Was Agnes Blewitt a Mistress of Henry VIII?

J2a1a: Was identified by the DNA testing group as originating in Central Spain. The second wife of John of Gaunt is Constance of Castile and mother of John Of Lancaster. That line informs Margaret Beaufort's Bloodline imparting the X of her Grandmother to the Tudor line at Henry VII. If that's not correct please reconfirm the sequence as I believe that my sisters results would then become part of the CHALFANTE twins born 1541, father unknown. DCR 1948

A discussion about the speculative genetic ancestry of Constance of Castile, the Beauforts, and your Chalafant grandmother is off topic in this discussion about Agnes Blewett and the Edwardes family.

I moved your question here:
http://www.geni.com/discussions/131814?msg=937560

it cant be much of a rumor because I have not been told i was wrong. I have sent my brothers Ydna results to the Society of Genealogists. Richard was henry sons dna shows Henry's line are a R1b1a2 as is my brothers fathers.

If I was wrong they would have sent me a letter informing me my lines are incorrect.

Angela, do you have a brother who is a male line descendant of Rev. Richard Edwardes?

Well, now I understand you comment to me on another thread Justin: I did not see Ms. Carnes comment until just now. Today is Wed, May 7, and I did not know of her statement. The R1b1a2 results would indeed change the landscape of my entire search if it proves that her Brother's DNA is a father to son relationship from Henry Tudor VIII to her brother with no breaks. If that is the case, I would pack my bags and leave the field of this discussion, since a definitive answer on BLOOD DNA would finally be forthcomming. DCR 1948

R1b1a2 groups usually require deep-testing (as many markers as possible) to differentiate them - it's THE commonest group in Western Europe (including the British Isles and, by extension, America, Australia, South Africa, etc.). In some places it's so common that 4 out of 5, or even 9 out of 10, men picked off the street absolutely at random will all belong to it.

Wales is close to the "9 out of 10" mark.

That's why, when dealing with the R1bs, and especially R1b1a2 (or whatever they're calling it now - it's consistently "R-M269"), you need to go for as many markers as you can afford, so you can find the specific sub-sub-subclade that sorts your ancestors out from the crowd.

(This is a problem I do *not* have - we got a wild card.)

If I asserted for all time that Henry Tudor is I-1 that would be challenged instantly! The person on the other thread makes such an assertion for all time as R1b1a.

It's clear to me that we might have a news event here if the Brother is unbroken Father to son from Dr. Richard Edwardes son of Agness Blewit to the present day. What is problem with asking Justin? DCR

Maven, lucky you ;)

My Swanströms are R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b2. Who can remember something like that!? Easier to just say R-Z326.

The Tudor line in the Edwards project is R1b1a2a1a1b. Not quite as hard, but still easier to remember R-P312.

No chance that my Swanströms are crypto-Tudors. It's a parallel line ;)

Nice interesting article here: http://www.surnamedna.com/?articles=y-dna-of-the-british-monarchy

Notice the only ones that have been nailed down are the Mountbattens (incompletely), Windsors and Stuarts. (And they're all R1b variants.)

Thanks for bringing that article back into the discussion, Maven. We've had it before but it's been a very long time. I think it's a good reminder about what we know and what we don't know.

I see what you mean, Justin. My male-line ancestors belonged to one of the oddball low-frequency groups (J2a1e aka J-M319+).

My partner is an oddball too: I2b1 (I-M223). New England researchers of the ancestors of William Ross Sr of Westerly, RI, rejoice. :-D

Maven - So we can now suggest on that profile that is it less likely he was from Wales, am I right? As the I groupings are rare in Wales?

Hey now, if he was "more likely" Scots or North England, I am "more likely" related. Cool.

I should be clearer I'm referring to William Ross, 1st arriver to America, "said to have been" from Wales.

The distribution on that one is kind of funky, with "hot spots" in central Germany and the nearby Lowlands (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, et al - the original "historical" invaders), but also upper eastern Sweden (this is recent news) and found above "noise level" across southern England and south Wales, along the Danelaw, and in Scotland.

When you sort out the subclades (I don't think partner was deep-tested to that level but will check), one (I-M284+) is found almost exclusively in Britain (England/Wales/Scotland - Picts/Brythons???), one (I-L701+) is found at low levels everywhere *but* Scandinavia and Scotland (and hardly there at all), one (I-Z161+) with a major "hot spot" in and around Denmark and traces everywhere the Danes are known to have gone (the Danelaw in England and lower Scotland, Normandy, Sicily, Kievan Rus', etc.), and one (I-L1229+) that's more specifically out of Saxony and found in areas with known Saxon/Frankish influence.

This doesn't rule out Wales completely, but ups the possibility of a Scottish connection.

I see that someone has changed the parents of Rev. Richard Edwardes. This might be a good time to remind everyone that Geni is collaborative. Changing relationships on Geni without a discussion when you know there is disagreement is one of the rudest things you can do. If you change them in the middle of a discussion (like this one) about whether the information is correct, you risk being reported for vandalism.

Getting back to our original topic. I've been doing some research into the question of Agnes Blewitt's relationship with Henry VIII.

Experts agree there is no evidence Agnes was ever at Court. Edwards genealogists don't argue. Instead, they say Henry VIII had a hunting lodge at Huntworth in Somerset, near where Agnes lived. Agnes' son Richard Edwardes was born at North Petherton, two miles away. Experts say there is no evidence Agnes ever met Henry VIII, but the genealogists say they could have met.

I thought it would be interesting to look for that hunting lodge. A quick search shows King John's Hunting Lodge at Axbridge, 15 miles away. I'm skeptical about that one, because it doesn't seem to have been a royal lodge and the name dates only to 1915.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_John's_Hunting_Lodge,_Axbridge

North Petherton was a Royal Forest, so there should have been a hunting lodge there at some point, in Saxon times at least, if not in the 15th century. The name Huntworth seems like a promising lead for its location.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Petherton

So, I looked at the Victoria County History, a very comprehensive source for local history. No mention of a royal hunting lodge at North Petherton, at Huntworth, or anywhere else in the area. In fact, Huntworth was not in royal hands even as early as 1066. In the time of Henry VIII it was held by the Popham family. If there was a royal lodge there it is very surprising the Victoria County History doesn't even mention it. (Some nice information about the Bluet family at North Petherton, though.)

North Petherton: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=18684
North Petherton Hundred: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=18631&strquery=
North Petherton Manors and Other Estates: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=18686&strquery=

Not holding much hope of finding a royal hunting lodge at Huntworth, I turned to Henry VIII's movements about the time Richard Edwardes was conceived.

I didn't have much hope of finding anything. Royal movements can be hard to trace. However, I lucked out on this one.

In Alison Weir's book Mary Boleyn: The Mistress of Kings she actually mentions this problem: "Henry VIII only ever visited the West County [Somerset and surrounding counties] in 1535".

http://books.google.com/books?id=VLPcySmwMOQC&pg=PA168&lpg=...

Richard Edwardes was born in 1525 (according to Geni) or about 1523-1525 (according to other sources). He was born at North Petherton to a mother whose family held that manor. There is no evidence she was ever at the Court of Henry VIII. And Henry VIII himself only visited the area 10 years after Richard Edwardes was born.

I'm still exploring. I haven't made a final judgment but it doesn't look good. It seems likely the story that Richard Edwardes was a son of Henry VIII was never more than this -- that Edwardes was born near a royal forest during the reign of Henry VIII.

We have a new project for the illegitimate children of Henry VIII:

http://www.geni.com/projects/Claimed-As-Illegitimate-Children-of-He...

Here's to many more discussions!

The John Phillips DNA results have been upgraded from 12/12 match to 23/25 fyi. The non-paternal event you uncovered Justin, is at Sir John Perrott's son John 1565, mother unknown, who aparantly is disinherited somtime after his stay at Grey's INN 1583 it seems: There must be a paper trail for these actions, I'm looking in London presently.
http://www.geni.com/path/Dale+C+Rice+is+related+to+Maredudd+ou+ap+B...

I suppose this is just coincidental, but the names are all here in Wales it seems to me at least that the co-mingle of two Welch lines is more likely than not. My Ancestory is linked to all the Kings of England at least here on GENI if not in the reality of the testimony of 1978. DCR 1948

Dyfnwal ap Einudd

http://www.geni.com/path/John+ap+Rice+is+related+to+Dinawal+Ap+Tudw...

This shows the Pathway rather than just a name as indicated above. Also, just fyi, the brother James Perrott, son of Sybil Jones & Sir John Perrott 1528 was a well known PURITAN in Havorford WEST who's daughter Cecilia married off and the remainer estated inherited by a distant cousin Herbert Perrott. The Puritan connection to this family would important to the story of how John Rice 1630 would be accepted if indeed his father is the John Perratt 1565 erstwile brother of James Perrott heir of Sir John in my view. DCR

Dale, please don't misrepresent my information. I did not uncover a non-paternal event. That is your interpretation.

The revision of the Geni file of Sir John Perrott & Sybile Jones 1/2 brother and sister due to the Death of Sir Thomas Perrott and subsequent relationship of these two people yielding a son James Perrott and possibly a son John Perrott 1565 is not news. Your assignment to the family of Sir Rhys ap Thomas is news for the assignment was done unilaterally? Where is the collaboration in that? I thought that was odd then and still do. Is there a birth record which shows Sybile to be a Rhys, then a Jones then subsequently the paramour of Sir John Perrott?

It's very unerving to see files disconnected from what persons put up as their best understanding and then subsequently changed or disconnected as has been my experience. You made the change, so now that you brought it up....why? and where's the record that shows it to be a change based in fact, rather than personal opinion? Just wondering?

Dale, the source for Sybil's parents is in the profile. It was someone's guess, perhaps yours, that she was daughter of a different Jones. You pointed out the extraordinary unlikelihood based on surrounding relationships. I did some research, discovered the error, and corrected it. What could be more collaborative than that?

I do not understand yet to whom in the Rhys family she is a daughter. To whom was she born? DCR

I think part of the reason you're struggling with this might be the idea that there is a Rhys family. In this case, Rhys is her father's given name. She is Sybil verch Rhys Jones. In other words, she is the daughter of a man named Rhys Jones.

The surname Jones probably doesn't go back very far. Jones (or Johns) is just an English form for the Welsh name ap John (son of John). Rhys is probably the son or grandson of a man named John, and took his surname Jones from that man.

As far as I know this Rhys Jones is still unidentified. However, we know where he lived so he might be in Peter Bartram's Welsh Genealogies.

Thankyou. DCR

Justin: According to the thrust of your comments above and elsewhere you seem to believe that Queen Elizabeth I had no children? Correct? How did a sexually active female of the era avoid having the natural outcome of sexual intercourse, i.e. childbirth? Geni file on Sir Frances Bacon indicates that he was her natural child placed with Catherine Cooke Bacon? I don't see why the Queen could not have had other children who were placed in families (unknown) as well. Is this file on Sir Frances Correct? DCR

Dale, there is no proof that Elizabeth I was sexually active or that she had any children. During her lifetime she was called "The Virgin Queen". Virginia was named for her. She famously led the princes of Europe in an elaborate dance of pretending to consider their marriage proposals, but never accepted any of them. Many historians believe she might have been scarred psychologically by the fates of her father's wives. Others believe she learned from her sister Mary's unfortunate marriage.

The idea that Elizabeth was the mother of Sir Francis Bacon belongs to the field of pseudo-history, like the idea that Bacon was the author of Shakespeare's plays. In other words, some people believe it and think they have good arguments, but they don't have direct evidence and experts disagree.

It's fun to think about things like this, but in the end it's just speculation.

I brought it up considering my experience here and the fact that the Geni folder includes this "Gossip" as proved somehow escaped everyon's attention. Please check on Sir Frances Bacon here on GENI and you'll see what I mean.

Im glad you think that a Virgin Queen is not a sideways wink to the rest of us....Her favorite: Sir Robert (you know whom) had his apartments in the palace next to hers according to the court records I've been reading.

There seems to be no evidence for the various children born by the behavior of Henry VIII either, but we do have all his children running about history. I just wondered what your thoughts on real behaviors of healthy persons would exclude a happy physical life?