David Drew Howe's claim to Howe arms

[m***@btinternet.com]

On the wikipedia discussion page connected to the article on the
fantasist David Drew Howe is a comment about his entitlement to use
the arms of the Viscounts Howe.

According to the pedigree he has published on his website (3 January
2008):

www.royaltyofman.com

Howe claims his father, David D.E. Howe of Sterling, Virginia, is
descended from the "Viscounts Howe".

This, like much of what Howe claims, appears to be bogus. The Irish
viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1814 with the death of the 5th
viscount, the last male of the family (Debretts Peerage, 1840, sub
Howe, p 399); the English viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1799
with the death spm of the 1st and last viscount.

Accordingly, Howe would have no valid claim to use the arms of the
Viscounts Howe. That family is now represented by Earl Howe, whose
title was created for the heir-general; he lives at Penn House,
Amersham.

There is a wikipedia page for a 'Major Joseph Howe' (1729-1794) who is
alleged to be a "brother" of the 3rd Viscount Howe - although it is
afterwards said that he was his "brother or cousin" and that "some
genealogists and historians have questioned this".

The sole reference given for this article is a 1927 book called 'The
Family of Hoge [sic]' by James Hoge Tyler; this appears to have been a
typical production of its time, of no particular reliability.
Debrett's does not show such a brother, and had he left male issue the
viscountcy would not have become extinct.

MA-R

[StephenP]

Post by m***@btinternet.com
On the wikipedia discussion page connected to the article on the
fantasist David Drew Howe is a comment about his entitlement to use
the arms of the Viscounts Howe.
According to the pedigree he has published on his website (3 January
www.royaltyofman.com
Howe claims his father, David D.E. Howe of Sterling, Virginia, is
descended from the "Viscounts Howe".
This, like much of what Howe claims, appears to be bogus. The Irish
viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1814 with the death of the 5th
viscount, the last male of the family (Debretts Peerage, 1840, sub
Howe, p 399); the English viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1799
with the death spm of the 1st and last viscount.
Accordingly, Howe would have no valid claim to use the arms of the
Viscounts Howe. That family is now represented by Earl Howe, whose
title was created for the heir-general; he lives at Penn House,
Amersham.
There is a wikipedia page for a 'Major Joseph Howe' (1729-1794) who is
alleged to be a "brother" of the 3rd Viscount Howe - although it is
afterwards said that he was his "brother or cousin" and that "some
genealogists and historians have questioned this".
The sole reference given for this article is a 1927 book called 'The
Family of Hoge [sic]' by James Hoge Tyler; this appears to have been a
typical production of its time, of no particular reliability.
Debrett's does not show such a brother, and had he left male issue the
viscountcy would not have become extinct.
MA-R

Perhaps it is another symptom of Howe's sloppy/rushed research that
his assumed Arms are not similar to those of Howe from whom he claims
descent. "Azure two lion combatant in base a sword Or" (or similar)
versus "Or a fess between three wolves' couped heads Sable". Given
his penchant for claiming descent from notable families he rather
missed a trick there I think. However, as Howe has a "flexible
response" to the presentation of his claims, he may well get the
crayons out and amend his fourth quarter. There again, he may just
quietly drop the claim to the Viscount Howe ancestry.

Yours aye

Stephen

[m***@btinternet.com]

Post by StephenP

Post by m***@btinternet.com
On the wikipedia discussion page connected to the article on the
fantasist David Drew Howe is a comment about his entitlement to use
the arms of the Viscounts Howe.
According to the pedigree he has published on his website (3 January
www.royaltyofman.com
Howe claims his father, David D.E. Howe of Sterling, Virginia, is
descended from the "Viscounts Howe".
This, like much of what Howe claims, appears to be bogus.  The Irish
viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1814 with the death of the 5th
viscount, the last male of the family (Debretts Peerage, 1840, sub
Howe, p 399); the English viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1799
with the death spm of the 1st and last viscount.
Accordingly, Howe would have no valid claim to use the arms of the
Viscounts Howe.  That family is now represented by Earl Howe, whose
title was created for the heir-general; he lives at Penn House,
Amersham.
There is a wikipedia page for a 'Major Joseph Howe' (1729-1794) who is
alleged to be a "brother" of the 3rd Viscount Howe - although it is
afterwards said that he was his "brother or cousin" and that "some
genealogists and historians have questioned this".
The sole reference given for this article is a 1927 book called 'The
Family of Hoge [sic]' by James Hoge Tyler; this appears to have been a
typical production of its time, of no particular reliability.
Debrett's does not show such a brother, and had he left male issue the
viscountcy would not have become extinct.
MA-R

Perhaps it is another symptom of Howe's sloppy/rushed research that
his assumed Arms are not similar to those of Howe from whom he claims
descent.  "Azure two lion combatant in base a sword Or" (or similar)
versus  "Or a fess between three wolves' couped heads Sable".  Given
his penchant for claiming descent from notable families he rather
missed a trick there I think.  However, as Howe has a "flexible
response" to the presentation of his claims, he may well get the
crayons out and amend his fourth quarter.  There again, he may just
quietly drop the claim to the Viscount Howe ancestry.
Yours aye
Stephen

It seems already to have disappeared from the latest version of his
ever-changing pedigree. But it was important to him. When he tried
to pretend he was a French Prince back in 2006, he harped on about his
father's royal descent. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Viscounts Howe had at
least three descents from Edward III through their paternal
grandmother, and further Continental royal ancestry from their
mother. Is seems that their non-existent brother Joseph Howe did not.

And, as mentioned, no right to the Howe arms either, it appears.

MA-R

[StephenP]

Post by m***@btinternet.com

Post by StephenP

Post by m***@btinternet.com
On the wikipedia discussion page connected to the article on the
fantasist David Drew Howe is a comment about his entitlement to use
the arms of the Viscounts Howe.
According to the pedigree he has published on his website (3 January
www.royaltyofman.com
Howe claims his father, David D.E. Howe of Sterling, Virginia, is
descended from the "Viscounts Howe".
This, like much of what Howe claims, appears to be bogus. The Irish
viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1814 with the death of the 5th
viscount, the last male of the family (Debretts Peerage, 1840, sub
Howe, p 399); the English viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1799
with the death spm of the 1st and last viscount.
Accordingly, Howe would have no valid claim to use the arms of the
Viscounts Howe. That family is now represented by Earl Howe, whose
title was created for the heir-general; he lives at Penn House,
Amersham.
There is a wikipedia page for a 'Major Joseph Howe' (1729-1794) who is
alleged to be a "brother" of the 3rd Viscount Howe - although it is
afterwards said that he was his "brother or cousin" and that "some
genealogists and historians have questioned this".
The sole reference given for this article is a 1927 book called 'The
Family of Hoge [sic]' by James Hoge Tyler; this appears to have been a
typical production of its time, of no particular reliability.
Debrett's does not show such a brother, and had he left male issue the
viscountcy would not have become extinct.
MA-R

Perhaps it is another symptom of Howe's sloppy/rushed research that
his assumed Arms are not similar to those of Howe from whom he claims
descent. "Azure two lion combatant in base a sword Or" (or similar)
versus "Or a fess between three wolves' couped heads Sable". Given
his penchant for claiming descent from notable families he rather
missed a trick there I think. However, as Howe has a "flexible
response" to the presentation of his claims, he may well get the
crayons out and amend his fourth quarter. There again, he may just
quietly drop the claim to the Viscount Howe ancestry.
Yours aye
Stephen

It seems already to have disappeared from the latest version of his
ever-changing pedigree. But it was important to him. When he tried
to pretend he was a French Prince back in 2006, he harped on about his
father's royal descent. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Viscounts Howe had at
least three descents from Edward III through their paternal
grandmother, and further Continental royal ancestry from their
mother. Is seems that their non-existent brother Joseph Howe did not.
And, as mentioned, no right to the Howe arms either, it appears.
MA-R

His Viscount Howe claim is still in his "Cousin of the British Crown"
chart.

Descent from Edward III is pretty meaningless - using IGI, I have him
as a great (x 19) grandfather in one particular "strand". It would
probably be more of an achievement for someone with English ancestry
to prove they were not of Plantagenet descent.

Yours aye

Stephen

[Don Aitken]

Post by StephenP

Post by m***@btinternet.com

Post by StephenP

Post by m***@btinternet.com
On the wikipedia discussion page connected to the article on the
fantasist David Drew Howe is a comment about his entitlement to use
the arms of the Viscounts Howe.
According to the pedigree he has published on his website (3 January
www.royaltyofman.com
Howe claims his father, David D.E. Howe of Sterling, Virginia, is
descended from the "Viscounts Howe".
This, like much of what Howe claims, appears to be bogus. The Irish
viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1814 with the death of the 5th
viscount, the last male of the family (Debretts Peerage, 1840, sub
Howe, p 399); the English viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1799
with the death spm of the 1st and last viscount.
Accordingly, Howe would have no valid claim to use the arms of the
Viscounts Howe. That family is now represented by Earl Howe, whose
title was created for the heir-general; he lives at Penn House,
Amersham.
There is a wikipedia page for a 'Major Joseph Howe' (1729-1794) who is
alleged to be a "brother" of the 3rd Viscount Howe - although it is
afterwards said that he was his "brother or cousin" and that "some
genealogists and historians have questioned this".
The sole reference given for this article is a 1927 book called 'The
Family of Hoge [sic]' by James Hoge Tyler; this appears to have been a
typical production of its time, of no particular reliability.
Debrett's does not show such a brother, and had he left male issue the
viscountcy would not have become extinct.
MA-R

Perhaps it is another symptom of Howe's sloppy/rushed research that
his assumed Arms are not similar to those of Howe from whom he claims
descent. "Azure two lion combatant in base a sword Or" (or similar)
versus "Or a fess between three wolves' couped heads Sable". Given
his penchant for claiming descent from notable families he rather
missed a trick there I think. However, as Howe has a "flexible
response" to the presentation of his claims, he may well get the
crayons out and amend his fourth quarter. There again, he may just
quietly drop the claim to the Viscount Howe ancestry.
Yours aye
Stephen

It seems already to have disappeared from the latest version of his
ever-changing pedigree. But it was important to him. When he tried
to pretend he was a French Prince back in 2006, he harped on about his
father's royal descent. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Viscounts Howe had at
least three descents from Edward III through their paternal
grandmother, and further Continental royal ancestry from their
mother. Is seems that their non-existent brother Joseph Howe did not.
And, as mentioned, no right to the Howe arms either, it appears.

His Viscount Howe claim is still in his "Cousin of the British Crown"
chart.
Descent from Edward III is pretty meaningless - using IGI, I have him
as a great (x 19) grandfather in one particular "strand". It would
probably be more of an achievement for someone with English ancestry
to prove they were not of Plantagenet descent.

Edward III's most recent biographer, Mortimer, devotes an appendix to
exploring his claim to be "grandfather of the English nation". He
concludes that, for those of English ancestry being born now, the
probability of such a descent is between 90% and 95%.

[g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Post by Don Aitken

Post by StephenP

Post by m***@btinternet.com

Post by StephenP

Post by m***@btinternet.com
On the wikipedia discussion page connected to the article on the
fantasist David Drew Howe is a comment about his entitlement to use
the arms of the Viscounts Howe.
According to the pedigree he has published on his website (3 January
www.royaltyofman.com
Howe claims his father, David D.E. Howe of Sterling, Virginia, is
descended from the "Viscounts Howe".
This, like much of what Howe claims, appears to be bogus.  The Irish
viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1814 with the death of the 5th
viscount, the last male of the family (Debretts Peerage, 1840, sub
Howe, p 399); the English viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1799
with the death spm of the 1st and last viscount.
Accordingly, Howe would have no valid claim to use the arms of the
Viscounts Howe.  That family is now represented by Earl Howe, whose
title was created for the heir-general; he lives at Penn House,
Amersham.
There is a wikipedia page for a 'Major Joseph Howe' (1729-1794) who is
alleged to be a "brother" of the 3rd Viscount Howe - although it is
afterwards said that he was his "brother or cousin" and that "some
genealogists and historians have questioned this".
The sole reference given for this article is a 1927 book called 'The
Family of Hoge [sic]' by James Hoge Tyler; this appears to have been a
typical production of its time, of no particular reliability.
Debrett's does not show such a brother, and had he left male issue the
viscountcy would not have become extinct.
MA-R

Perhaps it is another symptom of Howe's sloppy/rushed research that
his assumed Arms are not similar to those of Howe from whom he claims
descent.  "Azure two lion combatant in base a sword Or" (or similar)
versus  "Or a fess between three wolves' couped heads Sable".  Given
his penchant for claiming descent from notable families he rather
missed a trick there I think.  However, as Howe has a "flexible
response" to the presentation of his claims, he may well get the
crayons out and amend his fourth quarter.  There again, he may just
quietly drop the claim to the Viscount Howe ancestry.
Yours aye
Stephen

It seems already to have disappeared from the latest version of his
ever-changing pedigree.  But it was important to him.  When he tried
to pretend he was a French Prince back in 2006, he harped on about his
father's royal descent.  The 3rd, 4th and 5th Viscounts Howe had at
least three descents from Edward III through their paternal
grandmother, and further Continental royal ancestry from their
mother.  Is seems that their non-existent brother Joseph Howe did not.
And, as mentioned, no right to the Howe arms either, it appears.

His Viscount Howe claim is still in his "Cousin of the British Crown"
chart.
Descent from Edward III is pretty meaningless - using IGI, I have him
as a great (x 19) grandfather in one particular "strand".  It would
probably be more of an achievement for someone with English ancestry
to prove they were not of Plantagenet descent.

Edward III's most recent biographer, Mortimer, devotes an appendix to
exploring his claim to be "grandfather of the English nation". He
concludes that, for those of English ancestry being born now, the
probability of such a descent is between 90% and 95%.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The only person who has ever actually tried to trace all living
descendants of Edward III was Ruvigny. If your read his introduction
he says he did not find a single working class descendant of that king
(as far as I remember). His is real research; what others say is just
conjecture and usually nonsense. The situation will have changed
somewhat but you have to reconcile actual research that did not find a
single working class descendant in 1900-1910 with your theory that
90-95% of the population is descended from Edward III 100 years later.
Your theory is irreconcilable with his facts.

Graham

[m***@btinternet.com]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by Don Aitken

Post by StephenP

Post by m***@btinternet.com

Post by StephenP

Post by m***@btinternet.com
On the wikipedia discussion page connected to the article on the
fantasist David Drew Howe is a comment about his entitlement to use
the arms of the Viscounts Howe.
According to the pedigree he has published on his website (3 January
www.royaltyofman.com
Howe claims his father, David D.E. Howe of Sterling, Virginia, is
descended from the "Viscounts Howe".
This, like much of what Howe claims, appears to be bogus.  The Irish
viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1814 with the death of the 5th
viscount, the last male of the family (Debretts Peerage, 1840, sub
Howe, p 399); the English viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1799
with the death spm of the 1st and last viscount.
Accordingly, Howe would have no valid claim to use the arms of the
Viscounts Howe.  That family is now represented by Earl Howe, whose
title was created for the heir-general; he lives at Penn House,
Amersham.
There is a wikipedia page for a 'Major Joseph Howe' (1729-1794) who is
alleged to be a "brother" of the 3rd Viscount Howe - although it is
afterwards said that he was his "brother or cousin" and that "some
genealogists and historians have questioned this".
The sole reference given for this article is a 1927 book called 'The
Family of Hoge [sic]' by James Hoge Tyler; this appears to have been a
typical production of its time, of no particular reliability.
Debrett's does not show such a brother, and had he left male issue the
viscountcy would not have become extinct.
MA-R

Perhaps it is another symptom of Howe's sloppy/rushed research that
his assumed Arms are not similar to those of Howe from whom he claims
descent.  "Azure two lion combatant in base a sword Or" (or similar)
versus  "Or a fess between three wolves' couped heads Sable".  Given
his penchant for claiming descent from notable families he rather
missed a trick there I think.  However, as Howe has a "flexible
response" to the presentation of his claims, he may well get the
crayons out and amend his fourth quarter.  There again, he may just
quietly drop the claim to the Viscount Howe ancestry.
Yours aye
Stephen

It seems already to have disappeared from the latest version of his
ever-changing pedigree.  But it was important to him.  When he tried
to pretend he was a French Prince back in 2006, he harped on about his
father's royal descent.  The 3rd, 4th and 5th Viscounts Howe had at
least three descents from Edward III through their paternal
grandmother, and further Continental royal ancestry from their
mother.  Is seems that their non-existent brother Joseph Howe did not.
And, as mentioned, no right to the Howe arms either, it appears.

His Viscount Howe claim is still in his "Cousin of the British Crown"
chart.
Descent from Edward III is pretty meaningless - using IGI, I have him
as a great (x 19) grandfather in one particular "strand".  It would
probably be more of an achievement for someone with English ancestry
to prove they were not of Plantagenet descent.

Edward III's most recent biographer, Mortimer, devotes an appendix to
exploring his claim to be "grandfather of the English nation". He
concludes that, for those of English ancestry being born now, the
probability of such a descent is between 90% and 95%.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The only person who has ever actually tried to trace all living
descendants of Edward III was Ruvigny. If your read his introduction
he says he did not find a single working class descendant of that king
(as far as I remember). His is real research; what others say is just
conjecture and usually nonsense. The situation will have changed
somewhat but you have to reconcile actual research that did not find a
single working class descendant in 1900-1910 with your theory that
90-95% of the population is descended from Edward III 100 years later.
Your theory is irreconcilable with his facts.

It should be noted that "working class" genealogy is likely much
harder to trace for publication than that relating to higher (and
better documented) classes. And it sells fewer books ;)

I know of many 18th century working class descendants of King John.
Given that four generations separated John from Edward III, and four
generations separated the 18th century from 1900, it does not seem
unreasonable to suggest that the same would have held true for the
later monarch.

MA-R

[g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Post by m***@btinternet.com

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by Don Aitken

Post by StephenP

Post by m***@btinternet.com

Post by StephenP

Post by m***@btinternet.com
On the wikipedia discussion page connected to the article on the
fantasist David Drew Howe is a comment about his entitlement to use
the arms of the Viscounts Howe.
According to the pedigree he has published on his website (3 January
www.royaltyofman.com
Howe claims his father, David D.E. Howe of Sterling, Virginia, is
descended from the "Viscounts Howe".
This, like much of what Howe claims, appears to be bogus.  The Irish
viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1814 with the death of the 5th
viscount, the last male of the family (Debretts Peerage, 1840, sub
Howe, p 399); the English viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1799
with the death spm of the 1st and last viscount.
Accordingly, Howe would have no valid claim to use the arms of the
Viscounts Howe.  That family is now represented by Earl Howe, whose
title was created for the heir-general; he lives at Penn House,
Amersham.
There is a wikipedia page for a 'Major Joseph Howe' (1729-1794) who is
alleged to be a "brother" of the 3rd Viscount Howe - although it is
afterwards said that he was his "brother or cousin" and that "some
genealogists and historians have questioned this".
The sole reference given for this article is a 1927 book called 'The
Family of Hoge [sic]' by James Hoge Tyler; this appears to have been a
typical production of its time, of no particular reliability.
Debrett's does not show such a brother, and had he left male issue the
viscountcy would not have become extinct.
MA-R

Perhaps it is another symptom of Howe's sloppy/rushed research that
his assumed Arms are not similar to those of Howe from whom he claims
descent.  "Azure two lion combatant in base a sword Or" (or similar)
versus  "Or a fess between three wolves' couped heads Sable".  Given
his penchant for claiming descent from notable families he rather
missed a trick there I think.  However, as Howe has a "flexible
response" to the presentation of his claims, he may well get the
crayons out and amend his fourth quarter.  There again, he may just
quietly drop the claim to the Viscount Howe ancestry.
Yours aye
Stephen

It seems already to have disappeared from the latest version of his
ever-changing pedigree.  But it was important to him.  When he tried
to pretend he was a French Prince back in 2006, he harped on about his
father's royal descent.  The 3rd, 4th and 5th Viscounts Howe had at
least three descents from Edward III through their paternal
grandmother, and further Continental royal ancestry from their
mother.  Is seems that their non-existent brother Joseph Howe did not.
And, as mentioned, no right to the Howe arms either, it appears.

His Viscount Howe claim is still in his "Cousin of the British Crown"
chart.
Descent from Edward III is pretty meaningless - using IGI, I have him
as a great (x 19) grandfather in one particular "strand".  It would
probably be more of an achievement for someone with English ancestry
to prove they were not of Plantagenet descent.

Edward III's most recent biographer, Mortimer, devotes an appendix to
exploring his claim to be "grandfather of the English nation". He
concludes that, for those of English ancestry being born now, the
probability of such a descent is between 90% and 95%.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The only person who has ever actually tried to trace all living
descendants of Edward III was Ruvigny. If your read his introduction
he says he did not find a single working class descendant of that king
(as far as I remember). His is real research; what others say is just
conjecture and usually nonsense. The situation will have changed
somewhat but you have to reconcile actual research that did not find a
single working class descendant in 1900-1910 with your theory that
90-95% of the population is descended from Edward III 100 years later.
Your theory is irreconcilable with his facts.

It should be noted that "working class" genealogy is likely much
harder to trace for publication than that relating to higher (and
better documented) classes.  And it sells fewer books ;)
I know of many 18th century working class descendants of King John.
Given that four generations separated John from Edward III, and four
generations separated the 18th century from 1900, it does not seem
unreasonable to suggest that the same would have held true for the
later monarch.
MA-R- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

King John was a noted letcher, whereas Edward III was not (to my
knowledge). Also, there is a difference between 'many' and '90-95% of
the population'. 'Many' could mean a few hundred. How many working
class descendants of King John are you aware of? I think the idea that
one can simply put a finger in the air and guess that the number of
descendants of a given person doubled every generation is demonstrably
false and even where it does happen social and geographical
restrictions mean that the descendants very quickly start marrying
eachother i.e. they are all cousins, many times over (sometimes
millions of time over). I suspect that the people who dream up these
figures have absolutely no conception of the rate of cousin marriages
(which restrict the bloodline to the cousinhood).

In short, I deny that I am a 17th cousin 8 times removed of the
gorilla in London Zoo. He's actually my 19th cousin 11 times removed.
So there!

Graham

[StephenP]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
In short, I deny that I am a 17th cousin 8 times removed of the
gorilla in London Zoo. He's actually my 19th cousin 11 times removed.
So there!
Graham

So the family resemblance is just a biological fluke? ;-)

Stephen

[g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
In short, I deny that I am a 17th cousin 8 times removed of the
gorilla in London Zoo. He's actually my 19th cousin 11 times removed.
So there!
Graham

So the family resemblance is just a biological fluke?   ;-)
Stephen

Yes, but they are the brainy side of the family. It's not fair.

[Don Aitken]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by Don Aitken
Edward III's most recent biographer, Mortimer, devotes an appendix to
exploring his claim to be "grandfather of the English nation". He
concludes that, for those of English ancestry being born now, the
probability of such a descent is between 90% and 95%.

The only person who has ever actually tried to trace all living
descendants of Edward III was Ruvigny. If your read his introduction
he says he did not find a single working class descendant of that king
(as far as I remember). His is real research; what others say is just
conjecture and usually nonsense. The situation will have changed
somewhat but you have to reconcile actual research that did not find a
single working class descendant in 1900-1910 with your theory that
90-95% of the population is descended from Edward III 100 years later.
Your theory is irreconcilable with his facts.

Ruvigny's lista are, of course, nowhere near complete - people have
been adding to them ever since they were published.

My attempt to summarise Mortimer's argument is at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/7e84ec9c96cf002c

If you want more detail, you'll have to look at the book.

[g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Post by Don Aitken

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by Don Aitken
Edward III's most recent biographer, Mortimer, devotes an appendix to
exploring his claim to be "grandfather of the English nation". He
concludes that, for those of English ancestry being born now, the
probability of such a descent is between 90% and 95%.

The only person who has ever actually tried to trace all living
descendants of Edward III was Ruvigny. If your read his introduction
he says he did not find a single working class descendant of that king
(as far as I remember). His is real research; what others say is just
conjecture and usually nonsense. The situation will have changed
somewhat but you have to reconcile actual research that did not find a
single working class descendant in 1900-1910 with your theory that
90-95% of the population is descended from Edward III 100 years later.
Your theory is irreconcilable with his facts.

Ruvigny's lista are, of course, nowhere near complete - people have
been adding to them ever since they were published.
My attempt to summarise Mortimer's argument is athttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/7e84ec9c96cf002c
If you want more detail, you'll have to look at the book.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

This argument is like all the others. If you assume A, B and C then D.
They are castle built in the air. We all know that Ruvigny's work was
not completed but he didn't find one working class descendant in
50,000 or thereabouts. This indicates to me that there is something
seriously wrong with Mortimer's theory. The known facts just don't
match his theory. Ergo, it would seem that somewhere along the line he
has made a wrong assumption and the cumulative error of wrong
assumptions when applied over many generations increases exponentially
- to the point where 200% of living people are all descended from x or
some such nutty theory. I am surprised that common sense did not make
him say 'Whoa, old chap!' at some stage.

Graham

[Jan Böhme]

Post by Don Aitken
My attempt to summarise Mortimer's argument is
athttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/7e84ec9c96cf002c

My goodness! I have, not only read this, but approved it and claimed
that it made sense? I must have been completely exhausted by arguing
with that hallelujah-prophet "gro", and assumed far too much that a
reasoning that you promoted had to make at least some sense.

Because it most emphatically doesn't. Mortimer's "correction factor",
which is a key to his calculation, is extremely spurious. It is
assumed to be a constant over the generations, when it very clearly
can't be, but undulates upwards and downwards, going up when the
saturation of certain social groups dominates, and going down when the
early expansion in others predominates. However, the fluctuations
don't even out, and the long term trend is that the rate of double-
ancestry marriages increases over time - as it has to, to eventually
arrive at a state when the entire population is completely saturated.
And even if Mortimer's naïve assumption that it would be constant
actually _were_ true, which it isn't, the fact that he uses it over so
many generations makes the calculation extremely vulnerable to small
chance error - and he can't validate the figure he has got with
another generation.

Also, in the late stages, after he has stopped to apply his
"correction factor", he can't be calculating properly. For every
successive generation, non-descendance behaves as a recessive.
(Descendance, OTOH, behaves as a sex-independent hemizygous dominant -
which doesn't exist in nature.) If you have assumed random mating,
and that the population thus is at Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and you
have 10% non-descendants in one generation, you will have 10% * 10% =
1% non-descendants in the next - or, in other words, you will go from
90% to 99% descendants over one generation. Trouble is, according to
you, Mortimer claims that the English population will have gone from
90% to 99% among the newborn in the fifteen years between 1980 and
1995.

As he reasonably can't figure with a generation time of fifteen years
- although you didn't tell what generation time he actually uses - he
must also do the maths wrong.

So his assumptions are flawed, and he doesn't calculate properly, to
boot. I'd say that anyone in the situation of Mortimer is strongly
advised to consult with population geneticists before making fools of
themselves.

Jan Böhme

[Jan Böhme]

Post by Jan Böhme
As he reasonably can't figure with a generation time of fifteen years
- although you didn't tell what generation time he actually uses - he
must also do the maths wrong.

I did some caculations as to what the time to saturation would be, if
one assumed full Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium already at Mortimer's
start, with 436 descendants in a total population of 2,75 million.
Then, total extinction of the last non-descendant lines occur at
generation 17, and descendants dominate over non-descendants for the
first time in generation 13.

Assuming average generation time to be 30 years, as is commonly done
at least in Scandinavian genalogy, this would mean that even under
complete Hardy-Weinberg, extinction would only occur in the newborns
in two year's time, and that the time when the majority of the English
babies became descendants of Edward III was in 1890. Using 28 years
instead, we arrive at 1864 and 1976, respectively.

It would thus seem as if Mortimer's results are almost what one would
expect with proper calculation _without_ any allowance for socially
and geographically conditioned non-random mating.

Jan Böhme

[Jan Böhme]

Post by Jan Böhme
If you have assumed random mating,
and that the population thus is at Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and you
have 10% non-descendants in one generation, you will have 10% * 10% =
1% non-descendants in the next - or, in other words, you will go from
90% to 99% descendants over one generation. Trouble is, according to
you, Mortimer claims that the English population will have gone from
90% to 99% among the newborn in the fifteen years between 1980 and
1995.

I actually took the time to do a proper calculation, using Don's
account of Mortimer's assumptions. With a generation time of 30 years,
the expected number percentage of descendants will be 99.1% in babies
born in 2010, it was 97,3% in 1995, and 90,2% in 1980. Shortening the
generation time doessn't do all that much, as more generations will
have passed before tha magical year of 1860, too. Using 28 years gives
99.9% descendants in 2004, and 98,4% in 1976. So this is what one
gets with the maths straight, using Mortimer's assumptions. Relatively
near what he says, but not identical.

I realised a couple of things more about the correction factor as
well, though, as I fiddled around with my Excel sheet. Mortimer might
be justified in not applying it in a the few generations when the
frequency of descendants passes from 20 to 80%, or possibly from 15%
to 85%. But after that, he has to apply it again. Because then, the
tendency to marry within one's social group among the _non-
descendants_ will affect the spread of the ancestry. For instance, it
seems not at all unreasonable that travellers are a group of Britons
not generally descending from Edward III which will prove considerably
more resistant to influx of his ancestry than predicted in a Hardy-
Weinberg equilibrium.

Skipping the correction between 15% and 85% actually amounts for
skipping it for just three generations. If one does this, 97,6% of the
children of English stock who are born in 2010 will be descendants,
using Moritimer's correction factor. Raising it just from 13% to 16%
will make 90.2% of the babies born in 2010 descendants, 70,9% of those
born in 1980, and 50,0% of those born in 1950. In other words, under
that assumption, a very sizable minority of the currently living pure-
stock Englishmen would not have Edward III as their ancestor. At 18%,
the non-descendants would constitute the current majority, and at 25%,
the great shift from non-ancestry to ancestry has barely started, with
something like 25% being descendants of Edward III.

But in real life, every generation will need its own correction factor
which will vary considerable, depending on whether saturation or
expansion predominates just then.

Jan Böhme
(who had to post this for his own sake, even if nobody is really
intrested in carrying it this far)

[g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Post by Jan Böhme

 If you have assumed random mating,
and that the population thus is at Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and you
have 10% non-descendants in one generation, you will have 10% * 10% =
1% non-descendants in the next - or, in other words, you will go from
90% to 99% descendants over one generation. Trouble is, according to
you, Mortimer claims that the English population will have gone from
90% to 99% among the newborn in the fifteen years between 1980 and
1995.

I actually took the time to do a proper calculation, using Don's
account of Mortimer's assumptions. With a generation time of 30 years,
the expected number percentage of descendants will be 99.1% in babies
born in 2010, it was 97,3% in 1995, and 90,2% in 1980. Shortening the
generation time doessn't do all that much, as more generations will
have passed before tha magical year of 1860, too. Using 28 years gives
99.9% descendants in 2004,  and 98,4% in 1976. So this is what one
gets with the maths straight, using Mortimer's assumptions. Relatively
near what he says, but not identical.
I realised a couple of things more about the correction factor as
well, though, as I fiddled around with my Excel sheet. Mortimer might
be justified in not applying it in a the few generations when the
frequency of descendants passes from 20 to 80%, or possibly from 15%
to 85%. But after that, he has to apply it again. Because then, the
tendency to marry within one's social group among the _non-
descendants_ will affect the spread of the ancestry. For instance, it
seems not at all unreasonable that travellers are a group of Britons
not generally descending from Edward III which will prove considerably
more resistant to influx of his ancestry than predicted in a Hardy-
Weinberg equilibrium.
Skipping the correction between 15% and 85% actually amounts for
skipping it for just three generations. If one does this, 97,6% of the
children of English stock who are born in 2010 will be descendants,
using Moritimer's correction factor. Raising it just from 13% to 16%
will make 90.2% of the babies born in 2010 descendants, 70,9% of those
born in 1980, and 50,0% of those born in 1950. In other words, under
that assumption, a very sizable minority of the currently living pure-
stock Englishmen would not have Edward III as their ancestor. At 18%,
the non-descendants would constitute the current majority, and at 25%,
the great shift from non-ancestry to ancestry has barely started, with
something like 25% being descendants of Edward III.
But in real life, every generation will need its own correction factor
which will vary considerable, depending on whether saturation or
expansion predominates just then.
Jan Böhme
(who had to post this for his own sake, even if nobody is really
intrested in carrying it this far)

Interesting. I have a suspicion that one factor that comes into play
with royal descents is the habit of such families not to survive. They
have a remarkable knack of getting wiped out - and you can't be
decended from someone who didn't exist. Just as a thought. The claim
has been put forward that 95% of the population is descended from
Edward III, but this excludes ANY male descendant in the male line,
because if such a person existed they would be King of England. But
the maths would dictate, would it not, that half of 95% of the
population would be male descendants in the male line - so ths gap we
need to explain is between a theory that says that roughly 50% of the
population would be male line male descendants and the facts which
says THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH PERSON.

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I have a suspicion that one factor that comes into play
with royal descents is the habit of such families not to survive. They
have a remarkable knack of getting wiped out - and you can't be
decended from someone who didn't exist. Just as a thought. The claim
has been put forward that 95% of the population is descended from
Edward III, but this excludes ANY male descendant in the male line,
because if such a person existed they would be King of England. But
the maths would dictate, would it not, that half of 95% of the
population would be male descendants in the male line - so ths gap we
need to explain is between a theory that says that roughly 50% of the
population would be male line male descendants and the facts which
says THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH PERSON.

No, 50% of the population would not be his male-line descendants. Turn
it around; start now and look backwards. If we stipulate 30 generations
from Edward III, we would have to assign him any one (or more) of the
2^30 possible places in the 30th generation of the ahnentafel of each
living descendant (consecutively numbered from 2^30 to (2^31 - 1) on an
Ahnentafel with the Sosa-Stradonitz numbering system). There is only a
miniscule chance that Edward III would actually occupy place 2^30, i.e.
the all-agnate spot. The fact that he is not known to occupy that
precise spot (2^30) in anybody's Ahnentafel (barring unknown bastardy)
is not surprising, given what his agnate descendants were doing to one
another between 1399 & 1485.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I have a suspicion that one factor that comes into play
with royal descents is the habit of such families not to survive. They
have a remarkable knack of getting wiped out - and you can't be
decended from someone who didn't exist. Just as a thought. The claim
has been put forward that 95% of the population is descended from
Edward III, but this excludes ANY male descendant in the male line,
because if such a person existed they would be King of England. But
the maths would dictate, would it not, that half of 95% of the
population would be male descendants in the male line - so ths gap we
need to explain is between a theory that says that roughly 50% of the
population would be male line male descendants and the facts which
says THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH PERSON.

No, 50% of the population would not be his male-line descendants.  Turn
it around; start now and look backwards.  If we stipulate 30 generations
from Edward III, we would have to assign him any one (or more) of the
2^30 possible places in the 30th generation of the ahnentafel of each
living descendant (consecutively numbered from 2^30 to (2^31 - 1) on an
Ahnentafel with the Sosa-Stradonitz numbering system).  There is only a
miniscule chance that Edward III would actually occupy place 2^30, i.e.
the all-agnate spot.  The fact that he is not known to occupy that
precise spot (2^30) in anybody's Ahnentafel (barring unknown bastardy)
is not surprising, given what his agnate descendants were doing to one
another between 1399 & 1485.
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Yes, but start from the top. If we assume that parents have 50% male
and 50% female children. This means that 50% of the first generation
are male line descendants of x, 50% of the second generation are male
descendants of x - and so on to the Nth generation. Given this maths,
if someone claims that 100% of people today are descended from x, then
50% of them should be male line descendants of x, according to the
model.

I agree that something really, really, really does not add up in all
this - because not one single male line descendant of Edward III is
known.

Perhaps it my maths. I do not pretend to be a mathematician. I am just
a humble nutcase with an interest in genealogy and heraldry.

Anyway, it indicates to me that the level of extinction in the male
line is 100% and, if this is the case, then it is arguable that it
could be similar in the female line (but it isn't - we know that).

Graham

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I have a suspicion that one factor that comes into play
with royal descents is the habit of such families not to survive. They
have a remarkable knack of getting wiped out - and you can't be
decended from someone who didn't exist. Just as a thought. The claim
has been put forward that 95% of the population is descended from
Edward III, but this excludes ANY male descendant in the male line,
because if such a person existed they would be King of England. But
the maths would dictate, would it not, that half of 95% of the
population would be male descendants in the male line - so ths gap we
need to explain is between a theory that says that roughly 50% of the
population would be male line male descendants and the facts which
says THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH PERSON.

No, 50% of the population would not be his male-line descendants.  Turn
it around; start now and look backwards.  If we stipulate 30 generations
from Edward III, we would have to assign him any one (or more) of the
2^30 possible places in the 30th generation of the ahnentafel of each
living descendant (consecutively numbered from 2^30 to (2^31 - 1) on an
Ahnentafel with the Sosa-Stradonitz numbering system).  There is only a
miniscule chance that Edward III would actually occupy place 2^30, i.e.
the all-agnate spot.  The fact that he is not known to occupy that
precise spot (2^30) in anybody's Ahnentafel (barring unknown bastardy)
is not surprising, given what his agnate descendants were doing to one
another between 1399 & 1485.
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Yes, but start from the top. If we assume that parents have 50% male
and 50% female children. This means that 50% of the first generation
are male line descendants of x, 50% of the second generation are male
descendants of x - and so on to the Nth generation. Given this maths,
if someone claims that 100% of people today are descended from x, then
50% of them should be male line descendants of x, according to the
model.

It is true that 100% of Edward III's children are his 'male-line'
descendants (i.e. Edward III is their father); but only 50% of the next
generation are agnate descendants (children of sons); only 25% of the
third generation (children of sons of sons), and so on. Many
generations later, 50% of all living descendants will be male, but the
probability of a descendant being an all-male-line descent from Edward
III halves in each generation; and this dwindles faster than the
reciprocal of the growth of the population as a whole, so the
probability that *someone* in the population is his agnate descendant
(let alone the probability calculated for any given individual)
approaches a very small constant -- the reciprocal of the total
reproducing male population in Edward III's day.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I have a suspicion that one factor that comes into play
with royal descents is the habit of such families not to survive. They
have a remarkable knack of getting wiped out - and you can't be
decended from someone who didn't exist. Just as a thought. The claim
has been put forward that 95% of the population is descended from
Edward III, but this excludes ANY male descendant in the male line,
because if such a person existed they would be King of England. But
the maths would dictate, would it not, that half of 95% of the
population would be male descendants in the male line - so ths gap we
need to explain is between a theory that says that roughly 50% of the
population would be male line male descendants and the facts which
says THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH PERSON.

No, 50% of the population would not be his male-line descendants.  Turn
it around; start now and look backwards.  If we stipulate 30 generations
from Edward III, we would have to assign him any one (or more) of the
2^30 possible places in the 30th generation of the ahnentafel of each
living descendant (consecutively numbered from 2^30 to (2^31 - 1) on an
Ahnentafel with the Sosa-Stradonitz numbering system).  There is only a
miniscule chance that Edward III would actually occupy place 2^30, i.e.
the all-agnate spot.  The fact that he is not known to occupy that
precise spot (2^30) in anybody's Ahnentafel (barring unknown bastardy)
is not surprising, given what his agnate descendants were doing to one
another between 1399 & 1485.
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Yes, but start from the top. If we assume that parents have 50% male
and 50% female children. This means that 50% of the first generation
are male line descendants of x, 50% of the second generation are male
descendants of x - and so on to the Nth generation. Given this maths,
if someone claims that 100% of people today are descended from x, then
50% of them should be male line descendants of x, according to the
model.

It is true that 100% of Edward III's children are his 'male-line'
descendants (i.e. Edward III is their father); but only 50% of the next
generation are agnate descendants (children of sons); only 25% of the
third generation (children of sons of sons), and so on. Many
generations later, 50% of all living descendants will be male, but the
probability of a descendant being an all-male-line descent from Edward
III halves in each generation; and this dwindles faster than the
reciprocal of the growth of the population as a whole, so the
probability that *someone* in the population is his agnate descendant
(let alone the probability calculated for any given individual)
approaches a very small constant -- the reciprocal of the total
reproducing male population in Edward III's day.

No, wait a minute; I confused myself. For each modern Englishman, the
probability that his male-line ancestor is Edward III might simply be
the reciprocal of the reproducing male population of England in Edward
III's time (the reciprocal of all available candidates for that slot in
the pedigree)? And the probability that *someone in the current
population* is an agnate descendant of Edward III would then fit the
multiple dice-roll model, which, since the population now is larger than
the population then, should make the probability of a match approach 1,
right? Oh, bother.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I have a suspicion that one factor that comes into play
with royal descents is the habit of such families not to survive. They
have a remarkable knack of getting wiped out - and you can't be
decended from someone who didn't exist. Just as a thought. The claim
has been put forward that 95% of the population is descended from
Edward III, but this excludes ANY male descendant in the male line,
because if such a person existed they would be King of England. But
the maths would dictate, would it not, that half of 95% of the
population would be male descendants in the male line - so ths gap we
need to explain is between a theory that says that roughly 50% of the
population would be male line male descendants and the facts which
says THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH PERSON.

No, 50% of the population would not be his male-line descendants.  Turn
it around; start now and look backwards.  If we stipulate 30 generations
from Edward III, we would have to assign him any one (or more) of the
2^30 possible places in the 30th generation of the ahnentafel of each
living descendant (consecutively numbered from 2^30 to (2^31 - 1) on an
Ahnentafel with the Sosa-Stradonitz numbering system).  There is only a
miniscule chance that Edward III would actually occupy place 2^30, i.e.
the all-agnate spot.  The fact that he is not known to occupy that
precise spot (2^30) in anybody's Ahnentafel (barring unknown bastardy)
is not surprising, given what his agnate descendants were doing to one
another between 1399 & 1485.
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Yes, but start from the top. If we assume that parents have 50% male
and 50% female children. This means that 50% of the first generation
are male line descendants of x, 50% of the second generation are male
descendants of x - and so on to the Nth generation. Given this maths,
if someone claims that 100% of people today are descended from x, then
50% of them should be male line descendants of x, according to the
model.

It is true that 100% of Edward III's children are his 'male-line'
descendants (i.e. Edward III is their father); but only 50% of the next
generation are agnate descendants (children of sons); only 25% of the
third generation  (children of sons of sons), and so on.  Many
generations later, 50% of all living descendants will be male, but the
probability of a descendant being an all-male-line descent from Edward
III halves in each generation; and this dwindles faster than the
reciprocal of the growth of the population as a whole, so the
probability that *someone* in the population is his agnate descendant
(let alone the probability calculated for any given individual)
approaches a very small constant -- the reciprocal of the total
reproducing male population in Edward III's day.
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The percentage might decrease but the actual number would increase,
would it not? Unless each child has two children, one male and one
female, in which case the number of male line male descendants will
only ever equals one in each generation (after 4 generations you would
have 1 male line male descendant and 15 female line descendants, of
which 7 would be male). More than that number of children and the
actual number of male line male descendants would increase in each
generation, so that after, say, 25 generations you would expect a fair
number of such descendants. What is 1.3 to the power of 25 for
instance? A BIIIIIIIGGGGG number! In fact, not one is known. How do we
square the theory with the facts? Something is missing - and not
necessarily my brain. I accept that there are almost certainly tens of
thousands of descendants of Edward III (at least - but we must
remember that WWI decimated the families recorded by Ruvigny) but
that's a long way short of 50 million (or whatever). And anyway, I
refuse to be related to my plumber (just joking - he undoubtedly earns
more than I do, given how much he charged me for changing a washer on
a tap not that long ago).

Graham

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
The percentage might decrease but the actual number would increase,
would it not? Unless each child has two children, one male and one
female, in which case the number of male line male descendants will
only ever equals one in each generation (after 4 generations you would
have 1 male line male descendant and 15 female line descendants, of
which 7 would be male). More than that number of children and the
actual number of male line male descendants would increase in each
generation, so that after, say, 25 generations you would expect a fair
number of such descendants.
What is 1.3 to the power of 25 for instance? A BIIIIIIIGGGGG number!

706.

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
In fact, not one is known.

How about this individual:

http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00055826&tree=LEO

and his three sons and three (agnate) grandsons?

From the senior grandson (b. 1989) this database (by Leo van de Pas)
shows the agnate lineage -- 25 gens. (inclusive) to Edward III, & 10
more for good measure:

http://www.genealogics.org/lines.php?personID=I00055866&tree=LEO

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[m***@btinternet.com]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I have a suspicion that one factor that comes into play
with royal descents is the habit of such families not to survive. They
have a remarkable knack of getting wiped out - and you can't be
decended from someone who didn't exist. Just as a thought. The claim
has been put forward that 95% of the population is descended from
Edward III, but this excludes ANY male descendant in the male line,
because if such a person existed they would be King of England.

Graham

Before pontificating, it would be a good idea if you knew what you
were talking about.

Male-line descent is not a requirement for inheritance of the British
throne. King George III has plenty of male-line descendants living
(eg Prince Ernest Augustus of Hannover) yet the Crown has passed to a
female-line - via his granddaughter Victoria - because the daughter of
an older son will succeed before the son of a younger son.

This is why the current Queen succeeded her father in 1952 even though
there are male-line descendants of her grandfather King George V (eg
the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester).

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
But the maths would dictate, would it not, that half of 95% of the
population would be male descendants in the male line - so ths gap we
need to explain is between a theory that says that roughly 50% of the
population would be male line male descendants and the facts which
says THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH PERSON

You have a funny idea of 'facts' - not that that should be news to
anyone here.

Others have demolished the base fallacies in your argument. I will
just point out that there ARE male-line descendants of Edward III.
Just ask the Duke of Beaufort.

Sheesh, as Mr Lucki would rightly say.

MA-R

[g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I have a suspicion that one factor that comes into play
with royal descents is the habit of such families not to survive. They
have a remarkable knack of getting wiped out - and you can't be
decended from someone who didn't exist. Just as a thought. The claim
has been put forward that 95% of the population is descended from
Edward III, but this excludes ANY male descendant in the male line,
because if such a person existed they would be King of England.

Graham
Before pontificating, it would be a good idea if you knew what you
were talking about.
Male-line descent is not a requirement for inheritance of the British
throne.  King George III has plenty of male-line descendants living
(eg Prince Ernest Augustus of Hannover) yet the Crown has passed to a
female-line - via his granddaughter Victoria - because the daughter of
an older son will succeed before the son of a younger son.
This is why the current Queen succeeded her father in 1952 even though
there are male-line descendants of her grandfather King George V (eg
the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester).

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
But the maths would dictate, would it not, that half of 95% of the
population would be male descendants in the male line - so ths gap we
need to explain is between a theory that says that roughly 50% of the
population would be male line male descendants and the facts which
says THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH PERSON

You have a funny idea of 'facts' - not that that should be news to
anyone here.
Others have demolished the base fallacies in your argument.  I will
just point out that there ARE male-line descendants of Edward III.
Just ask the Duke of Beaufort.
Sheesh, as Mr Lucki would rightly say.
MA-R

What a nice chap you are. And why shouldn't I pontificate? It's what
I'm best at. It keeps you out of the pub anyway... or perhaps not.

PS You are wrong. If Edward III had a male line male descendant, that
person would be legal King of England. Think about it (er... because
the title would never have had a chance to go to or through a
daughter, legally speaking). Please send me a grovelling apology asap.
Thank you.

[m***@btinternet.com]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I have a suspicion that one factor that comes into play
with royal descents is the habit of such families not to survive. They
have a remarkable knack of getting wiped out - and you can't be
decended from someone who didn't exist. Just as a thought. The claim
has been put forward that 95% of the population is descended from
Edward III, but this excludes ANY male descendant in the male line,
because if such a person existed they would be King of England.

Graham
Before pontificating, it would be a good idea if you knew what you
were talking about.
Male-line descent is not a requirement for inheritance of the British
throne.  King George III has plenty of male-line descendants living
(eg Prince Ernest Augustus of Hannover) yet the Crown has passed to a
female-line - via his granddaughter Victoria - because the daughter of
an older son will succeed before the son of a younger son.
This is why the current Queen succeeded her father in 1952 even though
there are male-line descendants of her grandfather King George V (eg
the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester).

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
But the maths would dictate, would it not, that half of 95% of the
population would be male descendants in the male line - so ths gap we
need to explain is between a theory that says that roughly 50% of the
population would be male line male descendants and the facts which
says THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH PERSON

You have a funny idea of 'facts' - not that that should be news to
anyone here.
Others have demolished the base fallacies in your argument.  I will
just point out that there ARE male-line descendants of Edward III.
Just ask the Duke of Beaufort.
Sheesh, as Mr Lucki would rightly say.
MA-R

What a nice chap you are. And why shouldn't I pontificate? It's what
I'm best at. It keeps you out of the pub anyway... or perhaps not.
PS You are wrong. If Edward III had a male line male descendant, that
person would be legal King of England. Think about it (er... because
the title would never have had a chance to go to or through a
daughter, legally speaking). Please send me a grovelling apology asap.
Thank you.

Hm, you are far more dense than even I had suspected.

Here's a small dose of facts for you. I don't want you to have to
deal with too much at one time for fear that your brain might
explode. Read it slowly:

1. King George V 1865-1936 r 1910-1936; left issue:

2a. King Edward VIII 1894-1972 r 1936; abdicated and left no issue

2b. King George VI 1895-1952 r 1936-1952; left issue:

3. Queen Elizabeth II, born 1926 r 1952 -

2c. Henry, Duke of Gloucester 1900-1974; left issue

3. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, born 1944

Let's summarise this: Richard, Duke of Gloucester is a male-line
descendant of King George V [George V => Henry, Duke of Gloucester =>
Richard, Duke of Gloucester]

Yet, he is not the King. His cousin Elizabeth instead wears the
Crown.

How can this be? Your dictum would state:

"If George V had a male line male descendant, that person would be
legal King of England. Think about it (er... because the title would
never have had a chance to go to or through a daughter, legally
speaking)."

We are therefore left with three choice to resolve this:

(a) Elizabeth II is not Queen;
(b) Richard, Duke of Gloucester does not exist
(c) you are talking out of your bottom.

I think I'll pick (c). Why don't you sit down and shut up?

Further, as to your laughably ignorant assertion that there are no
male-line descendants of Edward III currently living, take a look at
Debretts or Burkes, sub Dukedom of Beaufort, and consider the
following [***Warning***: facts follow]:

1. Edward III
2. John, Duke of Lancaster
3. John, Marquess of Dorset
4. Edmund, 1st Duke of Somerset
5. Henry, 2nd Duke of Somerset
6. Charles, 1st Earl of Worcester
7. Henry, 2nd Earl of Worcester
8. William, 3rd Earl of Worcester
9. Edward, 4th Earl of Worcester
10. Henry, 1st Marquess of Worcester
11. Edmund, 2nd Marquess of Worcester
12. Henry, 1st Duke of Beaufort
13. Charles, Marquess of Worcester
14. Henry, 2nd Duke of Beaufort
15. Charles, 4th Duke of Beaufort
16. Henry, 5th Duke of Beaufort
17. Henry, 6th Duke of Beaufort
18. Henry, 7th Duke of Beaufort
19. Henry, 8th Duke of Beaufort
20. Lord Henry Somerset
21. Henry Somerset
22. Henry Somerset
23. David, 11th Duke of Beaufort, born 1928

Quaere: how many females can you spot in generations 1 to 23 above?

No apologies necessary.

MA-R

[j***@googlemail.com]

Post by m***@btinternet.com

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I have a suspicion that one factor that comes into play
with royal descents is the habit of such families not to survive. They
have a remarkable knack of getting wiped out - and you can't be
decended from someone who didn't exist. Just as a thought. The claim
has been put forward that 95% of the population is descended from
Edward III, but this excludes ANY male descendant in the male line,
because if such a person existed they would be King of England.

Graham
Before pontificating, it would be a good idea if you knew what you
were talking about.
Male-line descent is not a requirement for inheritance of the British
throne. King George III has plenty of male-line descendants living
(eg Prince Ernest Augustus of Hannover) yet the Crown has passed to a
female-line - via his granddaughter Victoria - because the daughter of
an older son will succeed before the son of a younger son.
This is why the current Queen succeeded her father in 1952 even though
there are male-line descendants of her grandfather King George V (eg
the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester).

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
But the maths would dictate, would it not, that half of 95% of the
population would be male descendants in the male line - so ths gap we
need to explain is between a theory that says that roughly 50% of the
population would be male line male descendants and the facts which
says THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH PERSON

You have a funny idea of 'facts' - not that that should be news to
anyone here.
Others have demolished the base fallacies in your argument. I will
just point out that there ARE male-line descendants of Edward III.
Just ask the Duke of Beaufort.
Sheesh, as Mr Lucki would rightly say.
MA-R

What a nice chap you are. And why shouldn't I pontificate? It's what
I'm best at. It keeps you out of the pub anyway... or perhaps not.
PS You are wrong. If Edward III had a male line male descendant, that
person would be legal King of England. Think about it (er... because
the title would never have had a chance to go to or through a
daughter, legally speaking). Please send me a grovelling apology asap.
Thank you.

Hm, you are far more dense than even I had suspected.
Here's a small dose of facts for you. I don't want you to have to
deal with too much at one time for fear that your brain might
2a. King Edward VIII 1894-1972 r 1936; abdicated and left no issue
3. Queen Elizabeth II, born 1926 r 1952 -
2c. Henry, Duke of Gloucester 1900-1974; left issue
3. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, born 1944
Let's summarise this: Richard, Duke of Gloucester is a male-line
descendant of King George V [George V => Henry, Duke of Gloucester =>
Richard, Duke of Gloucester]
Yet, he is not the King. His cousin Elizabeth instead wears the
Crown.
"If George V had a male line male descendant, that person would be
legal King of England. Think about it (er... because the title would
never have had a chance to go to or through a daughter, legally
speaking)."
(a) Elizabeth II is not Queen;
(b) Richard, Duke of Gloucester does not exist
(c) you are talking out of your bottom.
I think I'll pick (c). Why don't you sit down and shut up?
Further, as to your laughably ignorant assertion that there are no
male-line descendants of Edward III currently living, take a look at
Debretts or Burkes, sub Dukedom of Beaufort, and consider the
1. Edward III
2. John, Duke of Lancaster
3. John, Marquess of Dorset
4. Edmund, 1st Duke of Somerset
5. Henry, 2nd Duke of Somerset
6. Charles, 1st Earl of Worcester
7. Henry, 2nd Earl of Worcester
8. William, 3rd Earl of Worcester
9. Edward, 4th Earl of Worcester
10. Henry, 1st Marquess of Worcester
11. Edmund, 2nd Marquess of Worcester
12. Henry, 1st Duke of Beaufort
13. Charles, Marquess of Worcester
14. Henry, 2nd Duke of Beaufort
15. Charles, 4th Duke of Beaufort
16. Henry, 5th Duke of Beaufort
17. Henry, 6th Duke of Beaufort
18. Henry, 7th Duke of Beaufort
19. Henry, 8th Duke of Beaufort
20. Lord Henry Somerset
21. Henry Somerset
22. Henry Somerset
23. David, 11th Duke of Beaufort, born 1928
Quaere: how many females can you spot in generations 1 to 23 above?
No apologies necessary.
MA-R

to add to this
Let us examine "Mr" Howes false claim:

The facts

The Rulers of the Isle of Man

It would be too great a diversion here to delve deeply into the
history of the Isle of Man, and the role played in it by the Stanley
family. Nevertheless, a brief encapsulation of it is necessary in
order to appreciate the claims made by Howe, and to determine how
inaccurate and misleading they are.

A reputable history of the island may be found in An Abstract of the
Laws, Customs and Ordinances of the Isle of Man, J. Parr, Manx Society
vol. 12, Douglas, 1866 ("MS12"). It is avalable online through google
books. I have used it as the basis for the following paragraphs.

Man was anciently an independent kingdom. After centuries of rule by
Viking chieftains suzerainty was ceded to the Scots in 1266.
Subsequent claims were made by the English Crown. The King of England
was effectively the feudal overlord of Man by 1290 and the English
monarchs made several dispositions of it thereafter.

In effect, the local rulers of Man (who were usually not themselves
resident on the island) were usually hereditary tenants of the English
King, and were drawn from among his retainers, albeit favouring those
with an interest in the island.

We see this instanced in various ways: when a grant lapsed (for
instance, at the death of a life tenant, or upon forfeiture), Man
reverted to the English Crown [MS12, pp 26, 29], and the English
monarch was not infrequently called upon to adjudicate over the
lordship of Man and its incidents [MS12, p 35].

On 9 August 1333 King Edward III granted the Isle of Man absolutely to
William de Montacute, 1st Earl of Salisbury [MS12, p 22]; his son
succeeded him in 1344, and many years afterwards sold the island and
its lordship to William le Scrope [MS12, pp 22-23; ODNB, biographies
of the 1st and 2nd Earls of Salisbury by W.M. Ormrod and J.L. Leland
respectively].

Scrope obtained the Isle of Man in 1392 or 1393 but found himself on
the wrong side of the revolution of 1399, when Richard II was replaced
by his cousin Henry IV. The new king had Scrope executed, and his
property forfeited to the English Crown, who took back the Isle of
Man, citing the doctrine of conquest [MS12, p 22 et seq; ODNB
biography of William Scrope by Brigette Vale].

Then, on 19 October 1399, a further grant was made to Henry Percy,
Earl of Northumberland, pursuant to which the island was "to be held
for ever of us and our heirs by service", thus emphasising Henry IV's
continuing suzerainty [MS12, p 23]. But Percy too fell into disfavour,
having sided with the King's enemies, and consequently the Isle of Man
was given to the Stanley family [MS12, pp 23-27].

The Stanleys

We can trace the progress of the Stanleys' possession in the Calendar
of Patent Rolls, online here:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls

11 June 1405: Protection given to Sir William Stanley and others,
going on the King's service to take the Isle of Man into the King's
hands.

6 April 1406: Grant to John Stanley, knight, and his heirs and
assigns, in lieu of a grant to him for life, surrendered to be
cancelled, of the island, castle, peel and lordship [sic] of Man and
all islands and lordships pertaining to the island, not exceeding the
value of £400 yearly, to hold with royal rights, royalties,
franchises, liberties, etc, by service of rendering to the King two
falcons immediately after doing homage and to the King's heirs two
falcons on the days of their coronations as fully as William le
Scrope, knight, or any other lord [sic] of the island held the same.

Thus we learn that John Stanley's first grant - which we know was made
shortly before 4 October 1405 [MS12, p 27] - was for life only. He
surrendered this grant to the King in 1406 and it was cancelled,
replaced by the above grant of 6 April 1406 [MS12, pp 28-29].

This is of considerable importance when we come to consider Howe's
claims, because he states that the basis of his claim is the "letters
patent of 1405 [to] Sir John Stanley [and] his heirs" [e.g. London
Gazette advertisement of 16 January 2007].

We see that this claim is a nonsense, because the 1405 grant was for
John Stanley's life only - not to his heirs. And it was surrendered
and cancelled in 1406. A claim today under the 1405 grant is of no
effect whatsoever.

NB Howe has tried to impugn the reliability of MS12 as a source for
the second grant, noting it contains a heading that refers to the date
of the grant as "1306". This is clearly a typographical error. The
date of the second grant is confirmed elsewhere from primary sources
as 6 April 1406 [Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry IV, vol 3, p 201,
HMSO, London, 1907].

By virtue of the 1406 grant, the Isle of Man remained in the
possession of the Stanley family for nearly two hundred years,
descending in the direct male line until the death of Ferdinando, 5th
Earl of Derby in 1594 [ODNB, biography of Ferdinando Stanley by D.
Kathman].

At this point a problem arose. Ferdinando had no son. He left three
daughters and a brother, who advanced competing claims to the island.
Queen Elizabeth I, the feudal overlord of Man, was left to adjudicate.
During this process, it was said that the original grant of the Isle
of Man to the Stanleys had been invalid, as Lord Northumberland's
prior grant of 1399 had not actually been cancelled or forfeited.
Eventually, to resolve this legal muddle, Ferdinando's daughters gave
up their claim in exchange for a financial settlement, further grants
were made and an act of the English Parliament was passed, "assuring
and establishing the Isle of Man in the name and blood of William,
Earl of Derby" [MS12, pp 35 et seq; the act is detailed on p 61].

This act of 1610 was the authority from which the Stanleys
subsequently derived their undisputed rights to Man.

The Lordship passed to the 7th through 10th Earls of Derby, and then
to the 2nd Duke of Atholl as heir-general of the Stanleys. His
daughter Charlotte and her husband the 3rd Duke of Atholl succeeded in
1764 and the following year sold the lordship back to the British
Crown; further rights were re-acquired by the Crown in 1806, and the
residue by 1829.

The relevant parliamentary Acts associated with these transfers are:

(a) 1765: the 'Revesting Act', 5 Geo III c. 26

(b) 1806: 45 Geo III c. 113 and c. 123

(c) the residue: pursuant to 6 Geo IV c. 34 (1825)

The current Lord of the Isle of Man is HM Queen Elizabeth II:

http://www.gov.im/cso/crown/office_gov.xml
'King of Man' vs 'Lord of Man'

From early times we see that the rulers of the Isle of Man used the
title 'Lord of Man'.

Various examples of this may be seen in the collection of historic
Manx documents published by the Manx Society between 1860 and 1862 and
which may be found here:

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/manxsoc/msvol04/index.htm

In 1381 William de Montacute made a grant as "Seignour de Man", which
means 'Lord of Man' in contemporary legal French.

A copy of William le Scrope's seal shows that he used the title
"domini Manne et Insularum", which translates as 'Lord of Man and the
Isles'. He ruled from circa 1392 to 1399.

In 1399 and again in 1405 we find that the Earl of Northumberland and
Sir John Stanley received respective grants of the "dominium de Man",
that is, the 'lordship of Man'.

And an indenture of 1417 explicitly calls the latter "Johanis de
Stanley Domini Man et Insularam" - 'John Stanley, Lord of Man and the
Isles'.

It seems clear, then, that the rulers were variously called 'King', or
'Lord' when the same proprietorship was the subject. Thus, when Thomas
Stanley settled for 'Lord of Man' in 1504 he was not changing the
title, but rather regularising it.

Nevertheless, the style of King was not abandoned, as Howe claims. It
continued to be used for at least a further 150 years:

"The Lord of Man wielded quasi-regal powers, being in effect 'de jure'
king of Man. The regal title was, apparently, not used outside the
island after its annexation by England in c.1333, but the Stanleys
continued to be styled 'Rex Manniae et Insularum' [King of Man and the
Isles] in the island's court records until at least the later
seventeenth century. Outside the island, perhaps understandably, the
Stanleys were content to be styled Lords of Man" [J.R. Dickinson and
J.A. Sharpe, 'Courts, Crime and Litigation in the Isle of Man,
1580-1700', Historical Research vol 72, 1999, pp 140-59, quoting from
p 142]

This causes massive problems for Howe's case. He has asserted that
Thomas abandoned or abdicated the title of King, and it was severed in
such a way that it passed to his nearest heir. (Howe claims this was
his sister Jane, but this is also wrong, as we shall see.)

We now know that this is not the case.

Furthermore, even if the Stanleys or their heirs did discontinue its
use at some point, it is not uncommon for rulers to change their
title. Doing so does not affect their rule or create a new separate
detached title.

An excellent example is furnished by the ancient Welsh kingdoms: after
they fell under the rule of the English Crown, they became
principalities and lordships. In the same way, the Napoleonic wars
brought changes to the titles of a dozen European realms: Baden,
Bavaria, Hesse and Saxony, to name but a few; in 1806 the Holy Roman
Emperor dropped that title and changed his style in his ancestral
Austria from Archduke to Emperor - but he didn't cease to reign. The
Prince of Romania became King in 1881; the same in Bulgaria in 1908
and Montenegro in 1910. The tributary kings who were subject to the
Thai monarch downgraded to princes during the 19th century. And as
recently as 2002 the Sheikh of Bahrain turned into a King.

In each of these cases, the ruler, the reign and the entity ruled
remained the same. Howe's argument is a spurious one, born from a
desperate need to find a justification for removing the ruling title
from the senior line of the Stanleys. It is illogical and has no basis
in reality.

Feudal duties: the Manx falcon

Howe claims to have inherited the rights of the Stanley family as
Kings of Man, relying on the original letters patent.

These letters patent state that the island was to be held by feudal
service, specifically by delivering two falcons to the English Crown
at various times. This was confirmed in 1610 [MS12, p 69].

No service, no tenure.

We know the Stanleys and their heirs in possession of Man continued to
comply with this requirement until the reign of William IV, by which
time the lordship had come back to the British sovereign.

Did Howe's alleged ancestors comply with this requirement after 1504?
In failing to do so, would they not have forfeited any rights they
allegedly had?

Taking Howe's arguments to their logical conclusion, their inherent
absurdity is easily exposed.

Where does this leave Howe?

Without a leg to stand on - let alone three.

He has attempted to dismiss the 1610 act and everything subsequent to
it by pretending that the senior line of the Stanley family somehow
lost the right to the title 'King of Man' when the 2nd Earl of Derby
stopped using it in 1504.

We have seen that the titles 'King of Man' and 'Lord of Man' are not
two different things. They were used interchangeably for centuries and
are incapable of being severed. We have also seen that in any case the
Stanleys did not cease using the title of King in 1504 - they were
still using it in the late 1600s.

In advancing this aspect of his claim, Howe is trying without success
to split hairs. As we will see next, he is equally unsuccessful when
he attempts to split heirs.

Since the late 13th century, although not part of England or the
United Kingdom, the Isle of Man has had as it overlord the English
(now British) monarch.

An intermediate ruler held the island for centuries, but his legal
rights were only settled fully in 1610. He was sometimes called King,
and sometimes Lord, but the latter title became the established norm
after 1504 without being exclusive - the title of King continued to be
used until at least the late 17th century. In 1765 the Lord sold his
sovereign rights to the British Crown; the office held by the Duke of
Atholl after that date was as Governor, appointed by the King.

Howe's claims to have inherited the rights of this erstwhile
intermediate ruler under the terms of the 1405 grant are nonsensical,
since the 1405 grant was one for life only, and in any case there is
no good reason to conclude that the senior line of the Stanley family
lost any of their rights in 1504.

Conclusion

No claim to the Isle of Man 600 years later can validly originate in
the grant of 1405.

The Stanleys did not give up the title of King in 1504, and never lost
the rights consequent to it.
Howe is not an heir to the Isle of Man and has no right to pretend to
any titles.

All info is thanks to http://www.unrealroyal.com/index.html

[g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Post by m***@btinternet.com

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I have a suspicion that one factor that comes into play
with royal descents is the habit of such families not to survive. They
have a remarkable knack of getting wiped out - and you can't be
decended from someone who didn't exist. Just as a thought. The claim
has been put forward that 95% of the population is descended from
Edward III, but this excludes ANY male descendant in the male line,
because if such a person existed they would be King of England.

Graham
Before pontificating, it would be a good idea if you knew what you
were talking about.
Male-line descent is not a requirement for inheritance of the British
throne.  King George III has plenty of male-line descendants living
(eg Prince Ernest Augustus of Hannover) yet the Crown has passed to a
female-line - via his granddaughter Victoria - because the daughter of
an older son will succeed before the son of a younger son.
This is why the current Queen succeeded her father in 1952 even though
there are male-line descendants of her grandfather King George V (eg
the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester).

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
But the maths would dictate, would it not, that half of 95% of the
population would be male descendants in the male line - so ths gap we
need to explain is between a theory that says that roughly 50% of the
population would be male line male descendants and the facts which
says THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH PERSON

You have a funny idea of 'facts' - not that that should be news to
anyone here.
Others have demolished the base fallacies in your argument.  I will
just point out that there ARE male-line descendants of Edward III.
Just ask the Duke of Beaufort.
Sheesh, as Mr Lucki would rightly say.
MA-R

What a nice chap you are. And why shouldn't I pontificate? It's what
I'm best at. It keeps you out of the pub anyway... or perhaps not.
PS You are wrong. If Edward III had a male line male descendant, that
person would be legal King of England. Think about it (er... because
the title would never have had a chance to go to or through a
daughter, legally speaking). Please send me a grovelling apology asap.
Thank you.

Hm, you are far more dense than even I had suspected.
Here's a small dose of facts for you.  I don't want you to have to
deal with too much at one time for fear that your brain might
2a. King Edward VIII 1894-1972 r 1936; abdicated and left no issue
3. Queen Elizabeth II, born 1926 r 1952 -
2c. Henry, Duke of Gloucester 1900-1974; left issue
3. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, born 1944
Let's summarise this: Richard, Duke of Gloucester is a male-line
descendant of King George V [George V => Henry, Duke of Gloucester =>
Richard, Duke of Gloucester]
Yet, he is not the King.  His cousin Elizabeth instead wears the
Crown.
"If George V had a male line male descendant, that person would be
legal King of England. Think about it (er... because the title would
never have had a chance to go to or through a daughter, legally
speaking)."
(a) Elizabeth II is not Queen;
(b) Richard, Duke of Gloucester does not exist
(c) you are talking out of your bottom.
I think I'll pick (c).  Why don't you sit down and shut up?
Further, as to your laughably ignorant assertion that there are no
male-line descendants of Edward III currently living, take a look at
Debretts or Burkes, sub Dukedom of Beaufort, and consider the
1. Edward III
2. John, Duke of Lancaster
3. John, Marquess of Dorset
4. Edmund, 1st Duke of Somerset
5. Henry, 2nd Duke of Somerset
6. Charles, 1st Earl of Worcester
7. Henry, 2nd Earl of Worcester
8. William, 3rd Earl of Worcester
9. Edward, 4th Earl of Worcester
10. Henry, 1st Marquess of Worcester
11. Edmund, 2nd Marquess of Worcester
12. Henry, 1st Duke of Beaufort
13. Charles, Marquess of Worcester
14. Henry, 2nd Duke of Beaufort
15. Charles, 4th Duke of Beaufort
16. Henry, 5th Duke of Beaufort
17. Henry, 6th Duke of Beaufort
18. Henry, 7th Duke of Beaufort
19. Henry, 8th Duke of Beaufort
20. Lord Henry Somerset
21. Henry Somerset
22. Henry Somerset
23. David, 11th Duke of Beaufort, born 1928
Quaere: how many females can you spot in generations 1 to 23 above?
No apologies necessary.
MA-R- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Of course, I meant legitimate (not legitimated - and legally excluded)
male line descendants. Everyone knows about the Duke of Beaufort (I am
actually descended from John of Gaunt and Catherine Roet myself; 9
seperate lines of descent documented so far). I repeat, if Edward III
had a (legitimate) male line male descendant that descendant would be
King of England because the Crown goes to a male child in preference
to an older female child (e.g. Prince Charles). Doh! Think very, very,
very (very, very, very) slowly about this one.

PS Are you saying that if a person sits down that they can't talk out
of their bottom? Logical I suppose but I wouldn't know; I'll have to
rely on you to answer that one. After all, you should know.

PPS I am still owed a grovelling apology (but I am magnanimous and
will waive my right, considering the fact that your tiny brain is
exploding as a result of the excessive strain in understanding the
bloomin' obvious).

[m***@btinternet.com]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Of course, I meant legitimate (not legitimated - and legally excluded)
male line descendants. Everyone knows about the Duke of Beaufort

No you didn't - remember, you made that assertion when you advanced
the stupid argument that Edward III had no male-line descendants and
therefore all calculations about the saturation level of his
descendancy amongst the current UK population were somehow wrong.
This assertion of yours had nothing to do with the descent of the
throne - that was a separate (but equally stupid) assertion.

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
(I am
actually descended from John of Gaunt and Catherine Roet myself; 9
seperate lines of descent documented so far). I repeat, if Edward III
had a (legitimate) male line male descendant that descendant would be
King of England because the Crown goes to a male child in preference
to an older female child (e.g. Prince Charles). Doh! Think very, very,
very (very, very, very) slowly about this one.

Graham, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat this rubbish, it's
still rubbish.

The inheritance favours a male over a female, but only in one
generation of descent from the same person. A man's elder son will be
preferred over his younger son, and over any daughter, but if his
elder son leaves only a daughter, then that granddaughter will inherit
in preference to the younger son (her uncle).

That is why Elizabeth II (a female) inherited the throne that was once
her grandfather's even though George V still has "male line male
descendants".

Just because a female inherits the throne does not say anything at all
about the extinction of otherwise of her ancestors male line-
descendants - only her father's.

It is very sad to see you make a fool of yourself each time you post.
I am sure most of us have long had you marked down as a buffoon, but I
for one didn't realise you were actually stupid to boot.

Think about it - slowly.

Kind regards, MA-R

[g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Post by m***@btinternet.com

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Of course, I meant legitimate (not legitimated - and legally excluded)
male line descendants. Everyone knows about the Duke of Beaufort

No you didn't - remember, you made that assertion when you advanced
the stupid argument that Edward III had no male-line descendants and
therefore all calculations about the saturation level of his
descendancy amongst the current UK population were somehow wrong.
This assertion of yours had nothing to do with the descent of the
throne - that was a separate (but equally stupid) assertion.

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
(I am
actually descended from John of Gaunt and Catherine Roet myself; 9
seperate lines of descent documented so far). I repeat, if Edward III
had a (legitimate) male line male descendant that descendant would be
King of England because the Crown goes to a male child in preference
to an older female child (e.g. Prince Charles). Doh! Think very, very,
very (very, very, very) slowly about this one.

Graham, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat this rubbish, it's
still rubbish.
The inheritance favours a male over a female, but only in one
generation of descent from the same person.  A man's elder son will be
preferred over his younger son, and over any daughter, but if his
elder son leaves only a daughter, then that granddaughter will inherit
in preference to the younger son (her uncle).
That is why Elizabeth II (a female) inherited the throne that was once
her grandfather's even though George V still has "male line male
descendants".
Just because a female inherits the throne does not say anything at all
about the extinction of otherwise of her ancestors male line-
descendants - only her father's.
It is very sad to see you make a fool of yourself each time you post.
I am sure most of us have long had you marked down as a buffoon, but I
for one didn't realise you were actually stupid to boot.
Think about it - slowly.
Kind regards, MA-R

Sorry. We are talking about inheritance rules of the Norman and
Plantagenet kings, which means that the crown descends like a male
line peerage by patent. The fact that someone chose to alter the laws
of inheritance at a later stage is irrelevant. You have to stick to a
consistent rule. This rule means that ANY male line male descendant
takes preference over ANY female line descendant, male or female. The
Crown may descend to someone by a later law but I don't think that
affects people's view of true legitimacy. After all, such laws are
only passed to protect an illegitimate claim to the throne. If the
claim was legitimate then no law would be required. I do not think it
can be questioned that a legitimate male line male descendant of
Edward III would be regarded as having a paramount claim to the
throne, regardless of the 'legal' situation. This, of course, is an
academic issue because there is no such person.

And don't lie. You aren't sad for my sake at all. You are the one who
started throwing personal insults, which just demonstrates to everyone
what a truly mannerless lout you are. Even if someone is wrong there
is no excuse to behave like a yob. Your conduct in such a situation
reveals your true nature. Good riddance to you.

[m***@btinternet.com]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
And don't lie. You aren't sad for my sake at all. You are the one who
started throwing personal insults, which just demonstrates to everyone
what a truly mannerless lout you are. Even if someone is wrong there
is no excuse to behave like a yob. Your conduct in such a situation
reveals your true nature. Good riddance to you.

Graham

I am sorry you feel this way, just as I am sorry that you frequently
dish out the kind of colourful abuse you appear unable to take. The
problem is that you were not merely wrong, you were insistent and
bombastic and repetitive.

I am not interested in getting into a slanging match with you about
who is a boor and who is a lout. Nevertheless, I agree that my
impatient language was unnecessary and I am happy to withdraw it and
apologise for it.

Perhaps we can now get back to a discussion of more relevant matters
without this sort of distraction.

Kind regards

Michael

[g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
And don't lie. You aren't sad for my sake at all. You are the one who
started throwing personal insults, which just demonstrates to everyone
what a truly mannerless lout you are. Even if someone is wrong there
is no excuse to behave like a yob. Your conduct in such a situation
reveals your true nature. Good riddance to you.

Graham
I am sorry you feel this way, just as I am sorry that you frequently
dish out the kind of colourful abuse you appear unable to take.  The
problem is that you were not merely wrong, you were insistent and
bombastic and repetitive.
I am not interested in getting into a slanging match with you about
who is a boor and who is a lout.  Nevertheless, I agree that my
impatient language was unnecessary and I am happy to withdraw it and
apologise for it.
Perhaps we can now get back to a discussion of more relevant matters
without this sort of distraction.
Kind regards
Michael

Good grief! An apology! I am bowled over. I was clearly wrong about
you and I apologise accordingly. I am sorry I was rude. Clearly, while
not as clever as I am (but who could be? (joke warning)), you are a
kind and genuine person.

PS I can out-aplogise you at any time - in case feel like an argument
about it (This is another joke by the way. As you have noticed I am a
bufoon by inclination - but it is better to make a joke of things than
otherwise).

Graham

[m***@btinternet.com]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
And don't lie. You aren't sad for my sake at all. You are the one who
started throwing personal insults, which just demonstrates to everyone
what a truly mannerless lout you are. Even if someone is wrong there
is no excuse to behave like a yob. Your conduct in such a situation
reveals your true nature. Good riddance to you.

Graham
I am sorry you feel this way, just as I am sorry that you frequently
dish out the kind of colourful abuse you appear unable to take.  The
problem is that you were not merely wrong, you were insistent and
bombastic and repetitive.
I am not interested in getting into a slanging match with you about
who is a boor and who is a lout.  Nevertheless, I agree that my
impatient language was unnecessary and I am happy to withdraw it and
apologise for it.
Perhaps we can now get back to a discussion of more relevant matters
without this sort of distraction.
Kind regards
Michael

Good grief! An apology! I am bowled over. I was clearly wrong about
you and I apologise accordingly. I am sorry I was rude. Clearly, while
not as clever as I am (but who could be? (joke warning)), you are a
kind and genuine person.
PS I can out-aplogise you at any time - in case feel like an argument
about it (This is another joke by the way. As you have noticed I am a
bufoon by inclination - but it is better to make a joke of things than
otherwise).
Graham

Amidst the sporging, trollery and fraud investigations, I think a bit
of levity here is no bad thing!

MA-R

[François R. Velde]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
I repeat, if Edward III
had a (legitimate) male line male descendant that descendant would be
King of England because the Crown goes to a male child in preference
to an older female child (e.g. Prince Charles).

That's simply not true. Replace "Edward III" by "George III" or "Edward VII":
the proposition should be true as well; but Ernst August of Hanover nor the duke
of Gloucester are king of England. The reason is that they are descended in
male line, but through a younger son.

Your proposition would be true under semi-salic law, in which all male agnatic
descendants take precedence over other descendants.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article

Post by Jan Böhme

Post by Jan Böhme
If you have assumed random mating,
and that the population thus is at Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and you
have 10% non-descendants in one generation, you will have 10% * 10% =
1% non-descendants in the next - or, in other words, you will go from
90% to 99% descendants over one generation. Trouble is, according to
you, Mortimer claims that the English population will have gone from
90% to 99% among the newborn in the fifteen years between 1980 and
1995.

I actually took the time to do a proper calculation, using Don's
account of Mortimer's assumptions. With a generation time of 30 years,
the expected number percentage of descendants will be 99.1% in babies
born in 2010, it was 97,3% in 1995, and 90,2% in 1980. Shortening the
generation time doessn't do all that much, as more generations will
have passed before tha magical year of 1860, too. Using 28 years gives
99.9% descendants in 2004, and 98,4% in 1976. So this is what one
gets with the maths straight, using Mortimer's assumptions. Relatively
near what he says, but not identical.
I realised a couple of things more about the correction factor as
well, though, as I fiddled around with my Excel sheet. Mortimer might
be justified in not applying it in a the few generations when the
frequency of descendants passes from 20 to 80%, or possibly from 15%
to 85%. But after that, he has to apply it again. Because then, the
tendency to marry within one's social group among the non-
descendants will affect the spread of the ancestry. For instance, it
seems not at all unreasonable that travellers are a group of Britons
not generally descending from Edward III which will prove considerably
more resistant to influx of his ancestry than predicted in a Hardy-
Weinberg equilibrium.
Skipping the correction between 15% and 85% actually amounts for
skipping it for just three generations. If one does this, 97,6% of the
children of English stock who are born in 2010 will be descendants,
using Moritimer's correction factor. Raising it just from 13% to 16%
will make 90.2% of the babies born in 2010 descendants, 70,9% of those
born in 1980, and 50,0% of those born in 1950. In other words, under
that assumption, a very sizable minority of the currently living pure-
stock Englishmen would not have Edward III as their ancestor. At 18%,
the non-descendants would constitute the current majority, and at 25%,
the great shift from non-ancestry to ancestry has barely started, with
something like 25% being descendants of Edward III.
But in real life, every generation will need its own correction factor
which will vary considerable, depending on whether saturation or
expansion predominates just then.
Jan Böhme
(who had to post this for his own sake, even if nobody is really
intrested in carrying it this far)

Jan,

Are you familiar with the work of Douglas Rohde, who has made computer
models to estimate the time back to the most recent common ancestor of
all living humans? See:

Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson and Joseph T. Chang, "Modelling the
recent common ancestry of all living humans," _Nature_ 431 [whole no.
7008] (30 Sep 2004):562-66.

While it's a tricky problem for the whole earth population and all its
well-attested historically isolated subgroups, given the results of such
modeling, for a place like the British isles and postcolonial
populations it's perfectly plausible that Edward III (and likely others
in his lifetime) are ancestors of all current individuals who are not in
successfully isolated subgroups.

Mark Humphrys of Dublin has a good website on this:

http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html

and here:

http://computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/index.html#mrca

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[François R. Velde]

Post by Jan Böhme
I actually took the time to do a proper calculation, using Don's
account of Mortimer's assumptions. With a generation time of 30 years,
the expected number percentage of descendants will be 99.1% in babies
born in 2010, it was 97,3% in 1995, and 90,2% in 1980.

I can't quite reproduce your numbers. Let x(t) be the fraction of EIII-d
(descendants of Edward III), where t is in years. If the law of motion is:
x(1500)=436/2750000 as initial condition,
x(t+30)=2*a*x(t) where a=100/113 for 1500<=t<=1860,
x(t+30)=2*x(t)-x(t)^2 for t>1860.
I find 14.98% in 1860, 92.55% in 1980 and 99.44% in 2010; pretty close to his
numbers.

I can get your numbers with a different initial condition, such as 436/3050000,
or a different a, such as 100/114. What am I missing?

Post by Jan Böhme
Jan Böhme
(who had to post this for his own sake, even if nobody is really
intrested in carrying it this far)

As it happens, I am interested, but given your earlier critique of Mortimer's
calculation I fail to see why a proper calculation of a flawed reasoning was
worth doing in the first place. The main flaw being this "correction factor".

That factor is related to the proportion of EIIIds who marry non-EIIIds. To my
mind, that can't be a primitive of the problem: it's an outcome, reflecting the
patterns of intermarriage. If one has to make an assumption somewhere, it ought
to be on that pattern.

IF EIIIds were mating randomly at all times, the proportion would be 1-x(t).
What Mortimer does is to set it at a constant 87% from 1500 to 1860, then
switches to random matching just when 1-x(t) reaches about 87%. (I suspect
that's how he chose 1860.)

[Actually, it seems to me the correct formula between 1500 and 1860 should be
(1+a)*x(t) rather than 2*a*x(t).]

The key parameter is the probability of marrying outside one's social group,
which will vary by social group and over time. If it is nearly zero for any
group of which EIII descendants were a subset, (say, the gentry), then the
characteristic of being an EIII descendant will propagate outside that group
only extremely slowly.

The parameter may well have been higher in England than in other countries. But,
even though I have only a very vague acquaintance with Jane Austen's writings, I
suspect that considerable effort was still being spent ca. 1800 in insuring that
the proportion of gentlefolk marrying non-gentlefolk remained very small.

Take Mortimer's estimate of 436 EIIIds in 1500, of which 13% married other
EIIIds. Suppose that EIIIds randomly match only within a particular group,
rather than the whole population of England, call that group G. The 13% figure
and the number of EIIIds in 1500 gives us the size of group G in 1500, about
3350. That corresponds numerically to the upper half or two thirds of the
gentry. (You could say G is the whole gentry by allowing that Mortimer's
estimate of EIIIds was too conservative.) Under that model, the number of
EIIIds would converge to 99% of group G within five generations (by 1650), and
remain confined to that group forever: a tiny fraction of the English
population.

Of course, we know that there was some marrying outside the gentry. Allow
generously for 1 in 4 marrying outside the gentry. You'd get something like
0.7% of EIIIds by 1860. (Ruvigny found 50,000, or 0.15% of the population of
England; note that Mortimer's calculation would imply 8 million EIIIds in
1890!). Allow completely random matching after 1860, that gets you to 20% by
2010.

My model would thus be that (a) descendants of Edward III belong initially to
the gentry, (b) the gentry marries mostly within itself until 1860, (c) there is
random matching after 1860. With plausible numbers I can be within the ballpark
of existing estimates of EIIId population in 1500 and 1890, and get no more than
20% EIIIds in 2010.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

[Jan Böhme]

Post by Don Aitken
Edward III's most recent biographer, Mortimer, devotes an appendix to
exploring his claim to be "grandfather of the English nation". He
concludes that, for those of English ancestry being born now, the
probability of such a descent is between 90% and 95%.

What kind of calculations does this Mortimer perform? A priori, this
seems a pretty difficult trick to achieve in less than 700 years -
just 22-23 generations.

Jan Böhme

[StephenP]

Post by StephenP
His Viscount Howe claim is still in his "Cousin of the British Crown"
chart.
Descent from Edward III is pretty meaningless - using IGI, I have him
as a great (x 19) grandfather in one particular "strand". It would
probably be more of an achievement for someone with English ancestry
to prove they were not of Plantagenet descent.
Yours aye
Stephen

What a surprise the Viscount Howe claim has gone.

Yours aye

Stephen

[Greg]

Post by m***@btinternet.com
On the wikipedia discussion page connected to the article on the
fantasist David Drew Howe is a comment about his entitlement to use
the arms of the Viscounts Howe.
According to the pedigree he has published on his website (3 January
www.royaltyofman.com
Howe claims his father, David D.E. Howe of Sterling, Virginia, is
descended from the "Viscounts Howe".
This, like much of what Howe claims, appears to be bogus.  The Irish
viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1814 with the death of the 5th
viscount, the last male of the family (Debretts Peerage, 1840, sub
Howe, p 399); the English viscountcy of Howe became extinct in 1799
with the death spm of the 1st and last viscount.
Accordingly, Howe would have no valid claim to use the arms of the
Viscounts Howe.  That family is now represented by Earl Howe, whose
title was created for the heir-general; he lives at Penn House,
Amersham.
There is a wikipedia page for a 'Major Joseph Howe' (1729-1794) who is
alleged to be a "brother" of the 3rd Viscount Howe - although it is
afterwards said that he was his "brother or cousin" and that "some
genealogists and historians have questioned this".
The sole reference given for this article is a 1927 book called 'The
Family of Hoge [sic]' by James Hoge Tyler; this appears to have been a
typical production of its time, of no particular reliability.
Debrett's does not show such a brother, and had he left male issue the
viscountcy would not have become extinct.
MA-R

I don't know Michael. Seems you've got a real international incendent
by the toe! You must let the bigger news sources know what is
happening so that the unsespecting public will be educated on this
kind of thing. You have a responsibility!!

[StephenP]

The Viscount Howe claim is/was a symptom of poor research by taking a
single source at face value. There are a number of early 20th century
family "history" publications where the author has been less than
accurate. Some take family legends as fact or just make things up.
In one publication I own, the author ignored things that he thought
might embarrass the family - things that no-one would now bother about
but were a big deal in and around 1900.

The thing is Howe could have put his hands up and withdrawn the claim
in a dignified manner - a "big man" admitting an error. However,
having surreptitiously changed his website, his sockpuppet/acolyte
Lazydown than appears on the scene saying "what claim?".

As for being an international incident, I think you are correct.
However, with officialdom you never know if apparent inactivity is
exactly that or whether things are moving quietly behind the scenes.
I don't think anyone here predicted Michael Lafosse would lose his
British citizenship when he did. It might have been a quick response
to the various articles in the Scottish press or it may have been in
hand for a while. I suppose those who are bother by Howe's activities
can raise it with the appropriate authorities and wait to see if the
volume of complaints generates any momentum. Time, as they say, will
tell.

Yours aye

Stephen

[StephenP]

This article raises a smile;

http://www.articlesbase.com/humor-articles/advice-to-king-dave-of-the-isle-of-man-286100.html

Yours aye

Stephen