British Royal Family Genealogy

[Ish]

The line(s) through which William is descended from the Arundels is different from the lines through which he's descended from the Northumberlands. John FitzAlan, 13th Earl of Arundel's wife was Eleanor Berkeley, and they had a son, William FitzAlan, 16th Earl of Arundel, through whom William descends. Eleanor Berkeley later married Richard Poynings, Lord Poynings, and had a daughter, Eleanor Poynings, who married Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland, through whom William also descends.

There are many lines to William from the Arundels (through both Elizabeth II and Prince Philip), but the one from the 13th Earl is this:

- Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
- Charles, Prince of Wales
- Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
- Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
- Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
- Claude Bowes-Lyon, 13th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
- Thomas George Lyon-Bowes, Lord Glamis
- Thomas Lyon-Bowes, 11th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
- John Bowes, 9th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
- Thomas Lyon, 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
- Elizabeth Stanhope
- Philip Stanhope, 2nd Earl of Chesterfield
- Henry Stanhope, Lord Stanhop
- Catherine Hastings
- Francis Hastings, Lord Hastings
- George Hastings, 4th Earl of Huntingdon
- Catherine Pole
- Jane Neville
- Joan FitzAlan
- Thomas FitzAlan, 17th Earl of Arundel
- William FitzAlan, 16th Earl of Arundel
- John FitzAlan, 13th Earl of Arundel

There are also several lines through which he's descended from the Dukes of Norfolk. The most recent one is:

- Prince George of Cambridge
- Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
- Charles, Prince of Wales
- Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
- Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
- Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck
- Reverend Charles Cavendish-Bentinck
- Lord Charles Cavendish-Bentinck
- Dorothy Cavendish
- William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire
- William Cavendish, 3rd Duke of Devonshire
- William Cavendish, 2nd Duke of Devonshire
- William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire
- Elizabeth Cecil
- Catherine Howard
- Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk
- Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk

Through his mother, William is the current Duke of Northumberland's 12th cousin twice removed. He and George Percy, the Duke's eldest son, are 13th cousins, once removed.

The current Duke of Norfolk (the 18th), who is also the 36th Earl of Arundel, has a common ancestor with William in the 4th Duke of Norfolk. Through him they are 14th cousins, once removed; the Duke and Charles are 14th cousins, and William and the Duke's eldest son, Henry Fitzalan-Howard, Earl of Arundel, are 15th cousins.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

Hi Ish,

Thanks for clearing all that up for me. It really helped. I had all the facts set in stone, I just didn't know how to dissect everything to come to a consensus on what I was looking for.

There is another genealogy thread that I have under the Queen. Would you like to check it out for me?

 

[Ish]

Not a problem. My current side project is tracing the ancestors of the Cambridges, which is why I was able to provide answers. There are other ways that William may be descended from the Northumberlands and Norfolks (and certainly the Arundels; one of the Arundels is an ancestor to George I, and HM and the DoE both descend from him in several lines), but my tree isn't so well done yet that the various duplicate individuals are linked.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

About the thread, I forgot that you've already commented on it, when I asked you. Sorry about that hun...
Anyway, it's here, as you know already.
I put in more names I remembered. Royalty and non-royalty.

I haven't done much on Catherine's side yet, but I've got William's side pretty much worked out. I'm just going over it all again and then I'll be turning more to Catherine. Once I'm happy with it all I'll probably post a link to it in the British genealogy thread.

Catherine's not descended from George Washington, but they do allegedly have a common ancestor in Sir William Gascoigne and his wife, Lady Margaret Percy. Here's an article on it from the DM: Kate Middleton and Ellen DeGeneres are cousins claims new research | Mail Online

Thanks hun. They also say that Beyonce & her royal baby are 23rd cousins of the Cambridges.

Also--George Washington and Elizabeth II, I read a couple months ago, are 6th cousins (I forget the number of times removed they are, though).

"They"=An E! News special about William & Kate I saw last week.

Couldn't pat my reply here. I had to take 2 screenshots of everything.
Oh... I could just put it in text.

Updates are italicized.

Well, here it is. My new updates:

(About HM & Grace's kinship) They're 43rd cousins. I forget the # of times removed they are...

(About Debo Mitford being possibly related to HM) I read in a certain Elizabeth II thread that HMQEII almost married Debo's-brother in-law, the ex-Duke of Devonshire/Marquess of Hartington.

 

[NGalitzine]

I have heard that Catherine, thus, is descended from George Washington--I know for a fact that she is this related to one of my favorite actresses of all time. I love that
.

i

No one is a descendent of George Washington, at least not legitmately, as he had no children from his marriage and I have never read of him having any illegitimate descendents either.

 

[Grandma828]

If you are interested in having your genealogy records being easy to read and understand, I would suggest you use a top notch genealogy program. It will do all the cross links for you. There is also space for proof documents. birth, marriage and death records. I use the Mormon one called PAF, but there are other good ones. I would very much like to see all the data in that format.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

Are the BRF related to the following?

The Queen Mother does have Iranian/Persian ancestry.
I was wondering if any other members have some.

And if any are related to these people:

--Person Number 1

--Person Number 2

--Person Number 3

I have heard that "anyone with even the slightest English ancestry" is automatically related to Edward III.


1) Are they related to them?

And:

2) Is that true?

Any users here into genealogy.. I'd appreciate your expertise on this.

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^^
About 30% of English people can claim descent from Edward III.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

Interesting. But, I've done the math. I see that the Queen Mother would have to trace her ancestry back 16 generations to Edward (he is the present Queen's 17th great-grandfather).

I'll write her descent back for each generation, representing the amount of ancestors in numerical form:

--2
--4
--8
--16
--32
--64
--128
--256
--512
--1,024
--2,048
--4,096
--8,192
--16,384
--32,768
--65,536

So apparently, because Edward III is the Queen Mother's ancestor... She had 65,536 ancestors who lived during the 14th-15th centuries...
How 30% of people living today in the modern UK can claim descent from him? I'm baffled. How do the genealogists know that? I feel like they're the ones who revealed that percentage.

 

[Ish]

http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/EdwardIIIDescent.php

If you're mathematically inclined you might find the argument here interesting. Or not. I'm not overly mathematically inclined and found the numbers to be a bit too much.

 

[Ish]

Another link for the math: http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/1714-descendants-of-edward-iii/

Basically the estimate is that Edward III has over 100 million living descendants. That works out to more than twice the population of England; so if you are of English descent you are likely a descendant of Edward III through some line, particularly if you or your family lives in (or recently came from) England.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

Hi Ish,

Well, I don't have family from England that I know of, at least. But my father was from Bermuda.
I've always wondered that, since Elizabeth I had an armada travel there--but they arrived at Bermuda on accident--if any of the British royals or monarchs have descendants on the island today.
The numbers won't be too much for me. I'm excellent at mental math too.

 

[Ish]

If you are interested in having your genealogy records being easy to read and understand, I would suggest you use a top notch genealogy program. It will do all the cross links for you. There is also space for proof documents. birth, marriage and death records. I use the Mormon one called PAF, but there are other good ones. I would very much like to see all the data in that format.

There are a lot of good ones out there, I agree.

Personally right now I'm preferring to use good old Microsoft Excel though. It's more work, perhaps, but I like the fact that I'm in control of it all.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

No one is a descendent of George Washington, at least not legitmately, as he had no children from his marriage and I have never read of him having any illegitimate descendents either.

Descended meant related in that sentence. I just mixed up related & descended. I know he had no children. I think his older half brother Lawrence did have some though..

If you are interested in having your genealogy records being easy to read and understand, I would suggest you use a top notch genealogy program. It will do all the cross links for you. There is also space for proof documents. birth, marriage and death records. I use the Mormon one called PAF, but there are other good ones. I would very much like to see all the data in that format.

Did you direct this at Ish or myself?
But anyhow, I have no money. I'd want software that is free to use.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

i

No one is a descendent of George Washington, at least not legitmately, as he had no children from his marriage and I have never read of him having any illegitimate descendents either.

Nope, George Washington had no children. I am descended from his sister, Betty, and her husband, Fielding Lewis.

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

That's very interesting I wonder if his half-brother Lawrence has any descendants, maybe famous ones too!

 

[Osipi]

That's very interesting I wonder if his half-brother Lawrence has any descendants, maybe famous ones too!

George's youngest brother Charles had four children though.

 

[Ish]

Wow!
Now, that is thorough research.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvDaHlZF2HfQdHhuUnBYbzJDQU5scTlBcmhvN2wzNWc#gid=4

Thanks! I used Wikipedia to start then went through it again using the Peerage (then again for Wikipedia). Basically it was go through Wikipedia for all the names, then Peerage to double check the names/get the dates, then Wikipedia again for dates that Peerage didn't have.

I still love how you do your ancestor lines, mine aren't nearly as neat or well put together. The Cambridge and Wives lines look great!

 

[SLV]

Your lines are very systematic and orderly.
I just arrange them in such a way as to get the clearest possible picture. It's quite easy though to forget a step. In your structure that would be obvious immediately.

Hi QueenElizabethfan,
Have you seen this thread:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f96/british-royal-family-genealogy-3292-13.html#post1588662

There are a lot of people (including myself) there working on all kinds of ancestor-lines of the BRF.
I made one today with the link you gave concerning the common ancestry of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

I have Updated my Post I made a few months ago before the birth of Prince George Tracing Queen Elizabeth Bloodline back to the Tudors:

I made a British Royal Family Tree Tracing Queen Elizabeth Ancestry Line back to the Tudors.

1. 14th Great Grandparent King Henry VII 1457-1509 Elizabeth of York 1466-1503

2. 13th Great Grandparents Margaret Tudor 1489-1541 Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus 1489-1557- Margaret Tudor Daughter of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York

3. 12th Great Grandparent Margaret Douglas 1515-1578 Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox 1516-1571

4. 11th Great Grandparents Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley 1545-1567 Mary, Queen of Scots 1489-1541- Henry Stuart Son of Margaret Douglas and Matthew Stewart

5. 10th Great Grandparent King James I 1566-1625 Anne of Denmark 1574-1619- James I Son of Henry and Mary of Scots

6. 9th Great Grandparents Elizabeth Stuart 1596-1662 Frederick V, Elector Palatine 1596-1632- Elizabeth Daughter of James I and Anne of Denmark

7. 8th Great Grandparents Sophia of Hanover 1630-1714 Ernest Augustus 1629-1629- Sophia of Hanover Daughter of Frederick V, Elector and Elizabeth

8. 7th Great Grandparents King George I 1660-1727 Sophia Dorothea of Celle 1666-1726-King George I Son of Sophia of Hanover and Ernest Augustus

9. 6th Great Grandparents King George II 1683-1760 Caroline of Ansbach 1683-1737- George II Son of Gorge ! and Sophia

10. 5th Great Grandparents Frederick, Prince of Wales 1707-1751 Princess Augusta 1719-1772- Frederick Son of George II and Caroline

11. 4th Great Grandparents King George III 1738-1820 Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz 1744-1818- George III Son of Frederick and Augusta


12. 3rd Great Grandparents Prince Edward, Duke of Kent 1767-1820 Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld 1786-1861- Prince Edward Son of George III And Charlotte

13. Great Great Grandparents Queen Victoria 1819-1901 Prince Albert 1819-1861- Victoria Daughter of Edward and Princess Victoria

14. Great Grandparents King Edward VII 1841-1910 Alexandra of Denmark 1844-1925- Edward VII Son of Victoria and Albert

15. Grandparents King George V 1865-1936 Queen Mary of Teck 1867-1953
-George V Son of Edward and Alexandra

16. Parents King George VI 1856-1952 Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother 1900-2002
-George VI Son of George and Mary

Queen Elizabeth II Born 1926 Prince Philip Born 1921
Daughter of King George VI and Elizabeth


Next Generations:
Prince Charles Born 1948 Princess Diana 1961-1997 married 1981-1996
Son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip

Prince Williams Born 1982, Married Kate Middleton Born 1982. Son of Prince Charles and Princess Diana

Prince George Born 2013. Son of Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge (Catherine). Great Grandson of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip.

 

[Grandma828]

Did you direct this at Ish or myself?
But anyhow, I have no money. I'd want software that is free to use.

The Mormon program PAF is free. I just down loaded it from their site on the internet,

I just looked and discovered that the PAF if being discontinued, but there are 3 others listed as free. Look on FAMILYSEARCH.ORG I will have to decide which one I want to use.

 

[crymson77]

The Later Plantagenet Line of Succession and Rightful Heirs

Is the 1st son of the kings 3rd son any higher ranking than the second son of the kings second son? Like which one would become king if no others were left. Are all of the sons of the kings second son higher than any of those of the kings third son?

My questions really pertain to the children of Englands Edward III. If John of Gaunt was older than Edmund of Langley then why do most of the things I've read suggest that Elizabeth of York from Langleys line had more of a claim to the throne than Henry VII who came from Gaunts line. In fact shouldnt Henry VII have been king ahead of Edward IV or V or Richard III???? Or even his mother Margaret Beaufort should have been queen? Wikipedia says Henry VII claimed the throne through rights of conquest and his marriage to Elizabeth of York, but it seems as though it was his by right all along or at least his mothers or his grandfather or great grandfather.

I know at times some children were IIllegitimized and legitimized from the throne but with all of the politics aside wouldnt any of Gaunts kids have more claim to the throne than those of Langley?
.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Is the 1st son of the kings 3rd son any higher ranking than the second son of the kings second son? Like which one would become king if no others were left. Are all of the sons of the kings second son higher than any of those of the kings third son?

The second son of the King's second son would have a better claim to the throne than the 1st son of the King's 3rd son. Like the line of succesion today for instance.

Changing history to fit the example a little here but

We have King Charles on the throne, he has 3 sons William, Henry and George

William dies leaving no heirs which means Henry is next in line.

Henry has two sons (Philip and Peter), his heir (Philip) dies in battle leaving his second son (Peter) as his heir and by connection heir to his grandfathers throne.

George has three sons, Andrew, James and John.

John has to wait for Henry, Peter, George, Andrew and James to die before the throne is his.

I've read suggest that Elizabeth of York from Langleys line had more of a claim to the throne than Henry VII who came from Gaunts line

This might answer this question;

Although Henry was descended from King Edward III, his claim to the throne was weak, due to the clause barring ascension to the throne by any heirs of the legitimized offspring of his great-great-grandparents, John of Gaunt (3rd son of King Edward III) and Katherine Swynford.

In fact shouldnt Henry VII have been king ahead of Edward IV or V or Richard III???? Or even his mother Margaret Beaufort should have been queen?

When talking about the Kings during the War of The Roses, it has little to do with blood lines and more to do with battle. Margaret Beaufort would have never been Queen Regnant.

 

[LauraS3514]

Edward IV (and Elizabeth of York and Richard III) were also descendants of Edward III's SECOND son, Lionel Duke of Clarence, through his only child, his daughter Philippa. She married Edmund Mortimer Earl of March. Their granddaughter and eventual heir Anne Mortimer married into the York family (Langley) and was the grandmother of Edward IV - whose father Richard Duke of York claimed the throne via Philippa of Clarence. Henry VII and his mother Margaret Beaufort were descended from John of Gaunt and his mistress Katheryn Swynford. All the Beaufort children were conceived in double-adultery as both parents were married to other people at the time. After their marriage - Gaunt's third - the Beauforts were made legitimate EXCEPT for purposes of inheriting the crown - they were specifically excluded from it. The senior legitimate Lancastrian heirs to the English throne were the Portuguese royal family: King Joao II and his sister Joana, who were descendants of Philippa, Queen of Joao I, John of Gaunt's daughter by his first wife. Records in Portugal indicate that Joana was to be Richard III's second wife, while Elizabeth of York was to marry Joana's cousin Manuel, who would become King Manuel I. Bosworth of course negated these plans.

One of the points of contention during the Wars of the Roses was whether a claim to the throne could pass through a woman - succession wasn't as cut-and-dried as it is today. Under today's rules, the Yorks would be the unquestioned heirs as the senior heirs-in-line. As Henry Tudor's only blood claim came not only from his mother Margaret but through the Beaufort line he HAD to claim the throne by conquest: he had no legal claim to it!
.

 

[crymson77]

So your saying technically Elizabeth of York is a decendant of both Edmund of York and Lionel Of Clarence???

I get the adultery thing and being legitimized but not able to inherit the throne but im just wondering for the sake of argument if hypothetically all of John of Gaunts Children were legit and from the same wife then I dont see how the Yorks claim could come before Henry VII as he was still from Gaunts line and after Richard II the throne did go to Guants line producing obviously Henry IV, V, & VI.

And are you saying that Edward IV did have more of a claim than Henry VI??? I guess he might if he is actually descended from Lionel.

No need to refight the war of the roses here but im just curious. This has always been my favorite time period. No expert just through movies and what I remember from college. But for some reason ive been obsessed hours a day for weeks researching this family tree to see where it went or where it should have went. I guess the new white queen series has re peaked my interest. Ive been reading on it about 8 hours today and my wife is like off with his head at this point.
Although I still would like my previous thoughts adressed I think I get it a little more and would like add another thought/question.

Basically if a king has an older son with a daughter and a yonger son with a son which child would be heir to the throne?

To relate to what you had mentioned. Lionel was higher than both John of Gaunt and
Edmund of Langley. So then would his children be too right? Like if Lionel had a son he probably would have been king after richard. But if he only had a girl like phillppia as an heir wouldn't Guant or the next oldest son or one of thier sons still be next Iine line to the throne especially over say phillippias childern or any of her heirs?
.

 

[cepe]

The reason that Phillipa wouldn't have been considered is the mind set that women would not make strong rulers and, as women would marry, power would devolve to their husband. That sets up an unknown AND a power-play. Much easier and pragmatic to stick with males. So Phillippa gets overlooked, in the same way Matilda did years earlier.

Elizabeth I knew the problems marriage could bring - she watched her sister marry Philip of Spain and the political (and religious) problems it caused.

In the example you gave, the daughter should inherit. She would do in any time since probably 1600. Before then, with the turmoil in the UK, it would be unlikely.

 

[LauraS3514]

...Basically if a king has an older son with a daughter and a yonger son with a son which child would be heir to the throne?

And there was the quandry: could women transmit the right to the throne? Today if the main line fails, the daughter (or her descendants) of the older son would inherit before the son of a younger son: Elizabeth II (daughter of the second son) is on the throne by this principle, not her cousin Prince Richard Duke of Gloucester (son of the third son). This principle took hold, as was said, around 1600 or so. Like I said above, whether or not a claim to the throne could pass through a woman was one of the causes of the WOR. Under today's rules, the York family had the better blood claim but the Lancastrians (Henry IV, V, and VI) grabbed it by force and then Henry VII with the help of his army of French mercenaries did the same. Parliament had to practically force him to marry Elizabeth of York as he had promised to do. It's really ironic though: Edward III claimed the FRENCH throne through his mother...and that "claim" was not officially dropped until the early 1800s by George III.
.

 

[Ish]

There are a few key things being forgotten and/or overlooked here.

First of all, while inheritance of the English throne through female lines had been established as possible, inheritence of women had not been established as possible and would not be established as such until Mary I came to the throne. The last time that a woman had almost come to the throne was Empress Matilda, who was immediately usurped and whose very existence and usurpation resulted in the Anarchy.

The second is that the Lancasters came to the throne by usurping Richard II. They were not the rightful heirs, but rather they pushed themselves onto the throne.

Thirdly, the claim to the throne that the Yorks held was not because they were descended from Edmund Langley, but rather because they were descended from Lionel of Antwerp.

Edward III had 5 sons who lived to adulthood and had children, In order Edward, Lionel of Antwerp, John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley, and Thomas of Woodstock.

Edward (the son) had one son, the future Richard II, while Lionel had one daughter, Philippa of Clarence. Both Edward and Lionel died before their father, so when Edward III died his eldest son's only child inherited. Richard didn't have any children of his own, while Philippa married Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March, and had 4 children, most importantly (for this argument) her eldest son, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March. During his reign Rogerwas named as the heir presumptive to Richard - thus in the event of Richard dying without issue, Roger was to become king.

The third son, John of Gaunt had several children through three marriages, his eldest surviving son being Henry of Bolingbroke. Henry had an inconsistent relationship with his cousin, Richard, but the significant thing is that when John died Richard wouldn't allow Henry to inherit his father's lands automatically, which eventually lead to Henry rebelling and usurping his cousin, becoming the first Lancaster monarch Henry IV. This was over the rightful king (who was the son of the first son of the last monarch), and his named heir (the grandson of the second son of the last monarch).

The Lancaster line continued, for a time at least, through the descendants of Henry IV. His heir was his eldest son, Henry V, whose heir was his own son, Henry VI. By the time of Henry VI, who wasn't exactly fit to rule, things had become shaky that the descendants of Philippa were able to put themselves forward as the rightful rulers.

Let's go back to Roger Mortimer. His only surviving son, Edmund, died without children, so his claim went to his eldest daughter, Anne. Anne married Richard, Earl of Cambridge, whose father was Edmund of Langley. Their son was Richard, 3rd Duke of York, who was put forth as the Yorkist claimant of the throne; his son, Edward, would later successfully conquer the throne and become Edward IV. Thus, Edward IV was of the House of York through paternal descent but had a claim to the throne of England - and a superior one to that of the actual King - through maternal descent.

As for Henry VII... Well, his claim was a shakey one at best, but basically in 1483 he was the senior male Lancaster claimant. In essence, he was the best claim that the Lancasters had, and in light of the way Richard III came to the throne he was able to also garner Yorkist support. He gained the throne not because he had the best claim - he certainly didn't - but because people who had better claims, or were on the throne, weren't appealing to the people who backed him.

 

[crymson77]

under today's rules, the York family had the better blood claim.

I think im getting it now. Not saying I like it but im getting it. I guess I would be on the Lancaster side here as it seems im trying to find any way to get them to have a stonger claim. Not sure how much it matters every king stole it from some other king at some point.

I know you were saying under todays rules, but I really want to know how it would have played out under the rules of the time. So ill just re-ask one last time.

Lionel was higher than both John of Gaunt and*Edmund of Langley. So then would his children be too right? Like if Lionel had a son he probably would have been king after richard. But if he only had a girl like phillppia as an heir wouldn't Guant or the next oldest son or one of thier sons still be next Iine line to the throne especially over say phillippias childern or any of her heirs?

To put it in terms my kids would understand we will go to the lion king. If simba was a girl and scar had a son wouldnt scars son have a stronger claim If both mufasa and scar were dead???

 

[QueenElizabeth2Fan]

Another genealogy question.

I was curious to know the monarch or otherwise who had the most children--European, that is. So on Wikipedia I saw that it was Robert I, Duke of Parma, and also Juliana of Stolberg.
Just wondering--are they both related to Queen Elizabeth II?
I was going to ask if the Dukes of Wellington are too, but I found out via an article on Wikipedia that they are indeed.