Richard III DNA Investigation

[g***@gmail.com]

Does anyone know if there are any further developments in the Kevin Schürer and/or Turi King research on Richard III's DNA? The last information I could find indicates the Plantagenet line itself could be in jeopardy.

25 March 2015

When scientists revealed last year that an adulterous affair had apparently broken the male line in Richard III’s family tree, they vowed to investigate further.

But rather than clear up the mystery, their latest genetic tests have uncovered evidence of another royal sex scandal. This time, the indiscretion could potentially undermine the legitimacy of the entire House of Plantagenet....

For all the scientists know, Patrice de Warren carries the ‘true’ Plantagenet Y chromosome, and those found in Richard III and the extended family of Henry Somerset were inherited from another man. “The problem is that we cannot say where the break occurs. All it tells us is that we have to keep looking, and that is what we are doing,” said Kevin Schürer, a genealogy expert at Leicester who is working on the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/25/richard-iii-dna-tests-uncover-evidence-of-further-royal-scandal

See also:
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/dna-tests-uncover-more-evidence-infidelity-richard-iiis-family-tree/

Thanks!

[taf]

Post by g***@gmail.com
Does anyone know if there are any further developments in the Kevin
Schürer and/or Turi King research on Richard III's DNA? The last
information I could find indicates the Plantagenet line itself could
be in jeopardy.
25 March 2015
When scientists revealed last year that an adulterous affair had
apparently broken the male line in Richard III’s family tree, they
vowed to investigate further.
But rather than clear up the mystery, their latest genetic tests have
uncovered evidence of another royal sex scandal. This time, the
indiscretion could potentially undermine the legitimacy of the entire
House of Plantagenet....
For all the scientists know, Patrice de Warren carries the ‘true’
Plantagenet Y chromosome, and those found in Richard III and the
extended family of Henry Somerset were inherited from another man.
“The problem is that we cannot say where the break occurs. All it
tells us is that we have to keep looking, and that is what we are
doing,” said Kevin Schürer, a genealogy expert at Leicester who is
working on the case.

The Plantagenet line itself is not in jeopardy - well, no more so than it was before this result. Here is what happened. Patrice de Warren walked in off the street proclaiming himself to be a true descendant of Geoffrey Plantagenet. They tested his DNA and it matched neither Richard III nor the Beaufort descendant. Rather than reaching the patently obvious conclusion that Patrice was not a descendant of Geoffrey Plantagenet, they took his undocumented claim completely at face value and instead declared that there was further crypto-paternity in the Plantagenet royal line.

One of three things happened here: 1) they were tragically credulous when it came to accepting Patrice de Warren's claim as if it was real; 2) they cynically made the calculation that if they announced that the guy who walked in off the street claiming to be a Plantagenet was making it up, The Guardian would tell them to come back when they have something worth reporting, so they selected a more juicy narrative, or 3) they reached a more authentic conclusion, but The Guardian decided to give it a 'better' spin.

As of March this year the team announced they had turned their attention to one of Jack the Ripper's victims.

taf

[Dee Horn]

I just read a book from the Library and it shows his DNA etc

The Last Days of Richard III and the Fate of His DNA

The Book That Inspired the Dig

Ashdown-Hill, John




From: "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com>
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 5:50 PM
Subject: Richard III DNA Investigation

Does anyone know if there are any further developments in the Kevin Schürer and/or Turi King research on Richard III's DNA? The last information I could find indicates the Plantagenet line itself could be in jeopardy.

25 March 2015

When scientists revealed last year that an adulterous affair had apparently broken the male line in Richard III’s family tree, they vowed to investigate further.

But rather than clear up the mystery, their latest genetic tests have uncovered evidence of another royal sex scandal. This time, the indiscretion could potentially undermine the legitimacy of the entire House of Plantagenet....

For all the scientists know, Patrice de Warren carries the ‘true’ Plantagenet Y chromosome, and those found in Richard III and the extended family of Henry Somerset were inherited from another man. “The problem is that we cannot say where the break occurs. All it tells us is that we have to keep looking, and that is what we are doing,” said Kevin Schürer, a genealogy expert at Leicester who is working on the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/25/richard-iii-dna-tests-uncover-evidence-of-further-royal-scandal

See also:
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/dna-tests-uncover-more-evidence-infidelity-richard-iiis-family-tree/

Thanks!

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Katherine Kennedy]

I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing.

The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children directly. Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester was born illegitimate, so that generation could be a cause for concern. Also, to be perfectly honest, English women in the 18th century weren't known for their chastity, so it wouldn't surprise me if the break occurred that late.

[Paulo Canedo]

Post by Katherine Kennedy
I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing.
The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children directly. Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester was born illegitimate, so that generation could be a cause for concern. Also, to be perfectly honest, English women in the 18th century weren't known for their chastity, so it wouldn't surprise me if the break occurred that late.

There is a suggestion that Richard III's grandfather Richard of Conisburgh was illegitimate.

[Katherine Kennedy]

Post by Paulo Canedo

Post by Katherine Kennedy
I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing.
The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children directly. Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester was born illegitimate, so that generation could be a cause for concern. Also, to be perfectly honest, English women in the 18th century weren't known for their chastity, so it wouldn't surprise me if the break occurred that late.

There is a suggestion that Richard III's grandfather Richard of Conisburgh was illegitimate.

I assume we'd have to test an early Plantagenet king or prince to know for certain. It would be something if it were Richard III's line that didn't match and the Somerset family's line was fine. Has anyone compared Richard III's DNA with any of the Hollands?

[Paulo Canedo]

Post by Katherine Kennedy

Post by Paulo Canedo

Post by Katherine Kennedy
I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing.
The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children directly. Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester was born illegitimate, so that generation could be a cause for concern. Also, to be perfectly honest, English women in the 18th century weren't known for their chastity, so it wouldn't surprise me if the break occurred that late.

There is a suggestion that Richard III's grandfather Richard of Conisburgh was illegitimate.

I assume we'd have to test an early Plantagenet king or prince to know for certain. It would be something if it were Richard III's line that didn't match and the Somerset family's line was fine. Has anyone compared Richard III's DNA with any of the Hollands?

If I Recall Correctly there are no surviving male line Hollands today.

[Douglas Richardson]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:13:37 PM UTC-6, Katherine Kennedy wrote:
< I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de
< Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet
< origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing.
<
< The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains < of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any
< time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children
< directly.

Actually you're wrong. King Richard II allegedly claimed that John of Gaunt's bastard son, John Beaufort, was "gotten" in double adultery. This means that Katherine de Roet was married to Hugh de Swynford at the time John Beaufort was conceived. If John Beaufort was actually Hugh de Swynford's child, then the modern Beaufort line would obviously carry a different male Y-chromosome DNA than the original Plantagenet family. It would also be different from the alleged remains of King Richard III.

Which brings us to the obvious: Have the results of the Y-DNA male chromosome for the alleged remains of King Richard III ever been published? If so, what are they? Enquiring minds want to know.

Here are the Y Chromosome DNA results currently shown on the University of Leicester website: NONE.

Here are the Y-Chromosome results available on John Ashdown-Hill's website, Richard III & DNA. NONE.

As best I can tell, besides the original Beaufort testing misfire, in all the years the historians have been working on this, they have reportedly only attempted to match the Y chromosome of one Frenchman named Patrice de Warren to the remains of King Richard III. Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings, not just one person. Why just one Warren tested?

If someone knows the exact Y Chromosome sequencing for the alleged remains of King Richard III, I'd appreciate it greatly if they would post this information here on the newsgroup.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Paulo Canedo]

Post by Douglas Richardson
< I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de
< Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet
< origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing.
<
< The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains < of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any
< time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children
< directly.
Actually you're wrong. King Richard II allegedly claimed that John of Gaunt's bastard son, John Beaufort, was "gotten" in double adultery. This means that Katherine de Roet was married to Hugh de Swynford at the time John Beaufort was conceived. If John Beaufort was actually Hugh de Swynford's child, then the modern Beaufort line would obviously carry a different male Y-chromosome DNA than the original Plantagenet family. It would also be different from the alleged remains of King Richard III.
Which brings us to the obvious: Have the results of the Y-DNA male chromosome for the alleged remains of King Richard III ever been published? If so, what are they? Enquiring minds want to know.
Here are the Y Chromosome DNA results currently shown on the University of Leicester website: NONE.
Here are the Y-Chromosome results available on John Ashdown-Hill's website, Richard III & DNA. NONE.
As best I can tell, besides the original Beaufort testing misfire, in all the years the historians have been working on this, they have reportedly only attempted to match the Y chromosome of one Frenchman named Patrice de Warren to the remains of King Richard III. Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings, not just one person. Why just one Warren tested?
If someone knows the exact Y Chromosome sequencing for the alleged remains of King Richard III, I'd appreciate it greatly if they would post this information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

It seems very unlikely that John of Gaunt would have recognized the child if he wasn't sure it was his.

[Douglas Richardson]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 2:47:42 PM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote:
< It seems very unlikely that John of Gaunt would have recognized the child if he < wasn't sure it was his.

You're assuming that a woman would not be sleeping with both her lawful husband and her lover at the same time. All we know for certain is that both John of Gaunt and Katherine de Roet were probably both guilty of adultery. What John of Gaunt thought about the child's paternity at the time is not in any way pertinent.

As a friend used to tell me, Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe.

But for modern DNA testing and the pesky remains of King Richard III, we might not ever know the truth. Let's see what the DNA results show and then perhaps we should know the identity of the father of John Beaufort.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Paulo Canedo]

There is a chronological problem with that. The sources agree that John Beaufort was born in 1363 and that Swynford died in 1361 or 1362 if the former is correct there's no way he could be the father of John if the latter it is only barely possible. It seems to me Katherine's affair with John started shortly after Swynford's death.

[Katherine Kennedy]

Post by Paulo Canedo
There is a chronological problem with that. The sources agree that John Beaufort was born in 1363 and that Swynford died in 1361 or 1362 if the former is correct there's no way he could be the father of John if the latter it is only barely possible. It seems to me Katherine's affair with John started shortly after Swynford's death.

I was unaware of the allegation of double adultery. I thought it was generally understood that the Beaufort children were born after the death of Swynford. However, I don't believe John Beaufort's birth date is recorded, which would allow room for the speculation.

Now, like a number of people, I'm going to be looking at my few lines back to Henry VII and Elizabeth wondering what in the world I can believe.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Douglas Richardson
< It seems very unlikely that John of Gaunt would have recognized the child if he < wasn't sure it was his.
You're assuming that a woman would not be sleeping with both her lawful husband and her lover at the same time. All we know for certain is that both John of Gaunt and Katherine de Roet were probably both guilty of adultery. What John of Gaunt thought about the child's paternity at the time is not in any way pertinent.
As a friend used to tell me, Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe.

However, the legal presumption was that the mother's husband was the
father - "Pater is est quem nuptiae demonstrant".

Richard II - assuming he ever said what what is reported - would surely
not be considered a reliable witness in any court of law today. He
undercut his own credibility on this specific point by issuing a charter
recognising John Beaufort and his full siblings as legitimate offspring
of John of Gaunt and Katherine, and the next day made John Beaufort (not
Swynford) earl of Somerset, then a marquis twice over in the same year.
Having it both ways much? I wonder if he used a teleprompter.

Peter Stewart

[Jan Wolfe]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 4:43:09 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
...

Post by Douglas Richardson
Which brings us to the obvious: Have the results of the Y-DNA male chromosome for the alleged remains of King Richard III ever been published? If so, what are they? Enquiring minds want to know.
Here are the Y Chromosome DNA results currently shown on the University of Leicester website: NONE.
Here are the Y-Chromosome results available on John Ashdown-Hill's website, Richard III & DNA. NONE.
As best I can tell, besides the original Beaufort testing misfire, in all the years the historians have been working on this, they have reportedly only attempted to match the Y chromosome of one Frenchman named Patrice de Warren to the remains of King Richard III. Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings, not just one person. Why just one Warren tested?
If someone knows the exact Y Chromosome sequencing for the alleged remains of King Richard III, I'd appreciate it greatly if they would post this information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

See https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631 for Richard III's y haplogroup (G-P287).

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jan ~

Thank you for posting a weblink to this interesting article. Your help is much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Stewart Baldwin]

Post by Jan Wolfe
See https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631 for Richard III's y haplogroup (G-P287).

In looking at the "Supplementary Information" file at that site, I
noticed the following "red flag" statement:

"Tracing the lineage of those of royal or noble descent is no new field
of research and much information has previously been published:
important surveys include Richardson, Weir and Stuart."

Weir's work is mediocre at best, and Stuart's "Royalty for Commoners" is
just plain awful.  Even though the material in Stuart's book is too
early to have much relevance to the matter at hand, the fact that the
authors would call his work an "important survey" does not speak well
for the genealogical competence of the authors.

Stewart Baldwin

[taf]

Post by Douglas Richardson
Which brings us to the obvious: Have the results of the Y-DNA male
chromosome for the alleged remains of King Richard III ever been published?
If so, what are they? Enquiring minds want to know.

Yes, they have. Jan posted the link.

Post by Douglas Richardson
Here are the Y Chromosome DNA results currently shown on the University of
Leicester website: NONE.

They would not have put them on their web site prior to publication because they were embargoed. They wouldn't necessarily put them there afterwards because it was redundant with the publication.

Post by Douglas Richardson
Here are the Y-Chromosome results available on John Ashdown-Hill's website,
Richard III & DNA. NONE.

A blog with most recent post before the Y-DNA results were published. Not a surprise it has NONE then.

Post by Douglas Richardson
As best I can tell, besides the original Beaufort testing misfire, in all
the years the historians have been working on this, they have reportedly
only attempted to match the Y chromosome of one Frenchman named Patrice de
Warren to the remains of King Richard III. Yet surely there are hundreds
of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive today in England and America
who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any case, if such a study was
done right, it should include numerous samplings, not just one person. Why
just one Warren tested?

It is obvious from the interviews that they never intended such a study. Patrice de Warren walked in, said 'I'm a Plantagenet' so they tested him. It is telling that they reported it to The Guardian and other media sources without formal publication. It indicates it was a one-off lark, not a research goal and that they had no intent to pursue it (else they would have held back the specifics until they had completed the broader study, because as you say, a single result means nothing).

Is there a Cornwall or a Warren Y-DNA project? What haplotypes are they seeing?

taf

[John Higgins]

Post by Douglas Richardson
< I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de
< Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet
< origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing.
<
< The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains < of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any
< time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children
< directly.
Actually you're wrong. King Richard II allegedly claimed that John of Gaunt's bastard son, John Beaufort, was "gotten" in double adultery.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

What is your source that Richard II "allegedly claimed" this? That's a pretty weak statement...

[Peter Stewart]

Post by John Higgins

Post by Douglas Richardson
< I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de
< Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet
< origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing.
<
< The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains < of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any
< time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children
< directly.
Actually you're wrong. King Richard II allegedly claimed that John of Gaunt's bastard son, John Beaufort, was "gotten" in double adultery.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

What is your source that Richard II "allegedly claimed" this? That's a pretty weak statement...

I look forward to Douglas Richardson's answer, but from memory it was
Richard III, not II, who was supposed to have said this. An even less
reliable witness...

Peter Stewart

[taf]

Post by Douglas Richardson
Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive
today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any
case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings,
not just one person. Why just one Warren tested?

I note that Family Tree DNA has both a Warren and a Cornwall/Cornwell project, the first with 200+ tests, the latter almost 100. To date, none of them match either Richard's Y, nor that of the matching living Beaufort descendants (well, most of them - one didn't match the other three, and I didn't look for his, because as described int he paper, the Beaufort crypto-paternity event appears to be in his line). It should be said, though that with regard to the Beaufort line, a less extensive test may not turn up a precise match - they may belong to the same group as the Beauforts but didn't have theirs tested at enough sites to tell for sure. Richard's is different enough that this isn't an issue.

taf

[Matthew Langley]

Post by Douglas Richardson
< I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de
< Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet
< origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing.
<
< The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains < of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any
< time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children
< directly.
Actually you're wrong. King Richard II allegedly claimed that John of Gaunt's bastard son, John Beaufort, was "gotten" in double adultery. This means that Katherine de Roet was married to Hugh de Swynford at the time John Beaufort was conceived. If John Beaufort was actually Hugh de Swynford's child, then the modern Beaufort line would obviously carry a different male Y-chromosome DNA than the original Plantagenet family. It would also be different from the alleged remains of King Richard III.
Which brings us to the obvious: Have the results of the Y-DNA male chromosome for the alleged remains of King Richard III ever been published? If so, what are they? Enquiring minds want to know.
Here are the Y Chromosome DNA results currently shown on the University of Leicester website: NONE.
Here are the Y-Chromosome results available on John Ashdown-Hill's website, Richard III & DNA. NONE.
As best I can tell, besides the original Beaufort testing misfire, in all the years the historians have been working on this, they have reportedly only attempted to match the Y chromosome of one Frenchman named Patrice de Warren to the remains of King Richard III. Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings, not just one person. Why just one Warren tested?
If someone knows the exact Y Chromosome sequencing for the alleged remains of King Richard III, I'd appreciate it greatly if they would post this information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

By "exact Y Chromosome sequencing"

Do you mean the exact SNPs tested and details surrounding it?

You can find most of such details here

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631

"
DNA extraction of ancient samples
DNA was extracted from teeth and bone (femur) samples. All procedures were performed in dedicated ancient DNA laboratories at the University of York and the Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse with appropriate contamination precautions in place. Two extraction blanks were included and treated exactly as if they were extracts throughout the whole process. PCRs and library experiments also included further blank controls.

...

SNP typing by PCR
The capture approach yielded insufficient coverage for all HIrisPlex and Y-chromosome SNPs and therefore primers were designed to generate amplicons containing these SNPs as well as two SNPs, which further define Y-chromosome haplogroup G: M285 (G1) and P287 (G2) (ref. 14). These were amplified as part of multiplex reactions following Römpler et al.44 or singleplex reactions (using 40 cycles and with no secondary amplification) and sequenced on the Ion Torrent following library preparation using Ion PGM 200 Xpress Template Kit and PGM 200 Sequencing Kit. To increase coverage, singleplex PCR and sequencing of one marker (rs28777) was carried out according to Binladen et al.45

Typing of the haplogroup G defining SNPs (M201, M285 and P287) was repeated in Toulouse using singleplex PCRs. Sequencing of these PCR products was carried out using Big-Dye Terminator V3.1 cycle sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems) analysed by capillary electrophoresis on an ABI Prism 3730 Genetic Analyser (Applied Biosystems) at the genomic technical platform PlaGe (Genopole).
"

There are also full details of the modern samples tested. They also give many details on the mtDNA testing done, which honestly makes it amazingly likely it's Richard III's DNA or a really crazy coincidence that the mtDNA matches a descendant of his same maternal line. Not impossible but really unlikely.


All of these details have been around for years, is there some reason you find any specific methodology they used questionable?

[Paulo Canedo]

According to Geni Hugh Swynford died in 13 November 1371 and John was born in 1373 if so it is impossible for them to have been father and son although it also says that some believed John to be Swynford's postumous child. Please let's stop with that wild theory.

[Douglas Richardson]

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 4:20:21 AM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote:
< According to Geni Hugh Swynford died in 13 November 1371 and John was born in < 1373 if so it is impossible for them to have been father and son although it
< also says that some believed John to be Swynford's postumous child. Please
< let's stop with that wild theory.

As per his inquisition post mortem, Sir Hugh de Swynford died as stated 23 November 1371. John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. If John Beaufort's age in 1392 is anything close to correct, a simple math calculation tells us the obvious truth that Katherine de Roet must have had her affair with John of Gaunt during her husband's lifetime. This explains the comment that John Beaufort was "gotten" in double adultery. Double adultery indeed.

If you maintain that the alleged remains of King Richard III are in fact the king's, then a scientific explanation is needed to explain why his Y Chromosome DNA fails to match the modern male descendants of John Beaufort. For reasons only they know, the historians working on this case have failed to provide that explanation. It's science we need here, Paulo, not opinion here. If the DNA of the modern Beaufort descendants is found to match modern Swynford descendants, the answer will be apparent.

In this case, I believe that the male line of Sir Hugh de Swynford's descendants died out long ago. However, in the medieval time period, there were several branches of the Swynford family in England. Surely modern descendants can be found among the other branches.

P.S. As far as it goes, I find Geni to be a terrible genealogical source. It is loaded with errors. I strongly recommend not using it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Since we're discussing John of Gaunt, newsgroup members might wish to read a fascinating article by Emily S. Holt entitled “Mediæval Life among the Nobles,” published in The Churchman 10 (1884): 18–36. It analyzes the income and household expenses of John of Gaunt and his son, King Henry IV. A weblink is provided below.

https://books.google.com/books?id=YxgFAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA25&dq=%22John+Beaufort%22+1392&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-iszL8e_VAhUT9mMKHYtKArkQ6AEIPjAE#v=onepage&q=%22John%20Beaufort%22%201392&f=false

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[taf]

Post by Douglas Richardson
If you maintain that the alleged remains of King Richard III are in fact
the king's, then a scientific explanation is needed to explain why his Y
Chromosome DNA fails to match the modern male descendants of John Beaufort.
For reasons only they know, the historians working on this case have failed
to provide that explanation.

This is simply not the case. They emphatically did provide a reason, just not with the precision you demand of them, but then, you are not the one they must satisfy. I am sure if you pony up a million pounds, they would be happy to pursue your research aims.

taf

[Paulo Canedo]

Post by Douglas Richardson
< According to Geni Hugh Swynford died in 13 November 1371 and John was born in < 1373 if so it is impossible for them to have been father and son although it
< also says that some believed John to be Swynford's postumous child. Please
< let's stop with that wild theory.
As per his inquisition post mortem, Sir Hugh de Swynford died as stated 23 November 1371. John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. If John Beaufort's age in 1392 is anything close to correct, a simple math calculation tells us the obvious truth that Katherine de Roet must have had her affair with John of Gaunt during her husband's lifetime. This explains the comment that John Beaufort was "gotten" in double adultery. Double adultery indeed.
If you maintain that the alleged remains of King Richard III are in fact the king's, then a scientific explanation is needed to explain why his Y Chromosome DNA fails to match the modern male descendants of John Beaufort. For reasons only they know, the historians working on this case have failed to provide that explanation. It's science we need here, Paulo, not opinion here. If the DNA of the modern Beaufort descendants is found to match modern Swynford descendants, the answer will be apparent.
In this case, I believe that the male line of Sir Hugh de Swynford's descendants died out long ago. However, in the medieval time period, there were several branches of the Swynford family in England. Surely modern descendants can be found among the other branches.
P.S. As far as it goes, I find Geni to be a terrible genealogical source. It is loaded with errors. I strongly recommend not using it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Do you mean 13 or 23? Also where was his age said? I also have a research suggestion for you I suggest you read my thread The Immigrant Henry Gregory some posts debate the identity of his grandmother Dorothy that may lead to a royal descent and I think it would be a good point for your next books in royal descents.

[Richard Smith]

Post by Paulo Canedo

Post by Douglas Richardson
As per his inquisition post mortem, Sir Hugh de Swynford died as stated 23 November 1371. John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. If John Beaufort's age in 1392 is anything close to correct, a simple math calculation tells us the obvious truth that Katherine de Roet must have had her affair with John of Gaunt during her husband's lifetime. This explains the comment that John Beaufort was "gotten" in double adultery. Double adultery indeed.

Do you mean 13 or 23?

Assuming the translation in CIPM vol 13, no 204 is correct, he died 13
Nov 1371. The IPM was taken on the Tuesday after the Feast of St Mark
the Evangelist, 46 Edward III. The Feast of St Mark is 25 Apr, and in
46 Ed III (1372) it was a Sunday, so the IPM was on 27 Apr 1372. He is
said to have died on the Thursday after the Feast of St Martin in the
previous winter. The Feast of St Martin is 11 Nov which in 1371 was a
Tuesday. He therefore died on 13 Nov 1371, per his IPM as translated.
This date is given correctly in Richardson's /Royal Ancestry/ vol 3, p
492, sub Lancaster 11.

Richard

[Richard Smith]

Post by Paulo Canedo

John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. [...]

Also where was his age said?

Assuming you mean where was John Beauford's age stated, CP 2nd ed, vol
12A, p 40 cites CPR Ric II, vol 5, p 63. The patent roll entry, which
is dated 7 June 1392, says:

"Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de
Beaufort, retained to stay with the king for life, of 100 marks a year
at the Exchequer. By p.s.

"Vacated by surrender and cancelled, because the king granted that sum
to him from the issues and profits of the castle and lordship of
Wallyngford, со. Berks, 10 September in his twenty-first year."

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008966072;view=1up;seq=77

While I'm hesitant to disagree with the editor of Complete Peerage, I'm
certain this patent roll entry has been misunderstood. I think this
means the grant of Wallingford was in 10 Sept 21 Ric II (1397), and says
nothing about John Beaufort's age.

We can readily confirm this as there is another patent roll entry on 10
Sept 1397 saying exactly this [CPR Ric II, vol 6, p 205]:

"Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de
Beaufort of 100 marks a year from the issues of the castle and lordship
of Walyngford, co. Berks, instead of at the Exchequer, as granted to him
by letters patent dated 7 June in the fifteenth year, now surrendered."

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009337604;view=1up;seq=221

If, as seems to be the case, this is the only source putting John's
birth in c1371, I think we can discount it. Other modern secondary
sources put the birth in c1373, after Sir Hugh Swynford's death. This
seems far more likely to me, and there's a good description of this in
Nathen Amin's new book on the House of Beaufort. Amin argues that, as
Gaunt was open in his admission of adultery on his part and incest (as
the Catholic church then regarded a liaison between a man and the mother
of his goddaughter, presumably here being Blanche Swynford), he would
hardly have omitted to mention adultery on the part of Katherine, had
there been any, especially if John Beaufort were living proof of the
adultery. Being caught in such an omission would have risked nullifying
the Pope's dispensation for the marriage, something no-one concerned
would have wanted.

If all we have left is Richard III's statement, made more than a century
after the event, that John Beaufort was born of double adultery, I think
we can dismiss this as politically motivated. For the reasons just
outlined, if John Beaufort were born of double adultery, the
dispensation for his parents subsequent marriage was arguably invalid,
which brought into question the Beauforts' legitimacy and with it the
validity of Henry Tudor's (already weak) claim to be heir to the
Lancastrian claim. That was clearly in Richard's interest, and it is
easy to believe he would have made up this claim in an attempt to weaker
Henry's position.

Richard

[Katherine Kennedy]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Paulo Canedo

John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. [...]

Also where was his age said?

Assuming you mean where was John Beauford's age stated, CP 2nd ed, vol
12A, p 40 cites CPR Ric II, vol 5, p 63. The patent roll entry, which
"Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de
Beaufort, retained to stay with the king for life, of 100 marks a year
at the Exchequer. By p.s.
"Vacated by surrender and cancelled, because the king granted that sum
to him from the issues and profits of the castle and lordship of
Wallyngford, со. Berks, 10 September in his twenty-first year."
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008966072;view=1up;seq=77
While I'm hesitant to disagree with the editor of Complete Peerage, I'm
certain this patent roll entry has been misunderstood. I think this
means the grant of Wallingford was in 10 Sept 21 Ric II (1397), and says
nothing about John Beaufort's age.
We can readily confirm this as there is another patent roll entry on 10
"Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de
Beaufort of 100 marks a year from the issues of the castle and lordship
of Walyngford, co. Berks, instead of at the Exchequer, as granted to him
by letters patent dated 7 June in the fifteenth year, now surrendered."
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009337604;view=1up;seq=221
If, as seems to be the case, this is the only source putting John's
birth in c1371, I think we can discount it. Other modern secondary
sources put the birth in c1373, after Sir Hugh Swynford's death. This
seems far more likely to me, and there's a good description of this in
Nathen Amin's new book on the House of Beaufort. Amin argues that, as
Gaunt was open in his admission of adultery on his part and incest (as
the Catholic church then regarded a liaison between a man and the mother
of his goddaughter, presumably here being Blanche Swynford), he would
hardly have omitted to mention adultery on the part of Katherine, had
there been any, especially if John Beaufort were living proof of the
adultery. Being caught in such an omission would have risked nullifying
the Pope's dispensation for the marriage, something no-one concerned
would have wanted.
If all we have left is Richard III's statement, made more than a century
after the event, that John Beaufort was born of double adultery, I think
we can dismiss this as politically motivated. For the reasons just
outlined, if John Beaufort were born of double adultery, the
dispensation for his parents subsequent marriage was arguably invalid,
which brought into question the Beauforts' legitimacy and with it the
validity of Henry Tudor's (already weak) claim to be heir to the
Lancastrian claim. That was clearly in Richard's interest, and it is
easy to believe he would have made up this claim in an attempt to weaker
Henry's position.
Richard

Thank you. Given this correction and the fact the double adultery statement was by Richard III, not Richard II, I feel confident in the Beaufort line again.

[Paulo Canedo]

Katherine through James V you have a descent from John's sister Joan so you didn't really have to worry much.

[Katherine Kennedy]

Post by Paulo Canedo
Katherine through James V you have a descent from John's sister Joan so you didn't really have to worry much.

That's true. Nobody has questioned the line through Cecily Neville, so we Tudor descendants would still have that line regardless.

[Douglas Richardson]

Impressive work, Richard. Nicely done.

As far as any other indications of John Beaufort's approximate age are concerned, I know that in 1390, as Monseigneur Jehon de Biaufort [Sir John de Beaufort], bastart de Lancastre, he bore himself with credit at the jousts of Saint Inglevert. The same year he joined the Crusade of Louis II, Duke of Bourbon, to Barbary, and was present at the futile Siege of El Mahadia southeast of Tunis.

While men are known to have commenced military service as young as 16 in medieval times, my guess is that he was at least 17 or 18 in 1390, when these events took place. That would place his birth as circa 1372 or 1373, which former date still allows for the possibility that his mother was married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived.

In which case, I think a review of Swynford DNA would be desirable to rule out any possibility that he was Sir Hugh de Swynford's son. This shouldn't be too difficult to do.

Anyone ever heard of the story of David and Bathsheba?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Paulo Canedo

John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. [...]

Also where was his age said?

Assuming you mean where was John Beauford's age stated, CP 2nd ed, vol
12A, p 40 cites CPR Ric II, vol 5, p 63. The patent roll entry, which
"Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de
Beaufort, retained to stay with the king for life, of 100 marks a year
at the Exchequer. By p.s.
"Vacated by surrender and cancelled, because the king granted that sum
to him from the issues and profits of the castle and lordship of
Wallyngford, со. Berks, 10 September in his twenty-first year."
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008966072;view=1up;seq=77
While I'm hesitant to disagree with the editor of Complete Peerage, I'm
certain this patent roll entry has been misunderstood. I think this
means the grant of Wallingford was in 10 Sept 21 Ric II (1397), and says
nothing about John Beaufort's age.
We can readily confirm this as there is another patent roll entry on 10
"Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de
Beaufort of 100 marks a year from the issues of the castle and lordship
of Walyngford, co. Berks, instead of at the Exchequer, as granted to him
by letters patent dated 7 June in the fifteenth year, now surrendered."
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009337604;view=1up;seq=221
If, as seems to be the case, this is the only source putting John's
birth in c1371, I think we can discount it. Other modern secondary
sources put the birth in c1373, after Sir Hugh Swynford's death. This
seems far more likely to me, and there's a good description of this in
Nathen Amin's new book on the House of Beaufort. Amin argues that, as
Gaunt was open in his admission of adultery on his part and incest (as
the Catholic church then regarded a liaison between a man and the mother
of his goddaughter, presumably here being Blanche Swynford), he would
hardly have omitted to mention adultery on the part of Katherine, had
there been any, especially if John Beaufort were living proof of the
adultery. Being caught in such an omission would have risked nullifying
the Pope's dispensation for the marriage, something no-one concerned
would have wanted.
If all we have left is Richard III's statement, made more than a century
after the event, that John Beaufort was born of double adultery, I think
we can dismiss this as politically motivated. For the reasons just
outlined, if John Beaufort were born of double adultery, the
dispensation for his parents subsequent marriage was arguably invalid,
which brought into question the Beauforts' legitimacy and with it the
validity of Henry Tudor's (already weak) claim to be heir to the
Lancastrian claim. That was clearly in Richard's interest, and it is
easy to believe he would have made up this claim in an attempt to weaker
Henry's position.
Richard

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Douglas Richardson
Impressive work, Richard. Nicely done.
As far as any other indications of John Beaufort's approximate age are concerned, I know that in 1390, as Monseigneur Jehon de Biaufort [Sir John de Beaufort], bastart de Lancastre, he bore himself with credit at the jousts of Saint Inglevert. The same year he joined the Crusade of Louis II, Duke of Bourbon, to Barbary, and was present at the futile Siege of El Mahadia southeast of Tunis.
While men are known to have commenced military service as young as 16 in medieval times, my guess is that he was at least 17 or 18 in 1390, when these events took place. That would place his birth as circa 1372 or 1373, which former date still allows for the possibility that his mother was married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived.
In which case, I think a review of Swynford DNA would be desirable to rule out any possibility that he was Sir Hugh de Swynford's son. This shouldn't be too difficult to do.

If you apply your caution of "Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe" to John
Beaufort with regard to John of Gaunt, you must apply it also with
regard to Hugh Swynford on the supposition that he was living at the
time of conception, and then to every generation in descent from both
men. Just because a modern person's DNA matches that of some medieval
remains does not prove either that those remains belong to whomever you
think was the modern person's ancestor, or that non-paternity of the
legal father did occur any number of times in the intervening
generations. The last such event might provide a false 'positive' match:
there is no rule of nature to prevent a Swynford or Somerset wife from
committing adultery at any point, including with a Swynford or Somerset
other than her husband.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Peter Stewart

Impressive work, Richard.  Nicely done.
As far as any other indications of John Beaufort's approximate age
are concerned, I know that in 1390, as Monseigneur Jehon de Biaufort
[Sir John de Beaufort], bastart de Lancastre, he bore himself with
credit at the jousts of Saint Inglevert.  The same year he joined the
Crusade of Louis II, Duke of Bourbon, to Barbary, and was present at
the futile Siege of El Mahadia southeast of Tunis.
While men are known to have commenced military service as young as 16
in medieval times, my guess is that he was at least 17 or 18 in 1390,
when these events took place.  That would place his birth as circa
1372 or 1373, which former date still allows for the possibility that
his mother was married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived.
In which case, I think a review of Swynford DNA would be desirable to
rule out any possibility that he was Sir Hugh de Swynford's son. 
This shouldn't be too difficult to do.

If you apply your caution of "Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe" to John
Beaufort with regard to John of Gaunt, you must apply it also with
regard to Hugh Swynford on the supposition that he was living at the
time of conception, and then to every generation in descent from both
men. Just because a modern person's DNA matches that of some medieval
remains does not prove either that those remains belong to whomever
you think was the modern person's ancestor, or that non-paternity of
the legal father did occur any number of times in the intervening
generations.

Apologies, I meant "or that non-paternity of the legal father did not
occur ..."

Peter Stewart

[Richard Smith]

Post by Douglas Richardson
I believe that the male line of Sir Hugh de Swynford's descendants
died out long ago. However, in the medieval time period, there were
several branches of the Swynford family in England.

Has any research been published into the Swynford family in mediæval
times? Looking in the modern secondary sources readily accessible, I
can't even find any information about who Hugh's parents were, though
that's a question I can answer.

We know from Hugh's IPM [CIPM vol 13, no 204] that he held that manor of
Coleby, Lincs. We also know that Hugh's son and heir, William, was only
4 and more in 1372, so Hugh was likely not very old. We might estimate
Hugh to have been born in the 1340s. I've found an IPM for Sir Thomas
de Swynford, who I think is almost certainly Sir Hugh Swynford's father
[CIPM vol 11, 197]. It's taken the Friday after St Nicholas day, 35
Edward III (9 Dec 1361). Thomas also held the manor of Coleby, and his
heir was his son, a Hugh Swynford, was aged 21 or more. That means
Thomas's son Hugh was born in or before 1340. That's quite plausible
for him to be Katherine de Roet's husband, but probably not enough time
for there to have been two generations of Hughes, unless he was much
older than 21.

I'm sure this is not new information, but I don't recall seeing it
presented elsewhere.

Post by Douglas Richardson
Surely modern descendants can be found among the other branches.

Possibly, and there are modern Swinfords, particularly in the
Gloucestershire area. I doubt it's possible to prove their descent from
Sir Hugh Swynford's ancestral line, but even a DNA match without a
documented descent would be circumstantial evidence.

Post by Douglas Richardson
P.S. As far as it goes, I find Geni to be a terrible genealogical source.

Totally agree. I'd say it's probably the worst of the collaborative
online trees, despite steep competition.

Richard

[Richard Smith]

Post by Richard Smith
We know from Hugh's IPM [CIPM vol 13, no 204] that he held that manor of
Coleby, Lincs. We also know that Hugh's son and heir, William,

I meant, of course, Thomas. Sorry about that.

Richard

[wjhonson]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Douglas Richardson
I believe that the male line of Sir Hugh de Swynford's descendants
died out long ago. However, in the medieval time period, there were
several branches of the Swynford family in England.

Has any research been published into the Swynford family in mediæval
times? Looking in the modern secondary sources readily accessible, I
can't even find any information about who Hugh's parents were, though
that's a question I can answer.
We know from Hugh's IPM [CIPM vol 13, no 204] that he held that manor of
Coleby, Lincs. We also know that Hugh's son and heir, William, was only
4 and more in 1372, so Hugh was likely not very old. We might estimate
Hugh to have been born in the 1340s. I've found an IPM for Sir Thomas
de Swynford, who I think is almost certainly Sir Hugh Swynford's father
[CIPM vol 11, 197]. It's taken the Friday after St Nicholas day, 35
Edward III (9 Dec 1361). Thomas also held the manor of Coleby, and his
heir was his son, a Hugh Swynford, was aged 21 or more. That means
Thomas's son Hugh was born in or before 1340. That's quite plausible
for him to be Katherine de Roet's husband, but probably not enough time
for there to have been two generations of Hughes, unless he was much
older than 21.
I'm sure this is not new information, but I don't recall seeing it
presented elsewhere.

Post by Douglas Richardson
Surely modern descendants can be found among the other branches.

Possibly, and there are modern Swinfords, particularly in the
Gloucestershire area. I doubt it's possible to prove their descent from
Sir Hugh Swynford's ancestral line, but even a DNA match without a
documented descent would be circumstantial evidence.

Post by Douglas Richardson
P.S. As far as it goes, I find Geni to be a terrible genealogical source.

Totally agree. I'd say it's probably the worst of the collaborative
online trees, despite steep competition.
Richard

Do you have a link to these IPMs ?

[Richard Smith]

Post by wjhonson
Do you have a link to these IPMs ?

Yes. Sorry, I should have given them in that email.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol13/pp163-178
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol11/pp162-177

The first is Hugh's, the second is Thomas's.

Richard

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

The allegation that Katherine de Roet, was still married to Sir Hugh de Swynford
when she commenced her affair with John of Gaunt was made by King Richard III, not King Richard II as I posted earlier. In a letter of King Richard III dated 1483, the king alleged that John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, was “son unto Dame Katherine Swynford, and of their indouble avoutry gotten.” [i.e., implying that John Beaufort’s mother was still married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived]).

A full transcript of the letter in question was published many years ago in Fenn, Paston Letters (1849): 152–153, and may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=nCwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA152

Considering its source, the charge is probably baseless. Even so, the fact that the DNA of the alleged remains of King Richard II doesn't match the DNA of modern Beaufort descendants does raise the possibility that King Richard III had his facts right and that Sir Hugh de Swynford could be the father of John Beaufort.

We must remember the saying: Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe.

This matter deserves further study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
The allegation that Katherine de Roet, was still married to Sir Hugh de Swynford
when she commenced her affair with John of Gaunt was made by King Richard III, not King Richard II as I posted earlier. In a letter of King Richard III dated 1483, the king alleged that John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, was “son unto Dame Katherine Swynford, and of their indouble avoutry gotten.” [i.e., implying that John Beaufort’s mother was still married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived]).
https://books.google.com/books?id=nCwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA152
Considering its source, the charge is probably baseless. Even so, the fact that the DNA of the alleged remains of King Richard II doesn't match the DNA of modern Beaufort descendants does raise the possibility that King Richard III had his facts right and that Sir Hugh de Swynford could be the father of John Beaufort.

Presumably you mean the alleged remains of King Richard III, not II.

It should be noted in this context that John of Gaunt was a widower, not
a married man, between the death of his first wife on 12 September 1269
and his second marriage on 21 September 1371. If John Beaufort had been
conceived in the lifetime of Sir Hugh Swynford, it would have to have
been in the brief interval between the latter date and Swynford's death
on 13 November in the same year in order to have been double adultery.
The notion that a century later Richard III could arrive at such
precision, narrowing an unwitnessed act to within a two-month period, is
absurd enough even if we ignore his very obvious motive for fabrication.

Peter Stewart

[Richard Smith]

Post by Peter Stewart
It should be noted in this context that John of Gaunt was a widower, not
a married man, between the death of his first wife on 12 September 1269
and his second marriage on 21 September 1371. If John Beaufort had been
conceived in the lifetime of Sir Hugh Swynford, it would have to have
been in the brief interval between the latter date and Swynford's death
on 13 November in the same year in order to have been double adultery.
The notion that a century later Richard III could arrive at such
precision, narrowing an unwitnessed act to within a two-month period, is
absurd enough even if we ignore his very obvious motive for fabrication.

To an extent I'm playing Devil's Advocate by replying, as I don't
believe double adultery was at all likely. But I'd question your
assertion that the notion that Richard III could have reached that
decision is absurd.

He and his courtiers would have had access to sources that don't survive
today, and it's not implausible he could have found out John Beaufort's
date of birth. Suppose that Richard discovered that Beaufort had been
born in late June 1372. In this scenario, Beaufort would have to have
been born several weeks beyond term to pre-date Gaunt's second marriage,
and we have Gaunt's own word that this was not the case; but equally
Beaufort would have to have been nearly two months premature for him to
have been conceived after Swnyford's death, and I very much doubt a baby
that premature would have lived before the advent of modern medicine.
Double adultery would be the natural conclusion.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think is likely. For the reasons I
gave before, I think it far more likely that Beaufort was conceived
after Swynford's death, and the notion of double adultery was a
fabrication for political gain. But were it not for the obvious motive
for fabrication, I think Richard's assertion could be credible.

Richard

[Jan Wolfe]

Are the remains of Edward I and Edward III in Westminster Abbey identified and intact? What about those of Edward of Woodstock and Henry IV in Canterbury Cathedral? Or those of Geoffrey Plantagenet in Le Mans Cathedral?

If there is interest in confirming the identity of the remains of Richard III, rather than in determining the "true" Plantagenet y-DNA, one could consider the remains of Edward IV in St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle.

I suppose there may be objections to disinterring any of the above remains, but researchers have overcome objections to disinterring more ancient remains and extracting DNA.

[taf]

Post by Jan Wolfe
I suppose there may be objections to disinterring any of the above remains,
but researchers have overcome objections to disinterring more ancient
remains and extracting DNA.

It is one thing to test remains found under a car park, or to test a grave discovered during renovations. It is another to disinter a cathedral tomb of a monarch, just to satisfy someone's curiosity. While there have been examples of such studies (the flawed analysis of the Leopolding Austrians comes to mind), a proposal to disinter a tomb that late and apocryphal alternative history makes out to be that of Harold II in England has already been rejected out of hand. And that even assumes some of these tombs haven't already been pillaged, like that of the supposed Princes in the Tower, found to contain mismatched bones, including those of animals, presumably from someone thinking it wouldn't be noticed if they removed a bone as long as they replaced it with another bone.

taf

[Brad Verity]

Post by taf
It is one thing to test remains found under a car park, or to test a grave discovered during renovations. It is another to disinter a cathedral tomb of a monarch, just to satisfy someone's curiosity. While there have been examples of such studies (the flawed analysis of the Leopolding Austrians comes to mind), a proposal to disinter a tomb that late and apocryphal alternative history makes out to be that of Harold II in England has already been rejected out of hand. And that even assumes some of these tombs haven't already been pillaged, like that of the supposed Princes in the Tower, found to contain mismatched bones, including those of animals, presumably from someone thinking it wouldn't be noticed if they removed a bone as long as they replaced it with another bone.

British historian W. Mark Ormrod (the author of the Edward III volume in the Yale English Monarchs series, as well as dozens of articles on that monarch and his family) had an article published last year in 'Nottingham Medieval Studies' which sounds like it pertains specifically to this topic: 'The DNA of Richard III: False Paternity and the Royal Succession in Later Medieval England':
http://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/10.1484/J.NMS.5.111283

Here is the Abstract:
"DNA analysis of the human remains discovered on the site of the Franciscan priory in Leicester in 2012 produced a perfect match with female-line descendants of the sister of King Richard III and thus proved beyond reasonable doubt that the remains were those of the king who died at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. However, the experiment on the male line, traced through Richard’s father to King Edward III and then down via John of Gaunt to the Beaufort family, did not establish a match. The scientific team, working with imperfect historical data, concluded that one likely occurrence of ‘false paternity’ in this line was in the case of John of Gaunt. This study emphasizes the fragility of the claims about Gaunt’s illegitimacy, and instead focuses on a wider range of circumstantial evidence surrounding near-contemporary allegations of false paternity in the case of Richard III’s grandfather, Richard, earl of Cambridge (d. 1415). It also considers the wider cultural implications of the increasing frequency of bastardy allegations against the English royal family during the fifteenth century, arguing that this was a manifestation of the dynastic instability that obtained between the 1450s and the 1480s."

As for further research, fifteen years ago I visited Kings Langley in Hertfordshire, and in All Saints Church, is the tomb of Edmund of Langley. It was removed there from the Dominican Priory up the hill, which had fallen into ruin after the Dissolution of the monasteries. Both the vicar who gave me a tour of the church, and the guidebook that I purchased, mention that in the 19th century, the tomb was opened and three skeletons were inside: one male, presumed to be Edmund, and two females, one presumed to be his wife Isabel of Castile, and the other, which still had a head of red hair, presumed to be their daughter-in-law Lady Anne (Mortimer), first wife of Richard, Earl of Cambridge. I wonder if it would be possible to extract DNA from the three skeletons in that tomb? It's a relatively small, quiet parish church, so wouldn't involve an excavation within a major cathedral like Westminster Abbey or St George's Chapel Windsor.

On a related note, I watched a BBC documentary 'King George III - The Genius of The Mad King', in which a team of historians were given access to the letters, etc, of that monarch that are archived at Windsor Castle:

Among the items shown was a letter from Queen Charlotte to the governess of the royal nursery which contained a lock of full blond hair from the head of deceased toddler Prince Alfred (1780-1782). Again, I don't know much about DNA extraction, but my immediate thought was whether any could be extracted from that lock of hair? I believe Merilyn Pedrick some years back on this newsgroup was enquiring about the Hanoverian y-DNA sequence. This wouldn't involve opening any tombs or drawing blood from the current male members of the royal family in Hanover.

Cheers, -----Brad

[Jan Wolfe]

Post by taf

Post by Jan Wolfe
I suppose there may be objections to disinterring any of the above remains,
but researchers have overcome objections to disinterring more ancient
remains and extracting DNA.

It is one thing to test remains found under a car park, or to test a grave discovered during renovations. It is another to disinter a cathedral tomb of a monarch, just to satisfy someone's curiosity. While there have been examples of such studies (the flawed analysis of the Leopolding Austrians comes to mind), a proposal to disinter a tomb that late and apocryphal alternative history makes out to be that of Harold II in England has already been rejected out of hand. And that even assumes some of these tombs haven't already been pillaged, like that of the supposed Princes in the Tower, found to contain mismatched bones, including those of animals, presumably from someone thinking it wouldn't be noticed if they removed a bone as long as they replaced it with another bone.
taf

When I mentioned overcoming objections, I had the DNA analysis of King Tut and his relatives in mind.

[taf]

Post by Jan Wolfe
When I mentioned overcoming objections, I had the DNA analysis of King Tut
and his relatives in mind.

The distinction between Ancient and Medieval, while solely one of degree rather than kind, carries great weight. You can do all kinds of things at an ancient site that typically would not be allowed at a medieval one. Indeed, most of the research subjects are no longer in situ, having been looted a century ago, and this changes things. Further, Europeans and Euro-Americans are often much more willing to dig up someone else's ancestors than their own. Plus with Tut, there was a nationalistic and personal impetus behind many of the decisions made by the Egyptian head of antiquities that made it a unique case.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Peter Stewart
It should be noted in this context that John of Gaunt was a widower, not
a married man, between the death of his first wife on 12 September 1269
and his second marriage on 21 September 1371. If John Beaufort had been
conceived in the lifetime of Sir Hugh Swynford, it would have to have
been in the brief interval between the latter date and Swynford's death
on 13 November in the same year in order to have been double adultery.
The notion that a century later Richard III could arrive at such
precision, narrowing an unwitnessed act to within a two-month period, is
absurd enough even if we ignore his very obvious motive for fabrication.

To an extent I'm playing Devil's Advocate by replying, as I don't
believe double adultery was at all likely.  But I'd question your
assertion that the notion that Richard III could have reached that
decision is absurd.
He and his courtiers would have had access to sources that don't
survive today, and it's not implausible he could have found out John
Beaufort's date of birth.  Suppose that Richard discovered that
Beaufort had been born in late June 1372.  In this scenario, Beaufort
would have to have been born several weeks beyond term to pre-date
Gaunt's second marriage, and we have Gaunt's own word that this was
not the case; but equally Beaufort would have to have been nearly two
months premature for him to have been conceived after Swnyford's
death, and I very much doubt a baby that premature would have lived
before the advent of modern medicine. Double adultery would be the
natural conclusion.

Doubt on what basis? I don't know whether or not a baby could naturally
survive premature birth after seven months gestation, then or now. But
if that was the evidence Richard III relied on he would have had the
same obvious motive to publicise this fact rather than to lose it in a
broad-brush allegation. Who was convinced? And what was Richard III's
ulterior motive in unnecessarily failing to convince anyone?

Peter Stewart

[Richard Smith]

Post by Peter Stewart

In this scenario, [...] Beaufort would have to have been nearly two
months premature for him to have been conceived after Swnyford's
death, and I very much doubt a baby that premature would have lived
before the advent of modern medicine.

Doubt on what basis? I don't know whether or not a baby could naturally
survive premature birth after seven months gestation, then or now.

Based on the fact that before about week 31, a foetus's lungs are still
poorly developed, generally to the point that the baby can't breath
unaided. Nowadays a surfactant injection is often given, either to the
mother immediately prior to giving birth, or to the baby immediately
after birth, which is often enough to prevent the lungs from collapsing,
though even then a respirator is sometimes needed. These were not
options even a century ago, far less in the 14th century. I'm sure
there were instances of mediæval babies born this premature who survived
nonetheless, but it must have been very rare.

Richard

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Peter Stewart

In this scenario, [...] Beaufort would have to have been nearly two
months premature for him to have been conceived after Swnyford's
death, and I very much doubt a baby that premature would have lived
before the advent of modern medicine.

Doubt on what basis? I don't know whether or not a baby could naturally
survive premature birth after seven months gestation, then or now.

Based on the fact that before about week 31, a foetus's lungs are
still poorly developed, generally to the point that the baby can't
breath unaided.  Nowadays a surfactant injection is often given,
either to the mother immediately prior to giving birth, or to the baby
immediately after birth, which is often enough to prevent the lungs
from collapsing, though even then a respirator is sometimes needed. 
These were not options even a century ago, far less in the 14th
century.  I'm sure there were instances of mediæval babies born this
premature who survived nonetheless, but it must have been very rare.

But probably not as rare as someone a century later knowing for certain
when the baby was conceived, that people in its lifetime evidently
didn't except its parents - who must have been idiots to suppose no-one
else could work this out.

John of Gaunt was in Roquefort when he married for the second time in
September 1371. Perhaps Richard III was clairvoyant also in knowing that
Katherine was with him between then and the death of her own husband in
November, when their contemporaries hadn't noticed this.

Peter Stewart

[Richard Smith]

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by Richard Smith
Based on the fact that before about week 31, a foetus's lungs are
still poorly developed, generally to the point that the baby can't
breath unaided. [...] I'm sure there were instances of mediæval
babies born thispremature who survived nonetheless, but it must
have been very rare.

But probably not as rare as someone a century later knowing for certain
when the baby was conceived,

It wouldn't require anyone a century later to know exactly when the baby
was conceived, only to within a two months, and anyone with knowledge of
the date of birth could have done that, though there's no reason to
suppose many people would have known the date of birth. In that respect
Richard could have been in a privileged position.

In any case, the point is moot. I've already said I don't believe
Beaufort was born of double adultery. Had he been, Gaunt had a strong
incentive to say so during his petition for dispensation to marry
Katherine. He didn't and that speaks volumes. I think it is quite
possibly that, if so minded, he could have covered up Katherine's side
of the double adultery had it occurred, as I don't image dates of birth,
marriage and death would have have been known outside a small circle of
family and close acquaintances who, back in the 1390s, may not have had
reason to rock the boat. But doing so would have been risky and I can't
see any motive for him to do so.

Richard

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by Richard Smith
Based on the fact that before about week 31, a foetus's lungs are
still poorly developed, generally to the point that the baby can't
breath unaided. [...] I'm sure there were instances of mediæval
babies born thispremature who survived nonetheless, but it must
have been very rare.

But probably not as rare as someone a century later knowing for certain
when the baby was conceived,

It wouldn't require anyone a century later to know exactly when the
baby was conceived, only to within a two months, and anyone with
knowledge of the date of birth could have done that, though there's no
reason to suppose many people would have known the date of birth.  In
that respect Richard could have been in a privileged position.
In any case, the point is moot.  I've already said I don't believe
Beaufort was born of double adultery.  Had he been, Gaunt had a strong
incentive to say so during his petition for dispensation to marry
Katherine.  He didn't and that speaks volumes.  I think it is quite
possibly that, if so minded, he could have covered up Katherine's side
of the double adultery had it occurred, as I don't image dates of
birth, marriage and death would have have been known outside a small
circle of family and close acquaintances who, back in the 1390s, may
not have had reason to rock the boat.  But doing so would have been
risky and I can't see any motive for him to do so.

Nor can I. However, I don't agree that Richard III could have been in a
privileged position a century after the fact to know when John Beaufort
was born, if this was especially compromising to his mother and yet the
court, the pope and others at the time did not realise it.

I'm not sure that the birthdays of bastards were much celebrated in the
14th century, certainly not so much as to leave a record that would be
suppressed for a hundred years until falling into the hands of someone
with a flagrant motive to invent such a problem anyway.

There doesn't seem to be any plausible ground for devil's advocacy here.

Peter Stewart

[Richard Smith]

Post by Peter Stewart
However, I don't agree that Richard III could have been in a
privileged position a century after the fact to know when John Beaufort
was born, if this was especially compromising to his mother and yet the
court, the pope and others at the time did not realise it.
I'm not sure that the birthdays of bastards were much celebrated in the
14th century, certainly not so much as to leave a record that would be
suppressed for a hundred years until falling into the hands of someone
with a flagrant motive to invent such a problem anyway.

I'm sure birthdays of bastards weren't celebrated, at least not in a way
to leave record. But it doesn't preclude the date of his birth
occurring somewhere in a court record. Not being an heir, there
wouldn't be a proof of age or mention of his age in an IPM, I don't
recall seeing dates of birth in patent or close rolls, and he was no
where near important enough to attract the attention of a monastic
chronicler. But he may have been mentioned in someone else's proof of
age. More than once I've read entries in CIPM saying something like
"Joe Bloggs knows X was born on [date] because he was at the baptism of
Y that day and a servant came to tell X his wife had just given birth".
I imagine there must be lots of manorial court rolls that have not
survived containing similar things.

I don't for a moment believe Richard would have been trawling through
court records looking for such an entry, but if someone else happened to
come across something of that nature, they may well have brought it to
Richard's attention in the hope of currying favour with the king. Of
course the same detail could have come to light in earlier years, but it
was only after the death of Henry VI that the question of the Beauforts'
legitimacy became a hot political topic.

Richard

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Peter Stewart
However, I don't agree that Richard III could have been in a
privileged position a century after the fact to know when John Beaufort
was born, if this was especially compromising to his mother and yet the
court, the pope and others at the time did not realise it.
I'm not sure that the birthdays of bastards were much celebrated in the
14th century, certainly not so much as to leave a record that would be
suppressed for a hundred years until falling into the hands of someone
with a flagrant motive to invent such a problem anyway.

I'm sure birthdays of bastards weren't celebrated, at least not in a
way to leave record.  But it doesn't preclude the date of his birth
occurring somewhere in a court record.  Not being an heir, there
wouldn't be a proof of age or mention of his age in an IPM, I don't
recall seeing dates of birth in patent or close rolls, and he was no
where near important enough to attract the attention of a monastic
chronicler.  But he may have been mentioned in someone else's proof of
age.  More than once I've read entries in CIPM saying something like
"Joe Bloggs knows X was born on [date] because he was at the baptism
of Y that day and a servant came to tell X his wife had just given
birth". I imagine there must be lots of manorial court rolls that have
not survived containing similar things.
I don't for a moment believe Richard would have been trawling through
court records looking for such an entry, but if someone else happened
to come across something of that nature, they may well have brought it
to Richard's attention in the hope of currying favour with the king. 
Of course the same detail could have come to light in earlier years,
but it was only after the death of Henry VI that the question of the
Beauforts' legitimacy became a hot political topic.

It was a hot topic in the autumn of 1396, when John's marriage to
Katherine was acknowledged by the pope and their children were
legitimated, and in February 1397 when Richard II confirmed their
legitimacy and made John Beaufort earl of Somerset. John's conception,
if there had been any real question over it, would have been a hot topic
at court again later in that year when he was made marquis of Somerset
and then of Dorset.

This dead horse has been flogged way past its death without any
substantial point being made in favour of Richard III's revisionist
nonsense.

Peter Stewart

[Michael OHearn]

Again you seem to be missing the point of what I discussed earlier.

The Plantagenet Y-DNA is going back to Richard is uniquely type G. This is also common in Alania (modern day Ossetia) from which the Alan's settled in Gaul as mercenaries to the Romans about the 4th or 5th century. The location of the Plantagenet in Gaul corresponds with Alan settlement in Roman times. They are also likely to be the upstart kings for historical reasons which I will not delve into here.

Of course, it is also possible that the Type G DNA *just happened* to pre-exist in pre-Roman times, and that this *just happened* to be passed down to the Plantagenet kings, or alternatively, that Richard's uncharacteristic DNA was actually the product of an out of wedlock union. I am not buying any of it!

Sent from my iPhone

[taf]

Post by Michael OHearn
Again you seem to be missing the point of what I discussed earlier.
The Plantagenet Y-DNA is going back to Richard is uniquely type G.

Not unique, but uncommon for Western Europe.

Post by Michael OHearn
This is also common in Alania (modern day Ossetia) from which the Alan's
settled in Gaul as mercenaries to the Romans about the 4th or 5th century.

Picking one favorite group and deciding they must represent the avenue by which the haplotype turned up 1000 years later, an entire continent away, may make for a pleasing game of connect-the-dots what-if hypothesizing, but in this case it has little validity. When you brought this up before I showed that the prevalence of G in western Europe does not correspond well at all with where the Alans are thought to have settled - there can be no presumption of correlation between G haplogroup and Alans. That doesn't mean that there weren't Alans in Eastern Europe and the Eurasian steppe who were G, but it looks like most G in Western Europe has no link to them.

Post by Michael OHearn
The location of the Plantagenet in Gaul corresponds with Alan settlement in
Roman times. They are also likely to be the upstart kings for historical
reasons which I will not delve into here.

The location of Plantagenet in Gaul also corresponds to that of the Celts, the Bell Beaker culture, the first farmers spreading out of Anatolia, and the Western European hunter-gatherers, just to name a few.

Post by Michael OHearn
Of course, it is also possible that the Type G DNA *just happened* to pre-
exist in pre-Roman times, and that this *just happened* to be passed down
to the Plantagenet kings, or alternatively, that Richard's uncharacteristic
DNA was actually the product of an out of wedlock union.

Neat rhetorical trick, begging the question by presenting the pet theory as an obvious historical progression, and every alternative as something that 'just happened'.

taf

[Michael OHearn]

Post by taf
Not unique, but uncommon for Western Europe.

Yes but "uniquely" in the sense that none of Richard's supposed male line descendants, or any other known male line Plantagenet descendants for that matter, share this Y haplogroup, regardless of how common or uncommon it may be in Western Europe. Obviously there must be a disconnect somewhere.

Why do genealogists insist upon arguing in favor of a theory based upon marital infidelity when it has no basis in fact. In law we call this a fishing expedition. The other alternative, which btw I am not ruling out, is that the particular type G Y-DNA passed on to the early Plantagenets pre-existed in Gaul before the Roman occupation of Gaul. This is of course a possibility. However, it sheds no light on the question why did they the Plantagenets then become the upstart kings?

Sent from my iPhone

[wjhonson]

Post by Michael OHearn

Post by taf
Not unique, but uncommon for Western Europe.

Yes but "uniquely" in the sense that none of Richard's supposed male line descendants, or any other known male line Plantagenet descendants for that matter, share this Y haplogroup, regardless of how common or uncommon it may be in Western Europe. Obviously there must be a disconnect somewhere.
Why do genealogists insist upon arguing in favor of a theory based upon marital infidelity when it has no basis in fact. In law we call this a fishing expedition. The other alternative, which btw I am not ruling out, is that the particular type G Y-DNA passed on to the early Plantagenets pre-existed in Gaul before the Roman occupation of Gaul. This is of course a possibility. However, it sheds no light on the question why did they the Plantagenets then become the upstart kings?
Sent from my iPhone

You're being hyperbolic which utterly destroys your argument.

There are *no* other known male-line descendants who have tested.
Full stop.
Let that sink in.

You can hardly state that all other male-line descendants of the Plantagenents do not share a line, when we do not even know any others.

You can hardly state that there is a disconnect in one line, without having any knowledge of any other lines. Which is the case.

And finally we cannot even know if any of these alledged descendants are true biological heirs without (and let me pause here for emphasis) having their AUTOSOMAL DNA tests on file and vetted.

Without all of that, you have exactly squat.

[j***@gmail.com]

An autosomal DNA test on living descendants would be useless. No information to be gleaned more than *at most* 7 generations back.

[wjhonson]

Post by j***@gmail.com
An autosomal DNA test on living descendants would be useless. No information to be gleaned more than *at most* 7 generations back.

You are not simply incorrect.

What it would show is that these people aren't even related to *each other* much less being Plantagenet descendants.

[Chris Hampson]

It would show nothing of the sort. My father has five matches at less than five generations that show no match with me.

[taf]

Post by wjhonson
You're being hyperbolic which utterly destroys your argument.
And finally we cannot even know if any of these alledged descendants are
true biological heirs without (and let me pause here for emphasis) having
their AUTOSOMAL DNA tests on file and vetted.
Without all of that, you have exactly squat.

And now who is being hyperbolic? If a Cornwall and a Warren were both found matching Richard's specific G haplotype, it would strain credulity to suggest that all three resulted from a crypto-infidelity perpetrated by members of the same male lineage, that it was all just coincidence.

taf

[wjhonson]

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
You're being hyperbolic which utterly destroys your argument.
And finally we cannot even know if any of these alledged descendants are
true biological heirs without (and let me pause here for emphasis) having
their AUTOSOMAL DNA tests on file and vetted.
Without all of that, you have exactly squat.

And now who is being hyperbolic? If a Cornwall and a Warren were both found matching Richard's specific G haplotype, it would strain credulity to suggest that all three resulted from a crypto-infidelity perpetrated by members of the same male lineage, that it was all just coincidence.
taf

I'm not certain of that.

A thousand years is a long time, for three different men from Alania's Y-DNA to migrate into England somewhere, somehow.

[taf]

Post by wjhonson

Post by taf
And now who is being hyperbolic? If a Cornwall and a Warren were
both found matching Richard's specific G haplotype, it would strain
credulity to suggest that all three resulted from a crypto-infidelity
perpetrated by members of the same male lineage, that it was all just
coincidence.

I'm not certain of that.
A thousand years is a long time, for three different men from Alania's
Y-DNA to migrate into England somewhere, somehow.

I am not talking about any old G - there are not just 26 haplotypes, but thousands of them. 1000 years is a long time, and I don't think anyone would be surprised were there an infidelity in each line (after all, there was an infidelity in the Beauforts after the branch point of the five people tested), but it would be extremely unlikely for any two of them to have had the infidelity involve the same rare haplogroup, let alone three.

taf

[Paulo Canedo]

Mr O Hearn you once tried to make also the Capetians descendants of the Alans until Y DNA tests in three surviving Bourbons which showed the remnants of Henry IV and Louis XVI which you used as your basis were false.

[taf]

Post by Michael OHearn

Post by taf
Not unique, but uncommon for Western Europe.

Yes but "uniquely" in the sense that none of Richard's supposed male line
descendants,

Richard had no known male line descendants beyond the first generation.

Post by Michael OHearn
or any other known male line Plantagenet descendants for that matter,

All of which represent a single line, so this is a fancy way of saying that Richard doesn't match the 18th century Beauforts, which doesn't make either more 'unique' than the other.

Post by Michael OHearn
share this Y haplogroup, regardless of how common or uncommon it may be
in Western Europe. Obviously there must be a disconnect somewhere.

Which would be the case either it was G or R or E or whatever. Everyone recognizes that the fact that Richard is different than the Beauforts means there must be a problem somewhere, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Richard being (specifically) G.

Post by Michael OHearn
Why do genealogists insist upon arguing in favor of a theory based upon
marital infidelity when it has no basis in fact. In law we call this a
fishing expedition.

Because the false-paternity had to happen somewhere, and the vast majority of the intervening generations involve marriages, so all things being equal, which they are not, the odds would favor the false-paternity being in one of the marriage links rather than one of the non-marriage links. (And no, that is not what in law is called a fishing expedition.) As to the theory having no basis in fact, this is rich coming from someone inventing distant connections to ancient tribes. The fact is that somewhere there was an infidelity, whether marital or within the context of a recognized extra-marital relationship. There is no basis at all for where that was, and hence there is no basis on which to assign a haplotype to the Plantagenet root.

Post by Michael OHearn
The other alternative, which btw I am not ruling out, is that the particular
type G Y-DNA passed on to the early Plantagenets pre-existed in Gaul before
the Roman occupation of Gaul. This is of course a possibility.

This is of course a non-sequitur. Where Richard's G haplotype was in the pre-Roman era is not 'the other alternative', but rather a completely independent question from whether there was a marital infidelity between Edward III and Richard III. Whether John Holand got his leg over really doesn't affect one way or the other whether Richard's G haplotype came from the Alans.

taf

[Michael OHearn]

This is of course a non-sequitur. Where Richard's G haplotype was in the pre-Roman era is not 'the other alternative', but rather a completely independent question from whether there was a marital infidelity between Edward III and Richard III.

That is the "other alternative" to genetic inheritance by a group *specifically brought into Gaul BY the Romans*...

Since there is no factual basis for marital infidelity BEFORE Richard III among his paternal line which btw goes back to Gaul, these are the alternatives. So take your pick please.

Sent from my iPhone

[taf]

Post by Michael OHearn
That is the "other alternative" to genetic inheritance by a group
*specifically brought into Gaul BY the Romans*...
Since there is no factual basis for marital infidelity BEFORE Richard III
among his paternal line which btw goes back to Gaul, these are the
alternatives. So take your pick please.

This is flawed on so many levels. It establishes a huge pair of false dichotomies. First, the choices are not either 1) brought by the Romans, or 2) the Alans - there are numerous other possibilities.

More importantly, you have set up a dichotomy between 1) there is proof the evidence of infidelity was in Richard's line, or else 2) there was no infidelity in Richard's line all the way back to pre-Roman times. More to the point, to say that 'there is no factual basis for infidelity before Richard, so there wasn't any' is a completely flawed argument. We can't show the infidelity was in Richard's line, but we likewise can't say it was in the Beaufort line. Yet is had to be in one or the other (if not both), and we have no evidence that enables us to determine which. It just doesn't fly to simply pick which side you want to be the true line and conclude that it is based on the absence of evidence for infidelity in that line.

taf

[Michael OHearn]

Yes, and the moon could be made of green cheese.

Why bother with anything.

Sent from my iPhone

[wjhonson]

Post by Michael OHearn
Yes, and the moon could be made of green cheese.
Why bother with anything.
Sent from my iPhone

Because Michael there is an *actual* way to do this kind of research
And then there is your way which is a wall of Swiss cheese.

There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA

[taf]

Post by wjhonson
There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to
Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA

Except it the world hasn't moved on. Each has questions they can answer and questions they can't, and both can play a role in an integrated approach.

taf

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by wjhonson
There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA

The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are available for comparison.

Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries.

(Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few centuries back.)

We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use neutral methodologies.

The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines.

[steven perkins]

Andrew and All:

Family Tree DNA is having a sale this month on all of it's Y DNA, mtDNA,
and autosomal DNA (Family Finder) tests:
https://www.familytreedna.com/?c=1

23andMe used to give a decent indication of one's main mtDNA haplogroup,
and for males, the Y DNA haplogroup. They have switched to
a new SNP chip which has reduced their resolution for those tests:
http://www.23andme.com/

Hopefully FTDNA comes through the current hurricane without damage to their
facilities or personnel.

Full disclosure: I am a volunteer admin for 12 Y DNA projects at FTDNA:
Brashear, Creekmore, Kidd, Manning, Mowthrope/Maulthrop, Parkins-Perkins,
Phipps, Strunk, Swain, Tunnell-Tonellier, Whitecotton, Wyatt.

Steven

Post by wjhonson

Post by wjhonson
There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to

Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA
The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests
are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for
estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are
available for comparison.
Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this
is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial
reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a
mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the
tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss
matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a
style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in
newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries.
(Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from
autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely
the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success
stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few
centuries back.)
We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are
driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to
certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use
neutral methodologies.
The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on
software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear
methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such
algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler
in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic
genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[wjhonson]

Post by Andrew Lancaster

Post by wjhonson
There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA

The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are available for comparison.
Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries.
(Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few centuries back.)
We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use neutral methodologies.
The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines.

Contrary to your dismissal, almost every month I find new information of a genealogical nature.

Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't.

The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule.
The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story.

I have been doing my own genealogy for over thirty years, and yet just this year, I was able to fill in a missing maiden name for a 3rd great-grandmother.

This was *only* possible because of my hunt among the slew of odd matches I was getting to the HARDING surname, which was not previously in my tree.

Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists.

In addition to that, at least three times in the *past year* I have had people, who had quite good trees, realize through Autosomal DNA that part of their tree is completely mythical, since an NPE occurred, recently.

If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family.

[Paulo Canedo]

Post by wjhonson

Post by Andrew Lancaster

Post by wjhonson
There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA

The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are available for comparison.
Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries.
(Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few centuries back.)
We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use neutral methodologies.
The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines.

Contrary to your dismissal, almost every month I find new information of a genealogical nature.
Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't.
The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule.
The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story.
I have been doing my own genealogy for over thirty years, and yet just this year, I was able to fill in a missing maiden name for a 3rd great-grandmother.
This was *only* possible because of my hunt among the slew of odd matches I was getting to the HARDING surname, which was not previously in my tree.
Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists.
In addition to that, at least three times in the *past year* I have had people, who had quite good trees, realize through Autosomal DNA that part of their tree is completely mythical, since an NPE occurred, recently.
If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family.

The problem of autosomal DNA is that it becomes unreliable after some generations.

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by Paulo Canedo
The problem of autosomal DNA is that it becomes unreliable after some generations.

To be honest I think that step by step the technology will allow analyses further back. Right now I think back to 1800 or so is not uncommon. It is a question of parsing the data, and also of having tests which will give more data. But for now...

[wjhonson]

Post by Andrew Lancaster

Post by Paulo Canedo
The problem of autosomal DNA is that it becomes unreliable after some generations.

To be honest I think that step by step the technology will allow analyses further back. Right now I think back to 1800 or so is not uncommon. It is a question of parsing the data, and also of having tests which will give more data. But for now...

I think you're giving atDNA the short shrift.

I have many cases where I'm matching sixth cousins, back to 1750, with 50cm matching.

If I can just get other matches to load to gedmatch, that could be extended to seventh cousins.

Personally I'm surprised to have such large segments survive two hundred years. DNA is spiky like that. It doesn't also half itself in every generation exactly cleanly. You can have sticky pieces that survive intact

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by wjhonson
I have many cases where I'm matching sixth cousins, back to 1750, with 50cm matching.

I said 1800. You say as much as 1750. That could be, and it might be possible to push it a bit further.

What will make a bigger difference is full sequencing, which means seeing a real phylogeny with mutations. IE, like we could more or less do with Y DNA many years earlier.

[j***@gmail.com]

To Andrews point, the technology can't help you go further back since mathematically you can only halve a finite number of genes so many times.

To Paulo's point, no,.it is not a flaw of adna that you can only go back so far anymore that a hammer is flawed because it can't brush your teeth

Joe c

[wjhonson]

Post by j***@gmail.com
To Andrews point, the technology can't help you go further back since mathematically you can only halve a finite number of genes so many times.
To Paulo's point, no,.it is not a flaw of adna that you can only go back so far anymore that a hammer is flawed because it can't brush your teeth
Joe c

In actuality the statistics on this point is not correct.
Or rather it's both correct and not correct.

The genes do not half. You don't inherit a half-gene.

The segments, on average, and viewed globally, can be inherited in half pieces, however there is a limit to that. There is not going to be a case where you inherit, in a string of ten base pairs, one base pair from randomly disconnected ancestors.

That's the problem with this viewpoint.

What is actually seen, is segments being based down, sometimes for three generations, completely intact, while others are broken up.

These sticky segments, which are different for each person, can point at a ancestral pair three hundred years in the past. Perhaps even six hundred years. The actual situation is murky at present.

That we don't know who they are just yet, is not the same as saying they don't exist.

[taf]

Post by wjhonson
In actuality the statistics on this point is not correct.
Or rather it's both correct and not correct.
The genes do not half. You don't inherit a half-gene.

Actually, they sometimes do, and you sometimes do. There are two types of crossovers that drive the 'halving', and one of them takes no notice whatsoever of where gene boundaries are - it is completely random. The other is not random, having hotspots and deserts, but it isn't entirely clear what defines these - it is not boundaries between individual genes, which for the most part don't exist, with the possibility of the same DNA being part of two different genes, but may be the boundaries of 'regulatory blocks' that include several full genes - that is just a guess, but it may be a valid one.

Post by wjhonson
The segments, on average, and viewed globally, can be inherited in half
pieces, however there is a limit to that. There is not going to be a case
where you inherit, in a string of ten base pairs, one base pair from
randomly disconnected ancestors.

In fact, the smallest divisible segments are probably in the 10s to 100s of thousands of bases, which is what puts a definite limit on the number of generations over which autosomal is likely to be informative without a huge amount of luck (for every ancestor from 1600 from whom you have a detectable preserved block, you have many more ancestors from whom you inherit no DNA whatsoever). These blocks pass intact for an incredibly long time, the block that includes the gene determining the most common form of blue eyes is about 150,000bp long and to have passed largely intact for more than 12,000 years. This presents a problem on two sides - relatively close relative may not share the block at all. If two people do share the block, it shows they are related, but perhaps too distantly to be genealogically relevant.

taf

[wjhonson]

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
In actuality the statistics on this point is not correct.
Or rather it's both correct and not correct.
The genes do not half. You don't inherit a half-gene.

Actually, they sometimes do, and you sometimes do. There are two types of crossovers that drive the 'halving', and one of them takes no notice whatsoever of where gene boundaries are - it is completely random. The other is not random, having hotspots and deserts, but it isn't entirely clear what defines these - it is not boundaries between individual genes, which for the most part don't exist, with the possibility of the same DNA being part of two different genes, but may be the boundaries of 'regulatory blocks' that include several full genes - that is just a guess, but it may be a valid one.

Post by wjhonson
The segments, on average, and viewed globally, can be inherited in half
pieces, however there is a limit to that. There is not going to be a case
where you inherit, in a string of ten base pairs, one base pair from
randomly disconnected ancestors.

In fact, the smallest divisible segments are probably in the 10s to 100s of thousands of bases, which is what puts a definite limit on the number of generations over which autosomal is likely to be informative without a huge amount of luck (for every ancestor from 1600 from whom you have a detectable preserved block, you have many more ancestors from whom you inherit no DNA whatsoever). These blocks pass intact for an incredibly long time, the block that includes the gene determining the most common form of blue eyes is about 150,000bp long and to have passed largely intact for more than 12,000 years. This presents a problem on two sides - relatively close relative may not share the block at all. If two people do share the block, it shows they are related, but perhaps too distantly to be genealogically relevant.
taf

I actually agree with the point that *you* may have no preserved DNA some particular ancestor, however that misses the point of the group to which you match.

For each ancestor you have, you have a group of descendants who have tested. Even if you have no preserved DNA for that ancestor, one of the members of your group will. The further back in time the ancestor, the more people in the group of descendants.

So as the chance of you having DNA from that ancestor goes to zero, the number of descendants goes to infinity. Essentially, the further back in time you want to go, the more people you need to have had testing done, and matching to you in such a way that the ancestral pyramid can be build stone-by-stone as it were.

[Stewart Baldwin]

Post by taf
In fact, the smallest divisible segments are probably in the 10s to
100s of thousands of bases, which is what puts a definite limit on the
number of generations over which autosomal is likely to be informative
without a huge amount of luck (for every ancestor from 1600 from whom
you have a detectable preserved block, you have many more ancestors
from whom you inherit no DNA whatsoever). These blocks pass intact for
an incredibly long time, the block that includes the gene determining
the most common form of blue eyes is about 150,000bp long and to have
passed largely intact for more than 12,000 years. This presents a
problem on two sides - relatively close relative may not share the
block at all. If two people do share the block, it shows they are
related, but perhaps too distantly to be genealogically relevant.

Doesn't the "centimorgan" (cM) measurement take this partially into
account?  If I understand the method correctly, one cM will sometimes
contain a huge number of base pairs, and sometimes a relatively small
number (if it is contained in a "hot spot").  So, wouldn't a long
segment that passed on intact (or essentially intact) over thousands of
years have a centimorgan measurement close to zero?  Do I have this right?

With regard to Richard's Y-DNA, have STR-tests been done for enough
markers that one could do a global search to see what surnames pop up
among his closest matches?  I know that the noise to information ration
can be too large if not enough markers have been tested, but it seems
like it would be worth a shot.

Stewart Baldwin

[taf]

Post by Stewart Baldwin

Post by taf
In fact, the smallest divisible segments are probably in the 10s to
100s of thousands of bases, which is what puts a definite limit on the
number of generations over which autosomal is likely to be informative
without a huge amount of luck (for every ancestor from 1600 from whom
you have a detectable preserved block, you have many more ancestors
from whom you inherit no DNA whatsoever). These blocks pass intact for
an incredibly long time, the block that includes the gene determining
the most common form of blue eyes is about 150,000bp long and to have
passed largely intact for more than 12,000 years. This presents a
problem on two sides - relatively close relative may not share the
block at all. If two people do share the block, it shows they are
related, but perhaps too distantly to be genealogically relevant.

Doesn't the "centimorgan" (cM) measurement take this partially into
account?  If I understand the method correctly, one cM will sometimes
contain a huge number of base pairs, and sometimes a relatively small
number (if it is contained in a "hot spot").  So, wouldn't a long
segment that passed on intact (or essentially intact) over thousands of
years have a centimorgan measurement close to zero?  Do I have this right?

A centimorgan is very much a term of traditional, pre-genomic genetics, so to a degree we are using rotary-phone terminology to describe smartphones, but there are, on average, with very large error bars, about 750,000 bp per cM in humans. If there was a hotspot, this would produce a smaller number of bp per centimorgan in the immediate proximity, while a region devoid of crossing-over would be part of a larger-than-average sized centimorgan (it would take more total sequence to generate a 1% chance of crossing over, since you would have this long stretch with no crossing over whatsoever).

Post by Stewart Baldwin
With regard to Richard's Y-DNA, have STR-tests been done for enough
markers that one could do a global search to see what surnames pop up
among his closest matches?  I know that the noise to information ration
can be too large if not enough markers have been tested, but it seems
like it would be worth a shot.

They did a 23-marker analysis, which is pretty superficial, and gave thm just one step beyond the basal haplogroup. G2 arose well before 7000 years ago, at which time is is found in Spain, France and Germany, in burials associated with the first agriculturalist populations that spread from Anatolia to largely displace the native hunter-gatherers. It was already highly divergent by that time, so it probably is quite ancient. The 23-marker testing done on Richard does not allow his subclade to be determined, so a surname analysis on this level would be largely uninformative. To say that Alans included Gs so Richard's came from the Alans is completely unsupportable in light of this history.

For their specific results, see Supplementary Table 2, on p. 8 of their Data Supplement:
https://images.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/extref/ncomms6631-s1.pdf

They have an ongoing project to do whole genome sequencing, from which further markers may be determined that would allow the subclade to be determined, but as far as I know, this information is not public yet, and until it is, such a surname study can only serve to exclude those who are not G2, but will not provide genealogically-relevant information.

taf

[Darrel Hockley]

That would explain why no one else living today shows up as a Y-DNA match to Richard III in anything I have read about the matter. I had wondered about that in the light there seems to be a public push to find living relatives on his maternal side.
Darrel Hockley

From: taf <***@gmail.com>
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2017 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III DNA Investigation

Post by Stewart Baldwin

Post by taf
In fact, the smallest divisible segments are probably in the 10s to
100s of thousands of bases, which is what puts a definite limit on the
number of generations over which autosomal is likely to be informative
without a huge amount of luck (for every ancestor from 1600 from whom
you have a detectable preserved block, you have many more ancestors
from whom you inherit no DNA whatsoever). These blocks pass intact for
an incredibly long time, the block that includes the gene determining
the most common form of blue eyes is about 150,000bp long and to have
passed largely intact for more than 12,000 years. This presents a
problem on two sides - relatively close relative may not share the
block at all. If two people do share the block, it shows they are
related, but perhaps too distantly to be genealogically relevant.

Doesn't the "centimorgan" (cM) measurement take this partially into
account?  If I understand the method correctly, one cM will sometimes
contain a huge number of base pairs, and sometimes a relatively small
number (if it is contained in a "hot spot").  So, wouldn't a long
segment that passed on intact (or essentially intact) over thousands of
years have a centimorgan measurement close to zero?  Do I have this right?

A centimorgan is very much a term of traditional, pre-genomic genetics, so to a degree we are using rotary-phone terminology to describe smartphones, but there are, on average, with very large error bars, about 750,000 bp per cM in humans.  If there was a hotspot, this would produce a smaller number of bp per centimorgan in the immediate proximity, while a region devoid of crossing-over would be part of a larger-than-average sized centimorgan (it would take more total sequence to generate a 1% chance of crossing over, since you would have this long stretch with no crossing over whatsoever).

Post by Stewart Baldwin
With regard to Richard's Y-DNA, have STR-tests been done for enough
markers that one could do a global search to see what surnames pop up
among his closest matches?  I know that the noise to information ration
can be too large if not enough markers have been tested, but it seems
like it would be worth a shot.

They did a 23-marker analysis, which is pretty superficial, and gave thm just one step beyond the basal haplogroup.  G2 arose well before 7000 years ago, at which time is is found in Spain, France and Germany, in burials associated with the first agriculturalist populations that spread from Anatolia to largely displace the native hunter-gatherers.  It was already highly divergent by that time, so it probably is quite ancient.  The 23-marker testing done on Richard does not allow his subclade to be determined, so a surname analysis on this level would be largely uninformative.  To say that Alans included Gs so Richard's came from the Alans is completely unsupportable in light of this history.

For their specific results, see Supplementary Table 2, on p. 8 of their Data Supplement:
https://images.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/extref/ncomms6631-s1.pdf

They have an ongoing project to do whole genome sequencing, from which further markers may be determined that would allow the subclade to be determined, but as far as I know, this information is not public yet, and until it is, such a surname study can only serve to exclude those who are not G2, but will not provide genealogically-relevant information.

taf

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[wjhonson]

Post by Paulo Canedo

Post by wjhonson

Post by Andrew Lancaster

Post by wjhonson
There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA

The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are available for comparison.
Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries.
(Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few centuries back.)
We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use neutral methodologies.
The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines.

Contrary to your dismissal, almost every month I find new information of a genealogical nature.
Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't.
The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule.
The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story.
I have been doing my own genealogy for over thirty years, and yet just this year, I was able to fill in a missing maiden name for a 3rd great-grandmother.
This was *only* possible because of my hunt among the slew of odd matches I was getting to the HARDING surname, which was not previously in my tree.
Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists.
In addition to that, at least three times in the *past year* I have had people, who had quite good trees, realize through Autosomal DNA that part of their tree is completely mythical, since an NPE occurred, recently.
If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family.

The problem of autosomal DNA is that it becomes unreliable after some generations.

My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy.

Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out they are not even related to them

[David Teague]

There are two major hurdles with autosomal DNA. First there's the fact
that, due to the recombination (shuffling) that occurs in every generation,
you can't guarantee that you have any identifiable DNA from any particular
ancestor after 5 - 7 generations ago, although you will obviously have DNA
from particular ancestors much earlier than that. Then there's the fact
that autosomal DNA is inherited from all lines of descent, which means that
all the unknown maiden names in your pedigree become more important to
learn.

That being said, my personal experience is that autosomal DNA has been a
much better witness to my recent ancestry than has yDNA. This is due to my
ability to compare the overall patterns of my autosomal matches with the
genetic predictions implied by my documented ancestry -- and the two data
sets line up reasonably well for the past 350 - 400 years or so, and really
well for people to whom I am alleged to be related within the past 250
years. (I will point out that I have enough endogamy in my ancestry that a
number of genetic lines have been reinforced and are more detectable than
they otherwise would be.)

David Teague

Post by wjhonson

Post by Paulo Canedo

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:20:55 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster

Post by Andrew Lancaster

Post by wjhonson
There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved

on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA

Post by Paulo Canedo

Post by Andrew Lancaster
The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those

tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data
collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many
samples are available for comparison.

Post by Paulo Canedo

Post by Andrew Lancaster
Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is

that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for
commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this
for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though,
the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of
difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with
satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also
successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific
discoveries.

Post by Paulo Canedo

Post by Andrew Lancaster
(Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming

from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are
rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical
success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a
few centuries back.)

Post by Paulo Canedo

Post by Andrew Lancaster
We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact,

are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's
attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us
to use neutral methodologies.

Post by Paulo Canedo

Post by Andrew Lancaster
The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to

be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear
methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such
algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler
in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic
genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines.

Post by Paulo Canedo

Contrary to your dismissal, almost every month I find new information

of a genealogical nature.

Post by Paulo Canedo

Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their

male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't.

Post by Paulo Canedo

The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is

minuscule.

Post by Paulo Canedo

The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That

women are not important to your own personal story.

Post by Paulo Canedo

I have been doing my own genealogy for over thirty years, and yet just

this year, I was able to fill in a missing maiden name for a 3rd
great-grandmother.

Post by Paulo Canedo

This was *only* possible because of my hunt among the slew of odd

matches I was getting to the HARDING surname, which was not previously in
my tree.

Post by Paulo Canedo

Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists.
In addition to that, at least three times in the *past year* I have

had people, who had quite good trees, realize through Autosomal DNA that
part of their tree is completely mythical, since an NPE occurred, recently.

Post by Paulo Canedo

If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in

mythology, in your own family.

Post by Paulo Canedo
The problem of autosomal DNA is that it becomes unreliable after some

generations.
My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that
you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy.
Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and
then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out
they are not even related to them
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by wjhonson
My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy.
Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out they are not even related to them

I can not parse this point. It looks like a apples and pears logic. All kinds of tools can help a genealogists and help confirm each other, but that does not mean any of them are necessarily useless on their own.

[wjhonson]

Post by Andrew Lancaster

Post by wjhonson
My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy.
Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out they are not even related to them

I can not parse this point. It looks like a apples and pears logic. All kinds of tools can help a genealogists and help confirm each other, but that does not mean any of them are necessarily useless on their own.

Here is how you parse it Andrew.
Your father is not your father. Or is he?
The Y tells you nothing on this point at all.
Sure you might match some people they might even have your surname
But it tells you nothing about which line you are in, since lines can pass on, completely unmutated for four generations.

Maybe you're really the second cousin of who you think you are

Autosomal DNA however does not lie on points like this

[Katherine Kennedy]

Post by wjhonson

Post by Andrew Lancaster

Post by wjhonson
My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy.
Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out they are not even related to them

I can not parse this point. It looks like a apples and pears logic. All kinds of tools can help a genealogists and help confirm each other, but that does not mean any of them are necessarily useless on their own.

Here is how you parse it Andrew.
Your father is not your father. Or is he?
The Y tells you nothing on this point at all.
Sure you might match some people they might even have your surname
But it tells you nothing about which line you are in, since lines can pass on, completely unmutated for four generations.
Maybe you're really the second cousin of who you think you are
Autosomal DNA however does not lie on points like this

I assume you could also be an interdimensional being only made to look like human, but chances are...

I do recommend the autosomal tests also. I even treated my mother to one from 23andme a couple years ago for Christmas. The bonus medical information from that site in particular is quite nice.

Concerning Y DNA results I think Scottish clans have contributed significantly to that field. Take a look at projects like the Gordons, Hamiltons or MacDonalds who have so many tested individuals with a documented pedigree connecting them to one another they can essentially tell a testee who lacks a documented genealogy which branch of the family they belong to. What is learned, like mutation rates, from such documented families who are tested allow for deductions on families not so well documented. Not everything in science happens right before your eyes, but it is based on logical deductions.

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by Katherine Kennedy
I do recommend the autosomal tests also. I even treated my mother to one from 23andme a couple years ago for Christmas. The bonus medical information from that site in particular is quite nice.

I think no one is denying that the current types of autosomal testing can be useful for some types of genealogical questions, (especially for people in well-tested populations), but for NON-MEDIEVAL, recent, genealogy.

Concerning the weaknesses of Y DNA in studying RECENT generations, for example the hypothetical case of a man being son of his father's brother, cousin, or whatever, I think that this is covered by my previous comment that all types of evidence in genealogy can sometimes be helped, if needed, by cross checking with other types of evidence. But again, no one is denying that autosomal DNA is useful for recent generations.

I do not think paternity testing is the main aim of genetic genealogy in most cases though.

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by wjhonson
Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't.
The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule.
The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story.

No one in this discussion is dedicated to said quest. Y DNA is not useful for defining who you are, but then again MOST genealogy, of any type, is not useful for this. Sorry, but do you insanely think that tests other than Y DNA give an indication of you are personally? That's nuts. Great that it is less "patriarchal" though! :)

Y DNA is especially potentially useful in genealogy if it is used to construct family trees of male lines. It can do it in a very clean way sometimes that you do not yet see with any other testing method. We have discussed many times on this list that the problem is that this requires triangulation of multiple results from families who sit in different branches of the tree. So if the promotional values of testing companies means that new tests are not coming any more then new results are also not coming any more.

Post by wjhonson
Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists.

No one is arguing otherwise. I said so. The question was about the merits of Y DNA which is currently not being much tested anymore, leading to less progress. (Like Steven I have long administered several projects.)

Post by wjhonson
If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family.

I have been involved in such testing for a long time, and had some interesting progress from it. I do not deny the genealogical value of autosomal testing.

[Paulo Canedo]

Post by Andrew Lancaster

Post by wjhonson
Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't.
The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule.
The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story.

No one in this discussion is dedicated to said quest. Y DNA is not useful for defining who you are, but then again MOST genealogy, of any type, is not useful for this. Sorry, but do you insanely think that tests other than Y DNA give an indication of you are personally? That's nuts. Great that it is less "patriarchal" though! :)
Y DNA is especially potentially useful in genealogy if it is used to construct family trees of male lines. It can do it in a very clean way sometimes that you do not yet see with any other testing method. We have discussed many times on this list that the problem is that this requires triangulation of multiple results from families who sit in different branches of the tree. So if the promotional values of testing companies means that new tests are not coming any more then new results are also not coming any more.

Post by wjhonson
Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists.

No one is arguing otherwise. I said so. The question was about the merits of Y DNA which is currently not being much tested anymore, leading to less progress. (Like Steven I have long administered several projects.)

Post by wjhonson
If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family.

I have been involved in such testing for a long time, and had some interesting progress from it. I do not deny the genealogical value of autosomal testing.

Wrong Y DNA is still much tested today.

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by Paulo Canedo
Wrong Y DNA is still much tested today.

Yes, but the momentum has been taken away from projects, and it is very unrewarding now. You can go out trying to promote the idea among a group of interest for example, but once you get them interested they are still going to go and check the testing company websites which tell them they can find their viking genes or whatever, INSTEAD. (Most people have a limited budget.)

[Mike]

The Plantagenets are a bit more difficult to predict as some speculate that they are related to the Carpetian (sic) kings of France and descended from Roman citizens in the haplogroup J2 or G2. However, early sources attribute them as Germanic Franks13 and thus more likely to be another branch of R1b-U106.

We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This article associates this type with Roman citizens. Apparently because it is uncommon in Gaul from where the Plantagenet ancestors, including Robert le Fort, were from.

But why Roman Y?

Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type.

Then again, as I have said all along, perhaps the Romans did have a hand in the mix when they brought mercenaries from Alania, known today for a maximization of this type relative to most other locations, specifically into Gaul in the 4th and 5th centuries, long before Robert's reign began.

[taf]

Just to make sure this is clear, this is NOT a scholarly journal, as that term is usually understood. It is a curated web1 site - real journals name their publisher, have formal contact information, and a list of named and theireditors (and yes, that will be plural). Plus this 'research paper' is written by the journal's 'editor'..

Post by Mike

The Plantagenets are a bit more difficult to predict as some speculate
that they are related to the Carpetian (sic) kings of France and descended
from Roman citizens in the haplogroup J2 or G2. However, early sources
attribute them as Germanic Franks13 and thus more likely to be another
branch of R1b-U106.

For what its worth, ref 13 here is the Henry Project. However, the conclusion that they are more likely to be R1b-U106 is both excessively specific, and completely unsupportable.

Post by Mike
We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This
article associates this type with Roman citizens.
But why Roman Y?

Completely arbitrary.

Post by Mike
Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type.

If we have learned anything over the previous decade, it has been that modern distributions are a poor indication of historic ones.

taf

[Paulo Canedo]

Post by taf
Just to make sure this is clear, this is NOT a scholarly journal, as that term is usually understood. It is a curated web1 site - real journals name their publisher, have formal contact information, and a list of named and theireditors (and yes, that will be plural). Plus this 'research paper' is written by the journal's 'editor'..

Post by Mike

The Plantagenets are a bit more difficult to predict as some speculate
that they are related to the Carpetian (sic) kings of France and descended
from Roman citizens in the haplogroup J2 or G2. However, early sources
attribute them as Germanic Franks13 and thus more likely to be another
branch of R1b-U106.

For what its worth, ref 13 here is the Henry Project. However, the conclusion that they are more likely to be R1b-U106 is both excessively specific, and completely unsupportable.

Post by Mike
We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This
article associates this type with Roman citizens.
But why Roman Y?

Completely arbitrary.

Post by Mike
Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type.

If we have learned anything over the previous decade, it has been that modern distributions are a poor indication of historic ones.
taf

About R1b-U106 the haplogroup or better his subclade R1b-Z381 in three male-line descendants of Louis XIII of France so it is assumed to be the Capetian Y Haplogroup.

[taf]

Post by Paulo Canedo

Post by taf
Just to make sure this is clear, this is NOT a scholarly journal, as that term is usually understood. It is a curated web1 site - real journals name their publisher, have formal contact information, and a list of named and theireditors (and yes, that will be plural). Plus this 'research paper' is written by the journal's 'editor'..

Post by Mike

The Plantagenets are a bit more difficult to predict as some speculate
that they are related to the Carpetian (sic) kings of France and descended
from Roman citizens in the haplogroup J2 or G2. However, early sources
attribute them as Germanic Franks13 and thus more likely to be another
branch of R1b-U106.

For what its worth, ref 13 here is the Henry Project. However, the conclusion that they are more likely to be R1b-U106 is both excessively specific, and completely unsupportable.

Post by Mike
We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This
article associates this type with Roman citizens.
But why Roman Y?

Completely arbitrary.

Post by Mike
Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type.

If we have learned anything over the previous decade, it has been that
modern distributions are a poor indication of historic ones.

About R1b-U106 the haplogroup or better his subclade R1b-Z381 in three male-
line descendants of Louis XIII of France so it is assumed to be the Capetian
Y Haplogroup.

What is arbitrary is to suggest that the Plantagenets would belong to the same haplogroup as the Capetians, given how little we know about Hugh of Perche, the earliest male-line ancestor of the Plantagenets. The author/editor is taking generic vague comments about relationship and turning it into a precise haplogroup.

taf

[Paulo Canedo]

Christian Settipani has conjectured both the Capetians and the Plantagenets to be male line descendants of Count Hervé of Hesbaye.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Paulo Canedo
Christian Settipani has conjectured both the Capetians and the Plantagenets to be male line descendants of Count Hervé of Hesbaye.

And in your opinion this conjecture is worth repeating without explicit
scepticism? Based on negative onomastics, perhaps, in that neither of
these families used the name Hervé?

Peter Stewart

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by taf

Post by Mike
We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This
article associates this type with Roman citizens.
But why Roman Y?

Completely arbitrary.

Post by Mike
Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type.

If we have learned anything over the previous decade, it has been that modern distributions are a poor indication of historic ones.

I agree. I will add that concerning G2 specifically it is one of the best examples of this point. When the first ancient Y DNA sample results started being published it was a big surprise how common it was, especially among the first wave of Neolithic farmers.

Other "Roman, Greek, Middle Eastern etc" haplogroups also seem to have been more common in Europe BEFORE the Romans, such as E-V13 and J2. R1b which is most common in Europe today appears to have swept into northern Europe from the East relatively recently compared to them, explaining why it did not have quite as massive an impact in the eastern Mediterranean.