Living descendants of Edward IV?

Dale,

Before we close the discussion I'd like to run through one very simple explanation of one (just one) of the problems with your DNA analysis of these families.

You give us the values for the first 25 markers for a bunch of men you think are all closely related. One problem we've talked about before is that most of these men have had 37-marker tests, so comparing the results for only 25 amounts to stacking the deck.

Also, your "correction for genetic drift" is so generous that you would be related to thousands of families, not just these few.

However, the real problem is that you haven't taken into account the subgroups of the I1 haplogroup. Some of these men belong to "cousin" groups that split off thousands of years ago. There is no chance that members of different subgroups can be related through the male line as recently as you think.

I had problems finding all the men you mention. Some of them seem to have serious "typos" in their marker values. At least, the numbers you give don't match the numbers I find for anyone of that name in the DNA projects.

Leaving those aside, here is some of what I'm seeing.

You belong to haplogroup I1. That's a projection, not a confirmed test. You could belong to one of the subgroups of I1 but you won't know that without more testing.

However, some of the men you name have been tested for subgroups. Here are the different subgroups for some of them.

Group 1 (I1a1b) - This group includes Edmund Rice, Balderich le Teuton, and the Norwegian Tudor.

Group 2 (I1a2a) - This group includes Lawrence Parrott and Webster (adopted).

Group 3 (I1a2b) - This group includes Scarfone.

As I said, you could theoretically belong to any of these three groups -- but you can't belong to all of them. They different groups are very distant cousins with a common ancestor thousands of years ago.

I'm not an I1 expert, but my first guess would be that you might belong to a fourth group -- I1a3 -- based on you having DYS456=14.

If you are serious about using DNA to sort out your puzzle, you should make it a priority to join the Haplogroup I DNA Project. The admins will put you in a group where it's clear what test you would need to further clarify your ancestry.

http://www.geni.com/path/Ian-Winton+is+related+to+Maurice-Berkeley?...

http://www.geni.com/path/Ian-Winton+is+related+to+Ernest-E-Stevens-...

Customer Service

The closing of this discussion and the removal of Dale from this website is wayyyyyyyyy over due.

Just ask anyone . . .

Dale, stop.

In the entire three years of this argument I don't remember anyone saying you couldn't be related to Henry VIII. Half of Geni is related to him, and the other half just don't know it yet.

Finding that you have an uncle by marriage who is descended from a sister of one of Henry VIII's wives is just about as distant and tenuous as it gets. Not even close to being a blood relative.

Justin: On anohter topic of interest to the WORLD it seems. The one Tudor claims Henry V as most distant relative. I submit the article below casting doubt on the entire Tudor line and HenryIV Bolingbroke line.

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-richard-iii-dna-study-uncovers-i...

Which is what an I-1 Haplogroup for Tudor would support. The nay sayers of the present day are going against the people and era of the times when Sir John Perrott was indeed treated like the kings Bastard son. I have printouts showing his participation with Eliz. I in the festivities prior to her coronation, his canopy holding, his seating, everyinghing about him at the time including the lands HEnry VIII gave him starting at age 14.

Enjoy the read.
http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-richard-iii-dna-study-uncovers-i...

Dale, you have been reading with an absolute lack of comprehension, and indeed MIScomprehension, to try to force-fit the facts (with a jackhammer) into your theory.

The Tuter man is claiming a "Henry V. Tuter" (with the V. standing for Vincent or Victor or some other name that starts with V), NOT King Henry V Plantagenet. *This apparently cannot be emphasized enough - the Plantagenets WERE NOT Tudors, and the Tudors WERE NOT Plantagenet.*

Richard III was haplotype G, probably G2a (they aren't sure of the exact subgroup). This is news because the haplotype is RARE. (And if it proves to *be* the Plantagenet type, the Merovingianists will be over the moon!)

The Beaufort/Somerset descendants were four R1b to one I1 - and the latter has been excluded from further study on the grounds that it represents a *recent* (within the past 4 generations) Non-Paternal Event. (In plain words, he's not only not a Tudor, he's not a Beaufort-Somerset either. AND he can't be Plantagenet, because there were no proven male-line Plantagenets left as recently as the NPE must have occurred.)

Kings and queens buttered up a lot of people who were NOT royal relatives, but had the potential either to be useful or to cause them a lot of trouble. (Sir John Perrott, with his peppery personality, *was* useful and *could* have caused trouble if he wanted to. He was well worth buttering up, until his usefulness ended.)

The Queen had little freedom in choosing her retainers - there was a lot of precedence and Realpolitik involved, and she couldn't afford to offend anybody. Perrot may have been hand-picked because he had demonstrated considerable loyalty to her sister and she wanted him to have the same loyalty to her.

Detailed accounts of the ceremonies can be found here http://www.historytoday.com/al-rowse/coronation-queen-elizabeth and here (this is a reproduction of a contemporary account, and does not quite agree with the previous) https://archive.org/stream/progressesandpu01nichgoog#page/n104/mode...

Dale, this is another place where you need to do some basic research before jumping to conclusions. The link you posted can say Richard III's DNA cast doubt on the Tudor claim to the throne only because they derived their claim through Margaret Beaufort. It has nothing to do with the Tudor haplogroup.

I did my research and Sir John Perrott 1528 part in the Pagent of Truth before her coronation hands off the" Book of Truth from a child narrator to personally deliver the allegorical TRUTH to the Queen" See last line bottom of Page 50 aboe archive.org etc 104/mode.

He was seated in the family section at her coronation. He was introduced to Henry VIII at age 14 when he first came to court and began receiving gifts of land and property from the King....He remained at court for some period before assuming duties in the government. He was later charged by his 1/2 sister to defend the Fleet against the Spanish Armada. He was recognized I believe for using the FIRE ships that caught the Spanish off gurard. You can't sweep him under the rug. Sorry.

Dale, it's interesting chatter but no different than a hundred other Tudor courtiers.

I liked professor swanstorm's dna lecture but can we close this and say class dismissed so i can go home for the weekend now?

Darn. I was hoping to do a nice round of lessons about Tudor allegory.

I am not a big fan of the tudors but go right ahead and enlighten me some more while I get the salad ready for dinner here..

Just didn't want to have to think about bloddy messy beheadings and Henry V, king of England right before supper...

According to official reports, the canopy over Elizabeth I was, as was customary, held up by something like 32 personages. (This has not been done since the coronation of George IV.)

I haven't been able to find an exact list of who the holders were on this occasion, but they were generally the "Barons" of the Cinque Ports (Members of the House of Commons representing the Cinque Ports of Hastings, New Romney, Hythe, Dover and Sandwich), including the Lord Warden.

It just so happens that at Elizabeth's coronation the office of Lord Warden was vacant - the previous holder, Sir Thomas Cheney, had died in mid-December, and his successor had not yet been installed (perhaps not even chosen). Sir Thomas had been Sir John Perrott's father-in-law (but Sir John's wife had died several years earlier). Was Sir John selected as a "placeholder"?

Note: the procession with canopy, with the tableaux and all, was held the day *before* her official coronation - it wasn't part of the ceremony per se. Probably it was just coincidence that Sir John happened to be in the most convenient position to hand off the Bible. (It was in English, which was considerably more significant to the populace than who exactly, other than the Queen, handled it.)

oh Private User speaking of Henry V, king of England i just happened to look at his followers list by accident and see that Elizabeth Woodville, Queen Consort of England and Henry VIII, King of England were following him.. What is up with that? wondering if we have claimed historial problem here?

We may have some Claimed Historical Profiles running around....

I don't know if that's correct but I didn't want to mess it up if was or was not...

He is my 16th great grandfather on my maternal side.

He's my 15th great grandfather on my paternal side.

I have a print out or reference in my notes that says he was part of the Canopy holders. Nothing about the number however. His mother, Mary Berkley was the daughter of a Courtier Maurice Berkley to Henry VII which is how Henry VIII became aware of her prior to becoming King. Perfect opportunity to exercise the Princely admiration while at Windsor, out of public view. In any event. We have lots of Tudor DNA to explore in the 101 DNA test of a new Edwardes Down line son of sons. If he's I-1 you'll hear me crow...If not, I'll report it anyway.

The Edwardes link is almost impossible. We've been through that at great length. And we already have an R1b Edwardes claim. Are you really going to try dragging us through that again??

Better if you would spend the 90 seconds to join the I1 project and start working with fact. It's odd you would spend three years and hundreds of hours spinning stories without ever taking the first, very basic step to prove something.

I'll join I-1 but no one was overly excited about my joining until you brought it up last week. The Edwardes issue is not settled. It was never established that the good Dutchess of Aquataine's Brother was a father to son with no breaks...We only had her word which i challenged and no one else did....So I let it drop without an answer.

Enter a New Edwardes Candidate who says he's a direct father to son recipient of DNA so I have to look at his information. He contacted me on his own, and I'll report the results of his 101 marker test. Nothing to worry about Justin. I can still report the truth of what I've uncovered in a manner that leaves it to the reader. Yes, I'll put in the affirmations but I'll also advise that there is significant doubt at higher levels of sensitivity...not knowing how the Perrott's actually relate at this point....should actually be a clue to the ultimate truth of this Aural history.

I take the role of Devil's advocate because it's the only way to extract information without having to re-invent the wheel at every question. it's been a very productive method of discovery. I didn't say you all agreed with the results, I said it was productive. I can walk away with a 65% likeley to 35% not likely and still feel good about the effort. it's not black and white as you paint it because the unknowns are still too numerous and the Relationships are hard to grasp from this distance in time.

Justin said, and it's worth repeating as many times as is necessary to make the point, "It's odd you would spend three years and hundreds of hours spinning stories without ever taking the first, very basic step to prove something".

Dale. it certainly is odd that you would spend three years and hundreds of hours spinning stories without ever taking the first, very basic step to prove something.

Dale, you're certainly right that no one was particularly concerned about the way you're using DNA until a few weeks ago. I noticed a few contradictions in your claims and started investigating. I gave you some quiet hints but you ignored them. Then I started being more direct, but you went into your default mode of inventing new rules for DNA.

I don't blame you for not joining the I1 project before anyone mentioned it. I should have realized you don't know enough to do that on your own. But, it's hard to understand why you've been stalling since then.

I could be wrong, but I get the impression you're afraid to let the I1 experts look at your results.

Dale, you are right about another thing -- none of these DNA lines are absolute proofs of anything. Most of them aren't even triangulated, so they rest on the claim of one person to have accurately traced his male line.

We all know people can be wrong about their ancestry, and we all know there could have been NPEs.

However, you're trying to take this reasonable doubt and turn it into something else. Your claims come down to the idea that a dozen of people are wrong about a dozen lines that are proven by paper trails. And, your "proof" is that your line, which has no paper trail, is the right one.

So, everyone is wrong except you?

With respect to the Edwardes line specifically, I can understand that you're still miffed that an Edwardes descendant on Geni didn't respond to your strident demand that she prove her claim. If you remember, you were angry because her brother tested as R1b so you would not accept her claim.

But all of that misses the bigger point. There was no claim that Richard Edwardes was an illegitimate son of Henry VIII until the 20th century. No one but you has claimed Richard's mother Agnes Blewitt was at court. Richard is supposed to have been conceived at a hunting lodge in Somerset, but Henry VIII didn't visit that part of the country until after Richard Edwardes was born.

Bottom line, the Edwardes descent from Henry VIII is impossible. Even if you match an Edwardes descendant exactly, all you will have done is provide yet another way to disprove your theory.

Given recent disputes I'd like to remind everyone to please contain these discussions to evidence and genealogy, and steer away from ad-hominem attacks. We'll have to close the discussion if it devolves into personal attacks.

Dale, it seems evident you are pushing an agenda that does not fit well with even the information you've brought to the table. I wish you all the best in your endeavor but please accept the situation that other genealogists here do not feel your evidence supports your claim.

So after three years you still don't understand this simple idea. I didn't know the story....that's why I was trying to figure it out here Benjamin. With all due respect....I will abosolutely conform the the DNA results. But the how we got here was a joint effort...and no one was dragged here...you came because you wanted to discuss.

That's how I view this: OPEN Discussion time. The disputes are about the personal attacks Mr. Stangel. They are uncalled for and I simply respond to them, but I usually take the blame for the acts of others which seems very odd for and adult conversational group.

As to Edwardes: There are more places for Agness Bluett to hang out than her home. The Windsor Castle grounds are expansive and you certainly can not tell me that YOU have all seeing powers of God Justin....I just don't believe you even if others here do.

Dale, I will respond when you remove the personal attack and focus on the genealogy.

There is no open discussion when one person carries and uses a spiked bludgeon, while everyone else is trying to use logic and paper sources.