John of Gaunt shared ancestry

[Michael OHearn via]

Genealogists have discovered that likely presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton share common descent from Joan of Gaunt and Katherine Swinford.

http://www.infowars.com/trump-hillary-distant-cousins-say-genealogists/

In view of past discussion regard Plantagenet Richard's Y-DNA not matching that of alleged Beaufort Somerset cousins, is the legitimacy question of John of Gaunt still an issue? If the DNA discrepancy arose from the circumstances of John's illegitimate parentage, then we could assume that both Trump and Clinton are of bastardized descent.



Sent from my iPhone

[jmb...@albion.edu]

Hillary's descent from royalty is at best unproven, from what I can recall. WA Reitwiesner has the Rodham ancestry only back to Hillary's gggg-grandparents, Joseph Rodham (born about 1742) and Dorothy Bell of Chester-le-Street, Durham, married 1774. Last I checked, the connection to the earlier Roddham/Roddam family is speculation.
Jim+

[jmb...@albion.edu]

Also, as usual, the article is sloppy and sensationalist with genealogy. The interviewee, A.J. Jacobs, is a journalist/entertainment author, not a researcher, and got all his info from the user-contributed website geni.com. (Maybe we could all get on some talk shows with our special "findings" of distant famous cousins.) As for the Trump ancestry, I don't know if it is proven, possible, or plausible; at first glance the generations seem to line up chronologically well, but someone would need to prove it from documents.
Jim+

[D. Spencer Hines]

Indeed.

Rampant Speculation.

DSH

"Genealogy is an infinite binary series -- both progressively and
regressively -- propagated by means of a terminal, sexually transmitted
disease, producing a 100% death rate -- which we call Life." -- D. Spencer
Hines - 4 June 1997

wrote in message
news:1e187430-3aec-4ed8...@googlegroups.com...

[taf]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn via wrote:

> In view of past discussion regard Plantagenet Richard's Y-DNA not matching
> that of alleged Beaufort Somerset cousins, is the legitimacy question of
> John of Gaunt still an issue? If the DNA discrepancy arose from the
> circumstances of John's illegitimate parentage, then we could assume that
> both Trump and Clinton are of bastardized descent.

There never was a legitimacy question regarding John of Gaunt, at least not related to the Richard III DNA result. I tracked this down at the time.

In trying to explain the implications of the Y-DNA conflict, a journalist presented as a hypothetical example that had John of Gaunt been son of someone other than Edward III, that would give rise to the result obtained. The choice of John of Gaunt appeared to be entirely arbitrary in this example. From there it was picked up by other journalists (and pseudo-journalists) and as this bounced around the media, it came to be reported as a historical hypothesis - that 'some' suspect John was illegitimate, rather than being just a hypothetical example given for the purposes of explaining the genetic mechanism.

taf

[taf]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:51:02 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn via wrote:
>
> > In view of past discussion regard Plantagenet Richard's Y-DNA not matching
> > that of alleged Beaufort Somerset cousins, is the legitimacy question of
> > John of Gaunt still an issue? If the DNA discrepancy arose from the
> > circumstances of John's illegitimate parentage, then we could assume that
> > both Trump and Clinton are of bastardized descent.
>
> There never was a legitimacy question regarding John of Gaunt, at least
> not related to the Richard III DNA result. I tracked this down at the
> time.

I forgot to comment on the last bit - given that William the Conqueror was not born to married parents, any descendant of the post-conquest royals would derive from an out-of-wedlock birth.

taf

[Michael OHearn via]

Another point brought up concerning the DNA question is that the Royals' claim to legitimacy goes back to Henry Tudor's victory in the War of Roses. Henry has other royal lines to support a claim independent of the supposed questionable Beaufort lineage.

Sent from my iPhone

[leslie...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn via wrote:

This subject has been mentioned before :


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/rodham/soc.genealogy.medieval/VLKsmq_SoDA/3_Ma9vinFgAJ


It's interesting that unsourced, unverified information
is called 'genealogy'.


Leslie

[leslie...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn via wrote:

For whatever it's worth,
this is the information from Geni.com
which gives the supposed royal descent for Trump:

https://www.geni.com/people/Mary-Anne-Trump-MacLeod/6000000013186316923

Leslie

[Paulo Canedo]

Em terça-feira, 10 de maio de 2016 21:39:44 UTC+1, jmb...@albion.edu escreveu:
> Also, as usual, the article is sloppy and sensationalist with genealogy. The interviewee, A.J. Jacobs, is a journalist/entertainment author, not a researcher, and got all his info from the user-contributed website geni.com. (Maybe we could all get on some talk shows with our special "findings" of distant famous cousins.) As for the Trump ancestry, I don't know if it is proven, possible, or plausible; at first glance the generations seem to line up chronologically well, but someone would need to prove it from documents.
> Jim+

For what I know from other post in this newsgroup the Trump ancestry is plausible there´s only some uncertainty in the parents of Catherine/Christian MacLeod.

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

"Henry Tudor was also descended from Henry III through his son Edmund
Crouchback."

So am I and several million others. Does that make us all Queen of
England? :) :) :)

[Elizabeth Hopkins]

Erm -well I suppose that any one of us who would like to knock Elizabeth off the throne and claim it by right of conquest (which is what Henry did) could be.

[Elizabeth Hopkins]

Doing it that way it doesn't matter who you are descended from.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Oh, Henry Tudor [Henry VII] has other descents from Henry III that run
through Edward I, Henry III's son.

DSH

"He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past
controls the future." -- George Orwell - 1984

"Communists must always consider that of all the arts, the cinema is the
most important." -- Vladimir Lenin

"The cinema is not only a vital agitprop device for the education and
political indoctrination of the workers, but also a fluent channel through
which to reach the minds and shape the desires of people everywhere." --
Joseph Stalin - 1936 Address to the Commissariat for Cinematography

"Elizabeth Hopkins" wrote in message
news:1f289fe6-2fb0-4287...@googlegroups.com...

[Elizabeth Hopkins]

Through his maternal great grandmother Margaret Holland, Countess of Somerset....correct?

[D. Spencer Hines]

Not necessarily:

DSH

HENRY III King of England is the 7th great-grandfather of HENRY VII King of
England

Common Ancestor

* HENRY III King of England
* Comtesse Eleanor Berenger de Provence
|
|
* EDWARD I 'Longshanks' King of England
Eleanor of Castile Countess of Ponthieu
|
|
Henri III de Bar Comte de Bar
* Princess Eleanor of England
|
|
Llewelyn ap Owain Lord of South Wales
* Eleanor de Bar
|
|
* Thomas ap Llewelyn
Lady Eleanor of Cardigan Goch
|
|
Sir Tudor Fychan ap Tudur Hen of Pemmynydd
* Margaret of Iscoed
|
|
* Maredudd (Meredith) ap Tudor
Margaret verch Daffyd Fychan
|
|
* Sir Owen Tudor
Catherine de France
|
|
* Edmund Tudor 1st Earl of Richmond
Lady Margaret Beaufort Countess of Richmond and Derby
|
|
* HENRY VII King of England

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led,
like sheep to the slaughter." -- George Washington

"Elizabeth Hopkins" wrote in message

news:0f781b23-dca2-4433...@googlegroups.com...

[Elizabeth Hopkins]

Hmmmmm. Very very Interesting. Can't wait to throw that one out next time I get in a wrangle with some crazed Richardians.

[taf]

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 8:50:08 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth Hopkins wrote:

> Hmmmmm. Very very Interesting. Can't wait to throw that one out next time I get
> in a wrangle with some crazed Richardians.

You might want to wait before you throw that at a Richardian. Bartrum makes THomas ap Llywelyn son of Llywelyn ap Owain by either Gwanas ferch Tos. ap Robinod, Constable of Llanstephen Castle, or NN, daughter of Robert de Valle of Trefgarn Owain. Indeed, there is a distinct possibility that Eleanor of Bar, wife of Llywelyn, is a fabrication.

taf

[John Higgins]

FWIW the supposed "Eleanor of Bar" does not appear in the table on the Counts of Bar in Schwennicke's Europäische Stammtafeln, 1.2:227 - or in Bartrum's Welsh Genealogies. Two strikes against her...

Here's the relevant Bartrum table (Rhys ap Tewdyr 7):
http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5365/Rhys%20ap%20Tewdwr%207.png?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

(assuming the host website is functioning - it hasn't been very reliable recently)

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Spencer ~

Thank you for your post. Much appreciated.

For your interest, I've copied below an account of Henri III, Count of Bar, and his wife, Eleanor of England, taken from my book, Royal Ancestry (5 volume set), published in 2013. As you can see, Count Henri and his wife, Eleanor, only had two children, Edouard [Count of Bar] and Joan (or Jeanne) (wife of John de Warrene, Knt., Earl of Surrey). Simply put, there was no daughter, Eleanor, who married Llewelyn ap Owain Lord of South Wales. This daughter is utterly fictitious.

One other thing: You stated in your post that Owen Tudor, husband of Katherine of France, was knighted. My research has proven that Owen was merely an esquire at his death. See the newsgroup archives for a discussion of this minor point.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +

Reference: Douglas Richardson, Royal Ancestry, 1 (2013): 69:

ELEANOR (or ÉLÉONORE) OF ENGLAND, born at Windsor Castle, Berkshire about 18 June 1269. She was contracted to marry ALFONSO III el Liberal, King of Aragón, Count of Barcelona, son and heir of Pedro III el Grande, King of Aragón, Count of Barcelona, King of Sicily, by Constanza, daughter of Manfred, King of Sicily. Alfonso III, King of Aragón, died prior to marriage at Barcelona 18 June 1291. She married at Bristol 20 Sept. 1293 HENRI III, Knt., Count of Bar, seigneur of Torcy in Brie, son and heir of Thibaut II, Count of Bar, by his 2nd wife, Jeanne, daughter of Jean, seigneur of Toucy. He was born in 1259. They had one son, Édouard I [Count of Bar, seigneur of la Puisaye], and one daughter, Joan (or Jeanne) (wife of John de Warrene, Knt., Earl of Surrey). In 1296 his father-in-law, King Edward I of England, requested that he and Jean, Duke of Brabant, be present at the negotiation for the truce with France. In 1297 Henri fell prisoner of the French at Comines. After being carried to Paris in chains, he was detained at Bourges, until after four years’ captivity he purchased liberty by doing homage for his county to the French king. His wife, Eleanor, died at Ghent 29 August 1298, and was buried at Westminster or in the Chapter House. HENRI III, Count of Bar, died at Naples, Italy on his return from a crusade in Sept. 1302. In October 1302 King Edward I wrote the people of the comté of Bar, requesting them to obey the persons whom he appoints to act in favour of the children of Henri late count of Bar.

References:

Sandford, Gen. Hist. of the Kings of England (1677): 139. Rymer, Fœdera 1(2) (1816): 798. Archæologia 26 (1836): 338. Palgrave, Antient Kalendars & Invs. of the Treasury of His Majesty’s Exchequer 1 (1836): 140. Hawley, Royal Fam. of England (1851): 22–23. Sussex Arch. Colls. 6 (1853): 107–128. Green, Lives of the Princesses of England 2 (1857): 275–317 (pg. 298 Edmund [of Almain], Earl of Cornwall, styled “cousin” by Eleanor of England in letter dated 1286/1289). Pubs. Société pour la Recherche et la Conservation des Monuments Historiques dans le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg 17 (1862): 75 (Henri, Count of Luxembourg styled “cousin” by Henri, Count of Bar in document dated 1295). Douet d’Arcq, Coll. de Sceaux des Archives de l’Empire 1(1) (1863): 391–392 (seal of Henri III, Count of Bar dated 1299 — Sceau équestre, aux armes. Légende: SIGILLVM : HERICI : COMITIS : B[AR]RI DVCIS; Contre-sceau. L’écu de Bar. Légende: + S’ SECTI : COMITIS : BARRI : DVCIS). Hardy, Syllabus (in English) of the Docs. Rel. England & Other Kingdoms 1 (1869): 121, 123, 134. Luard, Annales Monastici 4 (Rolls Ser. 36) (1869): 513 (Annals of Worcester sub A.D. 1293 — “Duodecimo kal. Octobris [20 Sept.] apud Bristolliam Edwardus rex Henrico comiti de Barres Elianoram filiam suam primogenitam dederat in uxorem”). Wright, Feudal Manuals of English Hist. (1872). Jacob Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Sainte-Hoïlde (1882): 15–18 (charter of Henri, Count of Bar dated 1300; charter names his wife, Eleanor, daughter of the King of England [Alyenor, fille le roy d’Engleterre]), 18–19 (charter of Henri, Count of Bar dated 1300), 37–38 (charter of Henri, Count of Bar dated 1297). Genealogist n.s. 5 (1889): 144. Stevenson, Rental of all the Houses in Gloucester, A.D. 1455 (1890): 122 (ped. in Hist. of the Kings of England dated c.1470). C.C.R. 1296–1302 (1906): 605 ([Henri] Count of Bar styled “the king’s son”). Lane, Royal Daughters of England 1 (1910): 172–179. Wall, Handbook of the Maude Roll (1919) unpaginated (ped. dated c.1461–85: “Eleonora comitissa de Bath [recte Bar]”). Moor, Knights of Edward I 1 (H.S.P. 80) (1929): 40 (biog. of Sr Henry de Bar, Count of Bar). Jour. British Arch. Assoc. 3rd Ser. 16 (1953): 25–40. Powicke, The 13th Cent. (1962): 257–258, 263–264. Mediæval Studies 46 (1984): 245–265. Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln n.s. 1(2) (1999): 227 (sub Bar); 2 (1984): 70 (sub Aragón), 84 (sub England). Leese, Blood Royal (1996): 94–96. Brault, Rolls of Arms Edward I 2 (1997): 153 (arms of Henri III, Count of Bar: Azure crusily and two sea-perch addorsed or, a label gules). Van Kerrebrouck, Les Capétians 987–1328 (2000): 586–587, 590–591.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Dear Douglas,

Excellent!

It's good to smoke out these fictitious genealogies.

Have you been able to ascertain that this one was propagated by the Tudors
or their minions? For obvious reasons, I would not put it past them.

The invention of a phantom son or daughter seems to be a reliable construct
in many genealogies formulated and propagated by frauds. Daughters
frequently seem to be preferred, as they are often harder to trace, and can
be "explained away" as simply faulty record-keeping by the family.

I'll post another alleged line from Henry III to Henry VII that may be
suspicious.

The fallacious upgrading of Owen Tudor from esquire to knight may indeed be
part of the same pattern.

Since Owen began his career as groom of the household for Katherine of
France and then became her lover and founder of what eventually became a
Royal Line at the Battle of Bosworth Field on 22 Aug 1485, 531 years ago,
perhaps we should cut him some slack and simply say:

Well Done, Owen!

Cheers & Aloha,

D. Spencer Hines

"[If] the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be

led, like sheep to the slaughter."

George Washington - Newburgh Address to Officers of the Continental Army, 15
March 1783, Headquarters, Newburgh, New York, United States of America

"Douglas Richardson" wrote in message
news:ce71894c-109f-4c57...@googlegroups.com...

Sandford, Gen. Hist. of the Kings of England (1677): 139. Rymer, Fodera

1(2) (1816): 798. Archæologia 26 (1836): 338. Palgrave, Antient Kalendars
& Invs. of the Treasury of His Majesty's Exchequer 1 (1836): 140. Hawley,

Royal Fam. of England (1851): 22-23. Sussex Arch. Colls. 6 (1853): 107-128.
Green, Lives of the Princesses of England 2 (1857): 275-317 (pg. 298 Edmund

[of Almain], Earl of Cornwall, styled "cousin" by Eleanor of England in
letter dated 1286/1289). Pubs. Société pour la Recherche et la Conservation
des Monuments Historiques dans le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg 17 (1862): 75
(Henri, Count of Luxembourg styled "cousin" by Henri, Count of Bar in
document dated 1295). Douet d'Arcq, Coll. de Sceaux des Archives de l'Empire

1(1) (1863): 391-392 (seal of Henri III, Count of Bar dated 1299 - Sceau

équestre, aux armes. Légende: SIGILLVM : HERICI : COMITIS : B[AR]RI DVCIS;
Contre-sceau. L'écu de Bar. Légende: + S' SECTI : COMITIS : BARRI : DVCIS).
Hardy, Syllabus (in English) of the Docs. Rel. England & Other Kingdoms 1
(1869): 121, 123, 134. Luard, Annales Monastici 4 (Rolls Ser. 36) (1869):

513 (Annals of Worcester sub A.D. 1293 - "Duodecimo kal. Octobris [20 Sept.]

apud Bristolliam Edwardus rex Henrico comiti de Barres Elianoram filiam suam
primogenitam dederat in uxorem"). Wright, Feudal Manuals of English Hist.

(1872). Jacob Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de Sainte-Hoïlde (1882): 15-18

(charter of Henri, Count of Bar dated 1300; charter names his wife, Eleanor,

daughter of the King of England [Alyenor, fille le roy d'Engleterre]), 18-19
(charter of Henri, Count of Bar dated 1300), 37-38 (charter of Henri, Count

of Bar dated 1297). Genealogist n.s. 5 (1889): 144. Stevenson, Rental of
all the Houses in Gloucester, A.D. 1455 (1890): 122 (ped. in Hist. of the

Kings of England dated c.1470). C.C.R. 1296-1302 (1906): 605 ([Henri] Count

of Bar styled "the king's son"). Lane, Royal Daughters of England 1 (1910):

172-179. Wall, Handbook of the Maude Roll (1919) unpaginated (ped. dated
c.1461-85: "Eleonora comitissa de Bath [recte Bar]"). Moor, Knights of

Edward I 1 (H.S.P. 80) (1929): 40 (biog. of Sr Henry de Bar, Count of Bar).

Jour. British Arch. Assoc. 3rd Ser. 16 (1953): 25-40. Powicke, The 13th
Cent. (1962): 257-258, 263-264. Mediæval Studies 46 (1984): 245-265.

Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln n.s. 1(2) (1999): 227 (sub Bar); 2
(1984): 70 (sub Aragón), 84 (sub England). Leese, Blood Royal (1996):

94-96. Brault, Rolls of Arms Edward I 2 (1997): 153 (arms of Henri III,

Count of Bar: Azure crusily and two sea-perch addorsed or, a label gules).

Van Kerrebrouck, Les Capétians 987-1328 (2000): 586-587, 590-591.

[Peter Stewart via]

On 4/08/2016 5:50 AM, John Higgins via wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 3:50:01 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 8:50:08 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth Hopkins wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmmmm. Very very Interesting. Can't wait to throw that one out next time I get
>>> in a wrangle with some crazed Richardians.
>> You might want to wait before you throw that at a Richardian. Bartrum makes THomas ap Llywelyn son of Llywelyn ap Owain by either Gwanas ferch Tos. ap Robinod, Constable of Llanstephen Castle, or NN, daughter of Robert de Valle of Trefgarn Owain. Indeed, there is a distinct possibility that Eleanor of Bar, wife of Llywelyn, is a fabrication.
>>
>> taf
> FWIW the supposed "Eleanor of Bar" does not appear in the table on the Counts of Bar in Schwennicke's Europäische Stammtafeln, 1.2:227 - or in Bartrum's Welsh Genealogies. Two strikes against her...

Another strike is that she is usually stated to have been born in 1385 -
more than highly prodigious, since her supposed parents did not marry
until September 1293. O what a tangled web we (Tudor heralds?) weave ...

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

Dear Douglas,

As Promised Previously...

Here's another alleged descent from Henry III of England to Henry VII of
England.

With your keen analytic mind, what do you make of this one?

All Best Wishes,

D. Spencer Hines
-------------------------------------

HENRY VII King of England is the 6th great-grandson of HENRY III King of
England

Common Ancestor

* HENRY III King of England
* Comtesse Eleanor Berenger de Provence
|
|
* EDWARD I 'Longshanks' King of England
Eleanor of Castile Countess of Ponthieu
|
|

* EDWARD II of Caernarvon King of England
Princesse Isabella de France
|
|
* EDWARD III King of England
Philippa de Hainault
|
|
* John of Gaunt 1st Duke of Lancaster
Katherine Roet
|
|
* John Beaufort 1st Marquess of Somerset and Dorset
Lady Margaret de Holland Duchess of Clare
|
|
* John Beaufort 1st Duke of Somerset KG
Margaret Beauchamp

|
|
Edmund Tudor 1st Earl of Richmond

* Lady Margaret Beaufort Countess of Richmond and Derby

|
|
* HENRY VII King of England

"[If] the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be
led, like sheep to the slaughter."

George Washington - Newburgh Address to Officers of the Continental Army, 15
March 1783, Headquarters, Newburgh, New York, United States of America

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message news:nnu01m$19q$1...@dont-email.me...

[Elizabeth Hopkins]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 3:31:05 PM UTC-4, Michael OHearn via wrote:

Thanks All.

Since the *bastard Beaufort* line of descent from Edward III is not in question that I know of (nor does anyone much accept the theory that JOG was illegitimate based on the historical evidence) it seems safe to dispense with those 2 subjects in this thread?

I am not aware of Henry VII or his minions or his progeny or their minions wasting time putting forward fake genealogies. At least not in the next couple of generations. If so I will be most anxious to hear who and when. He took the throne by right of conquest which means who he was descended from and how did not matter. His children with Elizabeth of York had her legitimate Plantagenet lines (though how legitimate those are is also up for grabs since many historians think that Richard of Conisburgh was not the son of Edmund of Langley but of John Holland (who was decended from Longshanks too)).

I am curious as to what anyone thinks of this Henry VII line of descent from Longshanks via his great grandmother Margaret Holland

Edward III - Philippa of Hainault
Edward I - Eleanor of Castile
Edmund of Woodstock - Margaret Wake
Thomas Holland - Joan of Kent
Thomas Holland - Alice FitzAlan
Margaret Holland - John Beaufort
John Beaufort - Margaret Beauchamp
Margaret Beaufort - Edmund Tutor
Henry Tutor (Henry VII)

[taf]

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth Hopkins wrote:

> Since the *bastard Beaufort* line of descent from Edward III is not in
> question that I know of (nor does anyone much accept the theory that JOG
> was illegitimate based on the historical evidence) it seems safe to
> dispense with those 2 subjects in this thread?

I just want to reiterate that the idea that John of Gaunt was illegitimate was never a theory. It was first presented as an arbitrary hypothetical example of how a Y-chromosome mismatch could have arisen. This got rephrased and butchered by subsequent journalists until it was presented as if it was an actual scholarly hypothesis, but it was never that.

taf

[Hans Vogels]

Tutor?

;-)


Op donderdag 4 augustus 2016 21:04:35 UTC+2 schreef Elizabeth Hopkins:

[Elizabeth Hopkins]

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 3:34:52 PM UTC-4, Hans Vogels wrote:
> Tutor?
>
> ;-)

Tutor Tudor Whatevah. You get my drift.

[Elizabeth Hopkins]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 3:31:05 PM UTC-4, Michael OHearn via wrote:
> Genealogists have discovered that likely presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton share common descent from Joan of Gaunt and Katherine Swinford.
>
> http://www.infowars.com/trump-hillary-distant-cousins-say-genealogists/
>
> In view of past discussion regard Plantagenet Richard's Y-DNA not matching that of alleged Beaufort Somerset cousins, is the legitimacy question of John of Gaunt still an issue? If the DNA discrepancy arose from the circumstances of John's illegitimate parentage, then we could assume that both Trump and Clinton are of bastardized descent.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone

I was just emailing a friend whose last name is Tutor. Honetly. I was. (-:

[Elizabeth Hopkins]

Yes. I did understand that taf (and have read the article). Unfortunately like a whole lot of other things that JOG was a bastard has spread like a bad virus all over the internet. I do think that he was a bastard. Pretty much. Just not that kind of one. (-:

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

Henry VII used his alleged descent from King Arthur and other Welsh
fantasies as propaganda.
And wasn't the knock on John of Gaunt that he was not born in England? Of
course President Obama lied on his own birth certificate too.
Nancy (the crazed Ricardian)

[Richard Carruthers via]

I know the man is intelligent, but he must have been quite a prodigy
to lie on his own birth certificate!

> -------------------------------
> 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
>

[Peter Stewart via]

Try again a bit more carefully: Edward III was a grandson of Edward I,
not his father - and Edmund of Woodstock's mother was not Eleanor of
Castile but Margaret of France.

Peter Stewart

[Bronwen Edwards]

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 5:00:45 PM UTC-7, Nancy Piccirilli via wrote:
Of
> course President Obama lied on his own birth certificate too.
> Nancy (the crazed Ricardian)

People still believe that? Despite being proven false? Don't bother some folks with reality....I'd like to see the baby who can alter its own birth certificate. But this is OT.

[Elizabeth Hopkins]

Sorry. Thanks much for the corrections. Clearly I was a few bricks shy a load yesterday. Never post pain meds. But since you made the corrections Peter Stewart, except for Henry III and Eleanor of Provence being Longshank's parents (which truly I did know) and his second wife being Edmund of Woodstock's mother (which I also knew) does this descent for Henry Tudor look legit?

[Elizabeth Hopkins]

How nice to meet a crazed Ricardian and birther combo Nancy. The two seem to fit nicely together somehow 😉.

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

O Lord I am not a birther! I was trying to be sarcastic. I revere our
president.
The Crazed Ricardian

[mqs...@gmail.com]

You know, the color of The Donald's hair really shows that if accurate, the long form of his birth certificate (that form filled by a medical practitioner) should have an Orangutan as his father. :)

I think those portions of the Dred Scott law that still are in force, prohibit children of zoo animals to have the citizenship, even if they may have been born in US soil (the Orangutan is said to have resided in the New York zoo, in itself a place on US soil).
[I heard that merely the colored human being part of Dred Scott was overruled and enjoined, but the animal parentage part is still in force, isn't it]

The next couple of months, we could see another birtherist argument....

[taf]

On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 10:02:07 AM UTC-7, mqs...@gmail.com wrote:

> The next couple of months, we could see another birtherist argument....

But let's not talk about it here.

taf

[wjhonson]

There are many problems with this geni entry
On a few pages they are conflating two different people of similar names as the same person.

The biggest issue is which particular line are they claiming has the royal descent specifically? Once you get back beyond the first ten generations there are several possibilities. I might be able to discredit each one, but I'd need to know which one to look at.