Talk:Descent of Elizabeth II from William I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Henry VII is a descendent of John of Gaunt and not of the House of Lancaster, who's founder was Henry's half-great-granduncle Henry IV. FooFighter 16:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You are correct. Please sign your talk comments with four tildes, ~~~~, which will automatically add your name and date. NoSeptember talk 16:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

John of Gaunt was Henry IV's father and also Duke of Lancaster. The Lancastrian claim was taken up by the descendant of a younger son of John of Gaunt (John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset) after Henry VI died. That descendant being Henry VII, so there is some argument for including John of Gaunt in the "House of Lancaster".Gerard von Hebel 16:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The consequences...

I've just read this portion of the page, and disagree with about half of this article.

Paragraph 3: Henry IV overthrew Richard II and therefore could claim the throne by right of conquest. Lionel's daughter Philippa was long dead by then and had left male heirs to her claim along with the existing precedent of succession via female line set by Henry II. The only way I could see a line being called passed over would be, for example, if Richard II had named Henry, Duke of Hereford his heir.

Paragraph 4: Same argument here. Henry VII overthrew Richard III; right of conquest strikes again. :) Henry married Elizabeth only to leverage her claim (by legal inheritance and senior line) so he could bolster his own claim (by conquest) and to ensure that his future children would have a better claim to the throne than he did.

Cheers! FooFighter 15:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it. Maybe the topic can be changed to cover reasons for all instances when the senior line is passed over. For example: Was Phillipa's family so unpopular that no one objected to Henry IV's claim to the throne? While right by conquest has its point, there must always be a group that strongly supports the better Primogeniture claim to the throne. I think it would be good if these situations could be discussed as a guide to why the rightful heir is sometimes passed over. NoSeptember talk 16:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The Earl of March was only 7, hardly old enough to contest Henry, but I believe later on there were uprisings in his name.67.85.254.111 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may have been because at the time, Henry IV had both of Roger's sons in custody, though he treated them well. But it's not clear if their elder sister Anne was confined with them, verlooked,or left with either her mother or some other relatives; I'm not sure whom. If not in custody, this could have been a sign Henry didn't think she'd succeed to the thrown either due to her gender or due to her having two brothers. What do you think of this? FooFighter 17:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps we should change this to a section called "Instances when the senior line was passed over." We could also add a paragraph on parliament's passing over the remaining Stuart line as well. I created this article to help me understand the succession history. I am not an expert, but I find the article useful. Feel free to make the changes you think are appropriate. NoSeptember talk 17:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)



The topic is still a great one, it's just that we aren't focusing on better examples:
1) After the Princes in the Tower disappeared, leaving only female lines to their father Edward IV, their uncle became Richard III, skipping over all of Edward IV's daughters.
2) Henry VIII's will stated, with the authority of Parliament, after his children's lines his eldest sister Margaret's line was to be passed over in preference of his younger sister Mary's line. This was because Margaret married James IV of Scotland and her heirs were the Scots' monarchy. This led to Mary's granddaughter, the Lady Jane Grey, being illegally crowned Queen before Henry's daughter Mary I. When Elizabeth I died in 1603, Margaret's heir James VI of Scotland inherited the crown instead of the legal heir, the Lady Anne Stanley, Mary's great-great-granddaughter. However, this may have been because James had the means of better securing his claim since he was already the King of Scotland and not due to the alternate's gender.

Here's another example of the senior line being passed for other reasons:
The Jacobite line of "James III of England", James II's son and rightful heir was passed over when his half-sister Mary and her husband William of Orange overthrew James II. The rest of James II's lines from his second marriage (Queen Anne was the last line of James II's first marriage) were passed over when Willaim and Parliament passed the Act of Settlement 1701 because they were Catholic. The Act ascended the current claimants of the throne, descendents of James I via his daughter Elizabeth Stuart and granddaughter Sophia of Hannover. When Sophia predeceased Queen Anne, her son George, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg became Queen Anne's heir presumptive.

The Act of Settlement 1701 passed over many other senior lines in 1714 to arrive at George I, first son of Sophia. The following list numbers the existing lines in 1714 that were passed over and the current heir of most senior line of male preference primogeniture.

1) James Francis Edward Stuart, younger brother of Queen Anne. The last of this line was his second son Henry Benedict Stuart, who died in 1807. See the next skipped branch for the present day heir of the House of Stuart.
2) James II's younger sister Henrietta Anne Stuart, who married Philippe I d'Orléans, Duc d'Orléans, left one surviving daughter, Anne Marie d'Orléans, wife of Victor Amadeus II, Duke of Savoy. Anne's present heir is Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Prinz von Bayern.

An intersting note: had there been no Act of Settlement 1701, and had Anne Marie's son Carlo Emanuele not survived to sire children, Anne's eldest daughter Marie-Adélaïde of Savoy would have become Anne Marie's heir. Anne Marie would have become "Anne II" on the Queen's death. Since Marie of Savoy predeceased Queen Anne, that would have made Marie's third and sole surviving son, Louis XV of France, heir presumptive of his grandmother, "Anne II" and probably have started another European war of succession. The simple solution in that case would be for Parliament to legislate the crown to the line of Anne's third daughter, Maria Luise Gabriela di Savoia, who predeceased her mother. But that creates a whole other conflict, as Maria Luise was married to Felipe V de Borbón, King of Spain towards the end of 1701. This would have probably sent Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor into a fit as a war similar to the War of Spanish Sucession, fought to keep the crown of Spain out of the hands of the heir to the the French throne and the two empires seperate, would need to be fought to see that the Spanish and British crowns not merge. This line was probably skipped in the Act of Settlement precisely for this reason.

3) Elisabeth Charlotte Pfalzgräfin von Simmern, only daughter, third line of Karl I Ludwig Kurfürst von der Pfalz, second son of Elizabeth Stuart. Her current heir is Adam Karol Czartoryski.

No it isn't. Her current heir is Princess Margherita of Savoy, Archduchess of Austria-Este. She is descended from Princess Hélène of Orléans, second daughter of Philippe, comte de Paris, whereas Czartoryski is only descended from Princess Louise of Orléans, fourth daughter of the Comte de Paris. john k 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

4) Ludwig Otto, Prinz zu Salm, only child of Luise Marie von Simmern, eldest daughter, first line of Edward Pfalzgraf von Simmern, sixth son of Elizabeth Stuart. His current heir is Alexis Franz Antonius Maximilian Carolus Benedictus Mathias Maria Prinz von Croÿ, who is 95 years old. Alexis's son Maximilian Heinrich Karl Maria Prinz von Croÿ will succeed him upon his death.

Alexis died in 2002, and, furthermore, isn't the heir. You apparently missed Florentin, Prince of Salm-Salm and went to his younger brother - the current heir is Carl Philipp, Prince of Salm-Salm. john k 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The line passed here to George I, first son of Sophia, fourth daughter, 12th and final line of Elizabeth Stuart.

Feel free to edit, revise, tweak, and place as you might see fit! FooFighter 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the wording is a bit...innacurate. Rather than a "reluctance" to be ruled by a queen, which makes it seem unusual that women did not rule, it was common practice for the men to take precidence (i.e. a son inheriting over his elder sister) for most of this period. That relates to the above debate about Henry VII's claim, I suppose, since I always felt the "Lancastrian" descent was more important than the marriage to the Yorkist heir. What I mean is that the fact that Lionel of Clarence had no male heirs meant the throne passed to Henry IV because he was the next male, and most people would have accepted that. The supposed "direct line" only re-established itself because Richard of York wanted to rule England and Henry VI was weak. In the end, the Wars of the Roses (and "The Anarchy") boils down to the fact that your claim to the throne was only as strong as your political and military power. But I feel that the Lancastrian claim would have been viewed as stronger at the time as it was male-descended. On the other hand, Edward III's argument that he should be King of France was that he was of the direct line (though it passed through daughters not sons)---but I think everyone realized he was looking for an excuse rather than exercising a particularly valid claim. Lordjim13 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lancastrian succession

Isn't it the official dogma since Henry VII that the succession to the throne went through the Lancastrian line? The line depicted in this article is the Yorkist one. Henry VII claimed the throne by right of his descent from John of Gaunt's son by Katherine Swynford, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, half-brother of Henry IV the first Lancastrian King. His claim was based on being the next in kin of the Lancastrian line, and since all future Kings and Queens of England and Britan base their claim in their turn on Henry VII, part of the list should look like this:

Edward III

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster

John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset

John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset

Margaret Beaufort, married to Owen Tudor, Earl of Richmond

Henry VII

There is also an other article in wikipedia on the same subject. It uses the official Lancastrian doctrine: [[1]]Gerard von Hebel 12:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph of that article says:

In 1485 the throne was seized by Henry VII, who was a great-great-grandson of Edward III through an illegitimate descent, and whose family had been specifically excluded from the throne. Henry re-established the legitimate royal descent by marrying Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, so that his son Henry VIII had a sound hereditary claim.

Since all future lines are descended from the children of this marriage, neither claim needs to be asserted over the other to justify legitimacy. It is a dead issue, since all claimants have the same relative claim to the throne whether they claim it through Henry or Elizabeth.If you can link to an official statement or something that makes the claim of Henry over that of his wife Elizabeth, I would be interested. By primogeniture, Elizabeth of York is clearly a (legitimate) descendant of the older son of Edward III than is Henry or any Lancastrian. It may be true that the right to rule of Henry VII was validated during his lifetime by parliament, but there was no need to validate his claim for his children and descendants. I am certainly open to well cited proof, right now you have only asserted that the junior line is the proper line (which to be true, I think there would have to be a parliamentary law saying so since it directly contradicts primogeniture, in the same way the 1701 act that specifically prohibits Catholics is a specific law contradicting pure primogeniture). One thing we can do is link to the other article (Descent of Elizabeth II) and point out the issue to readers. Cheers, NoSeptember 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When Henry summoned parliament, one of the first acts he had passed was a declaration that basically established that the Crown rightfully rested in his person and settling it on "the heirs of his body lawfully comen". That means that the right of succession was limited to the offspring of Henry alone, nullifying all other claims. There was no mention in this of Elizabeth of York, who -at that time- wasn't yet married to Henry. In fact Elizabeth's rights were implicitly nullified by the act along with all the others. If Henry had married someone else, his children by that marriage would have become the sole royal heirs. The declaration however remains silent about the nature of Henry's right to the throne itself. It just mentions him as the rightfull King. His rights were surely tenuous since the descendants of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford were explicitly excluded from the right to succession when they were legitimised by Richard II. His cause in claiming the throne was however arguably Lancastrian. He was the champion of the Lancastrian 'party' based on his descent, while the exclusion from the succession of his line by Richard II was conveniently ignored. It can therefore be argued that Henry's right was by conquest alone and that his appearance on the throne started a whole new hereditary line. The act confirming his right to the throne however nullified all other claims, including that of his later wife Elizabeth of York. Therefore his children could not claim any "added" legitimacy through their mother. The only source I have available at this moment is a book called "Debrett's Kings and Queens of England" by David Williamson, published by Webb & Bower in 1986 ISBN 0-86350-101-x in which the act establishing Henry's rights is described. I'll see if I can find a web based link. Gerard von Hebel 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is all interesting stuff. Of course parliament was often pliant to a strong king's will and what was passed in one reign may easily be overturned in another. I think once Henry 8th was on the throne he would have had a strong interest in legitimating the claims through both his father and his mother, in order to unite factional support under him (since much of his father's reign was spent still fighting off his opponents. Henry 7th may have conquested (sic), but there was no assurance that someone else might not re-conquest (sic)). We can't over-rely on what was enacted at any one time, because we need to be sure that later law hasn't changed things. I find it highly unlikely that later monarchs and parliaments would have specifically rejected Elizabeth of York's claim, when it was the strongest primogeniture claim and was totally supportive of whoever the current monarch was. This will be a tricky issue to resolve with certainty. NoSeptember 22:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the marriage of Henry and Elizabeth was politically expedient since it satisfied the feelings of the Yorkists. However since Henry's line stands until the present day (with modifications) I don't think there was ever any need to invoke the rights of Elizabeth later on. I've read somewhere that the present succession still goes back ultimately to Henry VII's claim. I'll be looking for sources on that. It'll be fun to do some searchin into this matter.Gerard von Hebel 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II

Please see the discussion here:

--Mais oui! 10:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family Tree

Which is better:

  • Without the lines (as currently in the article, or
  • With the lines, as below:
                           
 William I
 
             
 Henry I    William II    Adela of Normandy
   
   
 Empress Matilda  Stephen
 
 
 Henry II
 
       
 John    Richard I
 
 
 Henry III
 
 
 Edward I
 
 
 Edward II
 
 
 Edward III
 
             
 Lionel of Antwerp  Edward the Black Prince  John of Gaunt
     
           
 Philippa of Ulster  Richard II  Henry IV  Earl John Beaufort
     
     
 Roger de Mortimer  Henry V  Duke John Beaufort
     
     
 Anne de Mortimer  Henry VI  Margaret Beaufort
   
   
 Richard, Duke of York  Henry VII
 
       
 Edward IV    Richard III
 
       
 Elizabeth of York  Edward V
 
       
 Margaret Tudor  Henry VIII
   
               
 James V of Scotland  Edward VI  Mary I  Elizabeth I
 
 
 Mary, Queen of Scots
 
 
 James I
 
       
 Elizabeth Stuart    Charles I
   
               
 Sophia of Hanover  Mary Stuart  James II  Charles II
     
           
 George I  William III  Mary II  Anne
 
 
 George II
 
 
 Frederick, Prince of Wales
 
 
 George III
 
             
 Edward Augustus  George IV  William IV
 
 
 Victoria
 
 
 Edward VII
 
 
 George V
 
       
 George VI    Edward VIII
 
 
 Elizabeth II

[edit] "The Direct Line"

Is there a reason why Prince Charles, who is not yet Charles III, is included? This seems inappropriate, unless HM The Queen has died and nobody has bothered to tell me.

You are correct, he was added by someone but should not be listed. NoSeptember 05:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

I tagged the page for clean-up since the new family tree needs to be better integrated into the article. The current intro doesn't mention it at all but rather describes the plain text versions whcih renders the page confusing. Also since the tree shows graphically what the other sections describe in words they should probably be merged or cut to avoid unnecessary redundancy. Eluchil404 12:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James I

I noticed that the list of discent of The Queen from the Scottish kings names James VII as James I of England in the brackets however the opposite is not done for the descent from William I. Without sounding like a nationalist, I just thought this seemed rather anglo-biased. Scroggie 14:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a reason for an Anglo-bias. Just like we would say that Philip I of Portugal was the same as Philip II of Spain, but probably not the reverse...or that Carl III Johan of Norway is the same as Carl XIV Johan of Sweden, or that Charles IV of Hungary is the same as Charles I of Austria...somehow this kind of complaint seems to arise only from Scots... john k 01:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he was crowned King of Scots prior to being King of England...Gavin Scott (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen

Until today, this article said that Elizabeth is a multi-generational direct descendant of Stephen of England. I imagine it's possible that she's descended from Marie of Boulogne. Any inputs? Corvus cornix 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone is changing it. Elizabeth is a great19-granddaughter of Marie of Boulogne through at least seven lines. Charles 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you document that? I tried to go through the descendants of Marie to find a verifiable ancestor of Elizabeth, and got into a tangled mess.  :) Corvus cornix 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Working backwards, we have a direct descent of Elizabeth II from Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Charles descends from three children of Landgrave Henry I of Hesse, a great-grandson of Marie.
  1. Charles of Mecklenburg-Streliz ← Christiane of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen ← Antonia Sybilla of Barby ← Sophia Ursula of Oldenburg-Delmenhorst ← Anton of Oldenburg-Delmenhorst ← Anton of Oldenburg ← Anna of Anhalt-Zerbst ← George of Anhalt-Zerbst ← Sigismund of Anhalt-Zerbst ← Elizabeth of Henneberg ← John of Henneburg ← Adelaide of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
  2. Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Maria Catherina of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel ← Maria of East Frisia ← Edward of East Frisia ← Anna of Oldenburg ← Anna of Anhalt-Zerbst ← George of Anhalt-Zerbst ← Sigismund of Anhalt-Zerbst ← Elizabeth of Henneberg ← John of Henneburg ← Adelaide of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
  3. Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← John of Mecklenburg-Schwerin ← Anna Sophia of Hohenzollern ← Albert in Prussia ← Frederick of Brandenburg-Ansbach ← Albert of Brandenburg ← Frederick of Brandenburg ← Frederick of Hohenzollern ← Elisabeth of Henneberg ← Adelaide of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
  4. Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← John of Mecklenburg-Schwerin ← John Albert of Mecklenburg-Schwerin ← Albert of Mecklenburg-Schwerin ← Magnus of Mecklenburg-Schwerin ← Dorothea of Hohenzollern ← Frederick of Brandenburg ← Frederick of Hohenzollern ← Elisabeth of Henneberg ← Adelaide of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
  5. Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Sophia of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp ← Adolph of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp ← Frederick of Denmark-Norway ← Dorothea of Hohenzollern ← John of Brandenburg ← Frederick of Brandenburg ← Frederick of Hohenzollern ← Elisabeth of Henneberg ← Adelaide of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
  6. Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Sophia of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp ← Adolph of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp ← Frederick of Denmark-Norway ← Christian of Denmark-Norway ← Dietrich of Oldenburg ← Agnes of Honstein ← Dietrich of Honstein in Hohenstein ← Elisabeth of Waldeck ← Sophia of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
  7. Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Sophia of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp ← Christina of Hesse ← Philip of Hesse ← William of Hesse ← Louis of Hesse ← Louis of Hesse ← Herman of Hesse ← Louis of Hesse ← Otto of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
There you have it, all seven of them. Charles 01:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks muchly. Corvus cornix 02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The Family tree section should show this. Jooler 08:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository and if we do this for Marie of Boulogne we ought to do it for everyone else... And that would be a mess. Charles 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The family tree should show how come Stephen is a grandfather and not just a cousin. Otherwise the entry I incorrectly modified is likely to be changed again by someone else seeing an apparent error. Jooler 09:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I will change it back then. I will not, however, support further augmenting the list to make it even more huge. Charles 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I refer you to WP:OWN Jooler 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions closest relationships. You go read OWN. Charles 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay - seven lineages would clutter the table up, but I think it is worth putting a note on the 'Genealogical Relationships to Elizabeth II' table explaining that relationship and any other that might not be perceivable from the information contained within the displayed section of the family tree. Jooler 02:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to do that though without literally laying out the descent or adding a ton of notes. That could also be done for every other monarch as well and that would be enormous and unwieldly. There really is no way to do it without having articles like Descent of Elizabeth II from Stephen, etc, and that would be ridiculous since William is a very solid reference point to base an article and few other monarchs are. Charles 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Charles, which Henry of Hesse is this? Corvus cornix 22:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, got it, Henry I, Landgrave of Hesse. Corvus cornix 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
And Henry's descent is Henry II, Duke of Brabant <- Henry I, Duke of Brabant <- Marie of Boulogne <- Stephen of England. Tadaa!  :) Corvus cornix 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There you go ;) Charles 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that should be Maud of Boulogne instead of Henry I of Brabant. Henry I was Maud's husband. Corvus cornix 16:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going back further

Rearranged to consolidate related discussion Agricolae (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What about going back to Alfred the Great? I think the sequence would be: Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder, Edmund I, Edgar, Ethelred the Unready, Edmund Ironside, Edward the Exile, St Margaret of Scotland, Edith of Scotland, Matilda, and then Henry II etc.

(I realise this would mean the generation numbers would all have to be changed.) 86.135.201.125 21:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this could work as an extra section of the article, showing the link between the Saxon monarchs and the Norman monarchs. But since William I is commonly reagarded as the start of the current line (and the "last successful invasion"), the current set up should remain for the primary list. NoSeptember talk 21:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a "Merovingian descent," since someone had taken it back to Charlemagne and, heck, his ancestry is documented. The one thing I wasn't sure about was taking it further back than Charles Martel, since he was only the illegitimate son of Pippin the Fat (supplanting legitimate heirs). But I'm not astoundingly learned like some people here so I'll leave it to the experts to decide. Still, if we allow for descent from Merowig (-21 from William I), that's a total of 54 generations of documented lineage, which is pretty damn impressive. Jackmitchell

There is no proved descent from the Merovingians to anyone; this is well known to medieval genealogical specialists. The most accessible careful prosopography of this family is Christian Settpani, La préhistoire des Capétiens, in the Nouvelle histoire généalogique de l’auguste maison de France, gen. ed. Patrick Van Kerrebrouck, vol. 1 part 1 (Villeneuve d’Asq: Patrick Van Kerrebrouck, 1993). With detailed and thorough citations to both primary sources and the interpretive secondary literature, Settipani summarizes each (if not all) of the commonly claimed gateways from the Merovingian dynasty. The alleged Carolingian line of 'Berenger of Bayeux' mentioned on this page is also an old falsehood. See Stewart Baldwin's excellet 'Henry Project' pages on this question at: http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/beren000.htm. As far as I'm concerned all the unsupported genealogies on this WP page demonstrate what's unfixable about Wikipedia's editorial policies.68.166.238.113 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merovingian Descent

The following descent had appeared in the article. It is flawed at at least two points.

[edit] The Merovingian descent through Charlemagne

-21. Merowig
-20. Childeric I
-19. Clovis I
-18. Theodoric I
-17. Theudebert I
-16. Theudebald
-15. Grimwald of Aquitaine
-14. Itta
-13. Begga
-12. Pippin the Fat
-11. Charles Martel (illegitimate)
-10. Pippin the Short
-9. Charlemagne
-8. Pippin of Italy
-7. Bernard of Italy
-6. Pepin, Count of Vermandois
-5. Herbert I, Count of Vermandois
-4. Berengar of Bayeux
-3. Judicael Berengar
-2. Conan I, Duke of Brittany
-1. Judith of Brittany
0. Robert II, Duke of Normandy
1. William I

Gens 15/14: There is no documentation of Itta's parentage, and different parentage has been assigned to her by others (e.g. Moriarty's Plantagenet Ancestry shows her as daughter of St. Arnold). There is no scholarly consensus.

Gens 5/3: This connection as shown relies on four separate hypotheses, each of them questioned by some scholars. The first is that the claimed relationship between Richard I of Normandy and Bernard of Senlis ran through Richard's paternal grandmother, Poppa. The second is that Bernard of Senlis is connected to the Counts of Vermandois (thereby resulting in the connection of Berenger, father of Poppa, to the Counts of Vermandois). The next hypothesis is that Berenger of Bayeux, Poppa's father, is identical to the Berenger of Brittany shown here. Finally, it is hypothesized that Berenger of Brittany is father of Judicael alias Berenger (rather than simply representing the latter being referred to by just the second of his names). For these issues see http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/beren000.htm and linked pages.

Given the dubious nature of the descent (and in fact all Merovingian descents) and that it is only peripheral to the subject of the article in which it appears, it would be prudent to remove this section until/unless a supportable line can be shown. Agricolae (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I already mentioned this in the "Going Back Further" topic above. Here is what I a wrote (copied here for clarity): "There is no proved descent from the Merovingians to anyone; this is well known to medieval genealogical specialists. The most accessible careful prosopography of this family is Christian Settpani, La préhistoire des Capétiens, in the Nouvelle histoire généalogique de l’auguste maison de France, gen. ed. Patrick Van Kerrebrouck, vol. 1 part 1 (Villeneuve d’Asq: Patrick Van Kerrebrouck, 1993). With detailed and thorough citations to both primary sources and the interpretive secondary literature, Settipani summarizes each (if not all) of the commonly claimed gateways from the Merovingian dynasty. The alleged Carolingian line of 'Berenger of Bayeux' which is shown above is also an old falsehood. See Stewart Baldwin's excellent 'Henry Project' pages on this question at: http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/beren000.htm." Of course, there is one perfectly accepted line linking William the Conqueror to Charlemagne, so that's a minor quibble. But Charlemagne's alleged descents from Merovingian kings are each speculative at best. I will add that Baldwin's webpages are certainly trustworthy. Professor Baldwin (a professor of logic at Auburn University) is one of the Fellows of the American Society of Genealogists. The fellows (there are only 50 of them) are elected for life based on scholarly achievement. This is as good as it gets for a genealogical credential in the United States. 68.166.238.113 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Descent from Charlemagne

This section was deleted, as it has the same flaws in isolation as it did when posted as part of the larger descent from the Merovingians. The descent as shown is false, and at best violates NPOV. If a descent from Charlemagne is to be shown, it shouldn't be this one. That being said, see my other comment in this section. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other royal lines

Shouldn't this article also included Elizabeth II's descent from the kingdoms of France, Spain, Russia and so forth? Or should there be a cut-off and only include 'ancient' kingdoms? In that case, shouldn't this article include her descent from the Byzantine Empire? Cazo3788 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. In fact, it shouldn't show any of the descents. This is an article about the descent of Elizabeth from William the Conqueror, and with the exception of the bogus Charlemagne line that I have removed due to it being reality-challenged, none of these descents involve William the Conqueror at all. This is not Interesting descents of Elizabeth I. I have to say, I think the entire page is ill-conceived as an encyclopedia article. It seems more to be interested in the genealogical underpinning of the right of the current monarchy to rule, or something of the sort, but is more just a listing of interrelationships among English monarchs since William I. It contributes little to the actual understanding of the underlying issues of succession, and is rather just a collection of genealogical trivia relating to the English crown. Then there is this 'descents from other old people section'. The relationship to the rest of the article or to the stated subject of the page escapes me. Unless someone can defend the inclusion of these, I may delete them all. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll put them back. Because they are interesting. Vidor (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as the question asked by Cazo3788 above, I'd suggest that the difference is that the article traces out Elizabeth's descent from kings of England, with emphasis on William but including her relationship to the old Saxon kings. There might, if you can document it, be value in showing Elizabeth's descent from other royal houses of Europe. You could make a separate article, or expand this one and change the title. Maybe a separate article would be better, as Elizabeth's relationship to the previous occupants of her throne is a different matter from her relationship to, I dunno, the House of Romanov or something. Vidor (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth & Tudors

I daresay someone has mentioned it at some point, though i have looked and don't see it, and the history of HM's genealogical relationships table is a little complicated with vandalism...anyway, can you tell me why Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth I don't have the same relationship to HM? I mean, HM and Edward don't share a closer relationship through Jane Seymour, do they? And he has no descendants to create a closer relationship through.... So, i'm confused. Cheers, Lindsay 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well just for completeness' sake, because i doubt that i'm the only person to have noticed the discrepancy: I changed it, and someone changed it back; apparently they don't have the same relationship. 'Twould have been quicker and easier to know that before, but.... Cheers, Lindsay 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)