjmBurke
>
> - Show quoted text -
To further your excellent question, I would pose this: are the bodies
or graves of Henry 8 and Baron Hundson not extant? If a sample of dna
could be extracted from the remains of both men their relationship, if
any, would be found. perhaps the Queen would oblige?? although, she
might not like finding out there are more "pretenders" to the throne,
especially in America!!!
ABB
Nathaniel Taylor
<96e6e079-46e5-4322...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > "I'll make it perfectly clear. Here is the contemporary evidence that
> > > King Henry VIII was the father of Mary Boleyn's two Carey children:
> > > Nothing."
> >
> > John Hale, vicar of Isleworth to the Council, 20 April 1535:
> > "Morever, Mr. Skydmore dyd show to me yongge Master Care, saying
> > that he was our suffren Lord the Kynge's son by our suffren Lady the
> > Qwyen's syster, whom the Qwyen's grace might not suffer to be yn the
> > Cowrte."
>
> Hale's comments are merely salacious second hand gossip. That's all.
Whether or not it is "salacious second hand gossip," Hale's testimony is
still contemporary evidence, and Douglas had stated unequivocally that
there was no contemporary evidence.
How one weighs the evidence, of course, is a matter of interpretation.
But to suppress evidence while purporting to make something "perfectly
clear" seems disingenuous. Richard Nixon wanted to make something
"perfectly clear," too. Perhaps it's a phrase to avoid.
Tony Hoskins
or graves of Henry 8 and Baron Hundson not extant?"
I have many times cited my article's online link. Note 74 reads:
"74. Advances in genetic identification through comparison of DNA raise
the tantalizing prospect of one day scientifically proving a case of
paternity such as that of Henry VIII and the Careys. To the best of my
knowledge, the tombs of Henry VIII at Windsor and Catherine, Lady
Knollys and Henry, Lord Hunsdon at Westminster Abbey are intact."
No more to report than that.
Tony
AdrianBnjmBurke
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trying to determine what would certainly be a mega media spectical -
the existence of a bastard son of H8 who left 100000s of thousands of
living descendants, would most likely be the prize for one of the tv
shows/networks such as national geographic or history channels. i have
seen them produce specials on doing just this kind of thing.
Brad Verity
> "To further your excellent question, I would pose this: are the bodies
> or graves of Henry 8 and Baron Hundson not extant?"
>
> I have many times cited my article's online link. Note 74 reads:
>
> "74. Advances in genetic identification through comparison of DNA raise
> the tantalizing prospect of one day scientifically proving a case of
> paternity such as that of Henry VIII and the Careys. To the best of my
> knowledge, the tombs of Henry VIII at Windsor and Catherine, Lady
> Knollys and Henry, Lord Hunsdon at Westminster Abbey are intact."
>
> No more to report than that.
Dear Tony & Adrian,
It is well-nigh impossible to get permission to disturb the remains of
British royals. I know the Richard III Society has been working for
the past few years to try and extract DNA from the bones found in the
Tower and ascribed to the two sons of Edward IV, but even with a royal
(HRH the Duke of Gloucester) as the Society's patron - no luck. I'd
imagine the same applies to the Westminster Abbey remains of Lord
Hunsdon and his sister.
The latest from the medieval royal DNA avenue is coordinated by John
Ashdown-Hill of the RIII Society. He's working to see if DNA can be
extracted from a lock of hair said to have belonged to Mary Tudor,
Queen of France & Duchess of Suffolk (HVIII's sister). If
accomplished, it would of course provide the mtDNA sequence for HVIII
himself. This would not be of any use in identifying any children of
HVIII, since mtDNA is inherited from the mother only, but DNA from
HVIII's sister could still be useful if DNA from Lord Hundson and Lady
Knollys ever comes to light. Though a comparison could never prove
paternity, it could rule out the possibility that HVIII fathered the
Carey siblings, if there wasn't any matching indicators to the DNA of
his sister.
Cheers, -------Brad
Tony Hoskins
prove paternity, it could rule out the possibility that HVIII fathered
his sister."
Interesting! Thanks, Brad.
Best wishes,
Tony
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
Douglas Richardson
John Hale's statement about Henry Carey is no more valid than the
account of John Sparrowhawk (see below) who in 1402 reported salacious
gossip that he heard that King Henry IV of England "was not son to the
very noble prince John [of Gaunt], duke of Lancaster, whom God assoil,
but that he was born son to a butcher of Ghent."
Does anyone seriously think King Henry IV was the "son of a butcher of
Ghent?" Not hardly.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: G.O. Sayles, ed., Select Cases in the Court of the King's
Bench under Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V, 7 (Selden Soc.) (1971):
123-124.
The legal proceeding quoted below comes from the Coram Rege Roll, no.
564 dated Easter 1402. It contains the statement of one John
Sparrowhawk of Cardiff in Wales who came before the king at
Westminster and gave the following testimony:
"The said John Sparrowhawk says that on Sunday, the Feast of Palm
Sunday in the third year of the reign of our most reverend lord the
king after breakfast, in a village which lately belonged to the Earl
Marshal about one or two miles from Baldock, he came to the house
there of a tailor unknown to him. And there the said tailor's wife
said to the said John: 'See how wet it is and what dreadful weather
there is these days and has been all the time of the present king, for
there has not been seven days' good and seasonable weather all his
time.' And she further said that the present king [Henry IV] was not
the rightful king but that the earl of March is king by right, and
that the present king was not son to the very noble prince John, duke
of Lancaster, whom God assoil, but that he was born son to a butcher
of Ghent, and that Owain Glyn Dwr is the legal prince of Wales and of
Cornwall, and that the pope sent a bull to Wales, Cornwall and England
to the effect that all who are willing to help the said earl and Owain
to obtain their aforesaid rights are to have full indulgence and
remission of all their sins. And she also said that the 'colour' of
the king's livery would not be in use by the end of half a year. And
she further said that the king had no kept his covenant with his
commons, for at his entry into England he promised them that they
would be discharged and quit of all kinds of payments and customs save
for his wars overseas, but in the meanwhile he has collected much
wealth from his commons and did nothing with it to the profit of the
realm but only of all his lords and many other gentlemen. And
inasmuch as the king did not wish to obey the commands of the pope of
Rome, for that reason all the bad weather has happened for many days
past." END OF QUOTE.
t...@clearwire.net
> On Mary Tudor, Queen of France's hair. "Though a comparison could never
> prove paternity, it could rule out the possibility that HVIII fathered
> theCarey siblings, if there wasn't any matching indicators to the DNA of
> his sister."
>
> Interesting! Thanks, Brad.
I would think there woud be a lot more candidates for Y DNA, given how
large the kindred of Ednyfed Fychan was.
taf
AdrianBnjmBurke
I could be mistaken but I seem to recall the Earl of Wessex giving a
blood sample to be compared for use with identifying the remains of
the Russian Imperial Famliy remains retrieved from Ekatrinberg
(spelling i know) - so perhaps there is hope yet - I know a few years
ago Prince Edward was filming documentaries on English history etc. I
wonder if he could be pursuaded to take up the cause of identifying
the paternity of the Carey siblings....
WJho...@aol.com
Mary Boleyn was not already known to be a whore by this time.
Alison Weir states that Mary had relations with Francis the King of France
while there in the train of Henry's sister and that was certainly earlier than
Henry had her.
Will Johnson
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
(http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)
marianne dillow
It would be great for everyone if we could get the British to become more interested and involved in DNA testing especially the male yDNA testing. They are starting to come on board but we still need to create more interest in the British to do more in this area than what we are seeing. It could definitely answer some of the questions that has been posted on this list. DNA testing would definitely be a plus in our research if we could accomplish this. The question is how to get the British to be more interested in this area.
Best Regards,
Marianne Dillow
From: AdrianBnjmBurke <adrianben...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Was King Henry VIII of England the father of Mary Boleyn's Carey children?
Brad Verity
wrote:
> I could be mistaken but I seem to recall the Earl of Wessex giving a
> blood sample to be compared for use with identifying the remains of
> the Russian Imperial Famliy remains retrieved from Ekatrinberg
> (spelling i know)
Right incident, wrong royal. It was Prince Philip who gave a blood
sample for DNA to help to identify the Ekaterenberg remains, as
Philip's grandmother was elder sister of the Tsarina Alexandra.
This of course didn't involve opening established tombs in anointed
national landmarks.
- so perhaps there is hope yet - I know a few years
> ago Prince Edward was filming documentaries on English history etc. I
> wonder if he could be pursuaded to take up the cause of identifying
> the paternity of the Carey siblings....
There was an article on Kate Middleton in the recent 'Vanity Fair'
which related how the press was allowed to film Prince William's first
day at University. One camera crew remained after all the others had
left, following William around for unofficial exclusive footage. It
was Prince Edward's production company. Once Prince Charles caught
wind, the camera crew was promptly banished and Prince Edward caught
his elder brother's wrath.
So if he can't even get some footage of his nephew, I don't know how
effective Prince Edward would be in getting the royal establishment
and the Church of England to OK the disturbance of even the Carey
sibling tombs in Westminster Abbey. But it wouldn't hurt to have him
take up the cause.
Todd Farmerie's suggestion of Y DNA is interesting - I had no idea
there could be unbroken male-line Tudors surviving to recent times.
But I'm not familiar at all with the Tudor line further back than good
ole Owen, the queen-seducer.
On the other paternity hand, however, I believe that the Careys are
one of the few medieval English landed families to have male-line
descendants alive until recently, and perhaps still. It's not likely
Lord Hunsdon's descendants got the Westminster Abbey-honored burial of
their royal cousin ancestor, and if his male line is no longer around,
there must be a small parish church or two that holds a tomb of a
subsequent Lord Hunsdon that might be opened and possibly provide the
original Lord's Y DNA sequence.
William Carey, Mary Boleyn's first husband, was an offshoot of the
Carys of Cockington, IIRC, and there may very well be male line
descendants of that family alive today, to provide the Y DNA sequence
of poor cuckolded William. Compare the two samples and ...
This of course would work only in the case of the paternity of Lord
Hunsdon. In the case of his sister Lady Knollys only her remains in
her tomb in Westminster Abbey would provide her Y DNA sequence, as if
I'm understanding it correctly, a woman, though she has a Y DNA
strand, cannot pass it to any children?
Cheers, ------------Brad
WJho...@aol.com
Henry Carey Baron Hunsdon had several sons.
For example the third Baron Hunsdon is buried at Hunsdon. Probably much
less well-guarded and he would share his father's Y-DNA.
Tony Hoskins
YOu said, "I could be mistaken but I seem to recall the Earl of Wessex
giving a
blood sample to be compared for use with identifying the remains of
the Russian Imperial Famliy remains retrieved from Ekatrinberg."
I believe it was rather hios fahter, the Duke of Edinburgh, whose mtDNA
was identical with the Empress and her chidlren.
http://www.isogg.org/famousdna.htm
Tony
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/30/2008 5:22:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jdu...@iupui.edu writes:
still a large number of native born individuals who could claim descent from
Edward III, the Tudor purges of rival claimants notwithstanding, >>
------------------
I just want to point out, that since we're speaking of the time under H8
when he was trying to divorce Catherine, that there were *also* at-that-time,
descendents of Edward IV who were viable contenders.
So you wouldn't quite have to go back as far as Edward III, even were you to
ignore other Tudors.
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!