Genealogy Chat

I happened to answer someone on this site about two months ago now,who apparently has a Charles,Edward,Anne,Andrew Windsor,born in Buckingham Palace London in their Tree,and as it was put on by someone called Charles;Attaching the reply to the Charles,I said;'Does one know who the Parents of your Charles are?'! Regards William Russell Jones Cefn Mawr Wrexham.

Jessica Sorry, I meant County Records Offices - but that depends where your ancestors were and how important they were at the time. Records could be anywhere. Unfortunately there is no ONE repository for ALL records, although historically important documents are held by the TNA. You just have to follow the trail your ancestors left and see where it takes you. To get a broad idea of which records you could use, look at the TNA website (National Archives). A2A - Access to Archives is also a useful site as it is an INDEX of millions of historical documents and it tells you who holds them and where. If you are descended from an illegitimate royal, then you may have a big problem proving it, although not necessarily, as many Royal illegitimate lines were acknowledged by the King.But if the link is hearsay evidence from some long dead rellie, then it is often a hopeless case - some girl in the 1600s, saying she was taken advantage of by the King isn't necessarily fact! If you are descended from a legitimate line, then all you have to do is PROVE the link, your link, that is, without any question of doubt, and the rest will be easy! OC

Looks like the whole of the Royal Family is on GR. (roflmao) They even have Victoria b 1819 as Victoria Windsor. The royal family didnt even change to Windsor until the first world war. What a load of twaddle. One more reason that GR trees are rubbish.

You are quite correct Margaret,as to the time the Royal Surname was changed.However the fact that someone is obviously;'having a laugh',shoudn't detract from all the legitimate Trees. Regards William Russell Jones Cefn Mawr Wrexham.

William No, it shouldn't detract from the genuine trees, but the problem as always, is in deciding WHICH are the genuine trees. OC

I would agree that it would be difficult for a relative beginner to recognise whether a Tree is genuine or not.Lets say though that those who have been at this for some time should though.Forgive the pun,but its all relative anyway! Regards William Russell Jones Cefn Mawr Wrexham.

'The point I made earlier in this thread about having to check even historical 'facts' is a good one, I think. A lone researcher discovered documents which virtually prove that Edward Longshanks was illegitimate and therefore not the rightful heir to the English throne' Is this correct OC? I was unaware there were any legitimacy issues with Edward Longshanks, so would be interested if that is true. A lone researcher did cast considerable doubt on the legitimacy of Edward IV a couple of years back, and there was even a channel four program which claimed to find Britians supposed 'real monarch' living somewhat modestly in Australia! Though the program was quite right it does cast into doubt the line of succesion since, it did fail to mention Lady Cicely Neville, Edwards mother, had a fairly impressive pedigree herself as a grandaughter of John of Gaunt, and great grandaughter of Edward III. So Bastard or not he was still royally descended, and our queen still therefore very much a descendant of the Conquerer in any case. It's also somewhat ironic so much emphases is put on descent from the conquerer, he himself being the only King in English history who was certainly and provenly illegitimate, a fact openly known at the time.

Richard Sorry sorry sorry! I always get mixed up with Edward Longshanks, and Edward 1V, who was supposedly extremely tall too! Yes, his mother was highly-born too. However, as things stood at the time, her illegitimate son should not have been heir to the english throne, and her undoubted royal blood should probably not be in our royal line now - certainly not as mixed with the blood of some lowly archer anyway. But I have made my point - some academics have serious doubts as to his legitimate status, and the 'proof' of his illegitimacy is out there to be found. I am sure that you will concede that the illegitimate offspring of a royal male are generally speaking well-received, whereas the illegitimate offspring of a royal female are not! OC

'Yes, his mother was highly-born too. However, as things stood at the time, her illegitimate son should not have been heir to the english throne, and her undoubted royal blood should probably not be in our royal line now - certainly not as mixed with the blood of some lowly archer anyway' I don't personally doubt for a minute Edward IV was indeed illigitimate. Wheareas his brother Clarence, Rutland and Richard, especially were all short men who much resembled their father, Edward was a giant of a man, and totally unlike them in build, looks and charachter. Apparantly he did inded very much resemble the 'French Archer' Blaybourne, who Lady Cicely supposedly took to her bed in her husbands absence. (He wasn't actually French he was English based in France..so not that bad!). Also If you look at his grandson Henry VIII he is a dead ringer as a young man for Edward, also large built and glutunous. They both died morbidly obese from their gross over indulgenge. Both notorious womanisers too! In contrast Edwards legitimate brothers and father Richard Duke of York were polar opposites in their charachter, appetites and general demenour, especially the much derided Gloucester, Richard III. So a rogue gene definitly slipped in there somewhere if you ask me... As to whether an illegitmate son to a king would have been better recieved, the irony of course is Henry VIII was in just that position with his son Henry Fitzroy but parliament was having none of it. Unlike a queen he could not pass of an illegitmate offspring as anything other than that illegitimate! I did read somewhere one of his living descendants today is the singer James Blunt, so perhaps a good thing too!

Richard LOL! All this just goes to show, in my opinion anyway, how 'dodgy' the royal line of succession is, and how much chance, or contemporary events has shaped something we see as set in stone. I meant really, that the illegitimate children of Kings are at least acknowledged (usually) and given high rank, whereas the illegitimate child of a Queen is (usually) smuggled out of the bedchamber in a warming pan! So, when dealing with royal connections (or any other connections for that matter) turn up every stone and check the facts for yourself, from as many sources as you can find. OC