George III's first wife Hannah Lightfoot

[d***@gmail.com]

19 years later from the time of these postings, will say there is truth as certain things have been passed down thru my family including a 1928 newspaper with my great grandmother speaking of such (this is before internet). She tells the story exactly and who raised the young son of King George and Hannah. I have this newspaper in my possession. My sister has certain royal items passed down to her as well. There has been a cover up but not surprisingly as these elites who rule have told many lies that are now starting to come out.

[wjhonson]

Post by d***@gmail.com
19 years later from the time of these postings, will say there is truth as certain things have been passed down thru my family including a 1928 newspaper with my great grandmother speaking of such (this is before internet). She tells the story exactly and who raised the young son of King George and Hannah. I have this newspaper in my possession. My sister has certain royal items passed down to her as well. There has been a cover up but not surprisingly as these elites who rule have told many lies that are now starting to come out.

If so, you can confirm your supposed royal descent by a simple DNA test.

[taf]

Post by wjhonson

Post by d***@gmail.com
19 years later from the time of these postings, will say there is truth as certain things have been passed down thru my family including a 1928 newspaper with my great grandmother speaking of such (this is before internet). She tells the story exactly and who raised the young son of King George and Hannah. I have this newspaper in my possession. My sister has certain royal items passed down to her as well. There has been a cover up but not surprisingly as these elites who rule have told many lies that are now starting to come out.

If so, you can confirm your supposed royal descent by a simple DNA test.

Not that simple. A comparison sample would be needed, and even non-royals are sometimes hesitant to allow themselves to be tested solely to satisfy someone's genealogical curiosity.

taf

[wjhonson]

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson

Post by d***@gmail.com
19 years later from the time of these postings, will say there is truth as certain things have been passed down thru my family including a 1928 newspaper with my great grandmother speaking of such (this is before internet). She tells the story exactly and who raised the young son of King George and Hannah. I have this newspaper in my possession. My sister has certain royal items passed down to her as well. There has been a cover up but not surprisingly as these elites who rule have told many lies that are now starting to come out.

If so, you can confirm your supposed royal descent by a simple DNA test.

Not that simple. A comparison sample would be needed, and even non-royals are sometimes hesitant to allow themselves to be tested solely to satisfy someone's genealogical curiosity.
taf

I'm not suggesting that it's simply.
Only that it's possible.

Six million people already have Autosomal DNA results.
If one of those claims to be descended from George, they can be compared against another kit that claims the same thing.

You would be able to say, you match, or you don't match, at least.
Not claiming that would *prove* the case, but all DNA tests are evidence./

[j***@gmail.com]

King George III lived long enough ago that the chances of any match (any cms of autosomal DNA that have passed down every generation from George III) are extremely small unless the generations involved have been unusually long or you are a very lucky person.
Joe c

[wjhonson]

Post by j***@gmail.com
King George III lived long enough ago that the chances of any match (any cms of autosomal DNA that have passed down every generation from George III) are extremely small unless the generations involved have been unusually long or you are a very lucky person.
Joe c

It's true that this has been the common belief. However it's been shown that usable and valid *sticky* segments can survive even back to Colonial times.

[taf]

Post by wjhonson

Post by j***@gmail.com
King George III lived long enough ago that the chances of any match (any cms of autosomal DNA that have passed down every generation from George III) are extremely small unless the generations involved have been unusually long or you are a very lucky person.
Joe c

It's true that this has been the common belief. However it's been shown
that usable and valid *sticky* segments can survive even back to Colonial
times.

George should be right on the cusp of detectability based on a simple statistical model, and with the bell-curve of segment lengths, one would have to be unlucky not to pick it up. No need to resort to what you are calling 'sticky' segments (not a good coinage, by the way - 'sticky' means something else entirely in molecular biology), which have their own caveats - the fact that they are inherited undivided from colonial times, and much longer, reduces their utility in demonstrating a specific relationship (but we have been down that rabbit hole here before).

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson

Post by j***@gmail.com
King George III lived long enough ago that the chances of any match (any cms of autosomal DNA that have passed down every generation from George III) are extremely small unless the generations involved have been unusually long or you are a very lucky person.
Joe c

It's true that this has been the common belief. However it's been shown
that usable and valid *sticky* segments can survive even back to Colonial
times.

George should be right on the cusp of detectability based on a simple statistical model, and with the bell-curve of segment lengths, one would have to be unlucky not to pick it up. No need to resort to what you are calling 'sticky' segments (not a good coinage, by the way - 'sticky' means something else entirely in molecular biology), which have their own caveats - the fact that they are inherited undivided from colonial times, and much longer, reduces their utility in demonstrating a specific relationship (but we have been down that rabbit hole here before).

If George III is on the cusp of detectability in the DNA of his documented male-line descendants living today, then how secure is the Jefferson/Hemings evidence?

Peter Stewart

[j***@gmail.com]

Jefferson/hemings DNA evidence is not based on autosomal DNA at all.

It is based on Y-chromosomal evidence. What you lose in breadth here you gain in depth. Y-dna analysis has been used legitamately to map connections back to the beginnings of humanity itself.

I don't believe the academic consensus is firmly and solidly behind Jefferson and Sally having surviving children together.

JC

[j***@gmail.com]

This is a typo. I meant to write that the academic consensus IS firmly behind Jefferson and Hemings having children together who have surviving descendants. Not solely the DNA evidence, but the surviving historical evidence taken together.

Joe c

[taf]

Post by Peter Stewart
If George III is on the cusp of detectability in the DNA
of his documented male-line descendants living today, then
how secure is the Jefferson/Hemings evidence?

Apples and oranges. The Jefferson study involves Y-chromosome analysis, the George test we have been positing would be autosomal, so the strengths and limitations are completely different.

Barring an extraordinary coincidence, the Jefferson study pretty much demonstrated that Estin Hemmings was son of a Jefferson male-line descendant, but not which Jefferson, and even with a lot more markers in the most recent expanded testing is unlikely to be able to definitively resolve this. The issue was raised at the time that Jefferson's paternal uncle was rumored to have occasionally gotten drunk and slunk off to the slave cabins, while it is also a formal possibility that Estin's father was a slave, the son of an earlier Jefferson/slave coupling, but given the timelines of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, that the father was the future president is the most likely scenario.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Post by taf

Post by Peter Stewart
If George III is on the cusp of detectability in the DNA
of his documented male-line descendants living today, then
how secure is the Jefferson/Hemings evidence?

Apples and oranges. The Jefferson study involves Y-chromosome analysis, the George test we have been positing would be autosomal, so the strengths and limitations are completely different.
Barring an extraordinary coincidence, the Jefferson study pretty much demonstrated that Estin Hemmings was son of a Jefferson male-line descendant, but not which Jefferson, and even with a lot more markers in the most recent expanded testing is unlikely to be able to definitively resolve this. The issue was raised at the time that Jefferson's paternal uncle was rumored to have occasionally gotten drunk and slunk off to the slave cabins, while it is also a formal possibility that Estin's father was a slave, the son of an earlier Jefferson/slave coupling, but given the timelines of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, that the father was the future president is the most likely scenario.

But isn't Hanna Lightfoot alleged to have had a son to George III? Is it known that there is no male-line descent from any son that she may have had fitting this story, so that Y-chromosome analysis as in the Jefferson/Hemmings case is definitely unavailable (assuming someone thought this remotely worthwhile in the first place?

Peter Stewart

[taf]

Post by Peter Stewart
But isn't Hanna Lightfoot alleged to have had a son to George III? Is it known
that there is no male-line descent from any son that she may have had fitting
this story, so that Y-chromosome analysis as in the Jefferson/Hemmings case is
definitely unavailable (assuming someone thought this remotely worthwhile in
the first place?

Sorry, don't know. Will was talking about autosomal, so I responded autosomal. If there are male-line descendants of the supposed Lightfoot thing then yes, one could test Y (as with the Jefferson case, it would tell you if the two tested individuals share the same patrilineage, not the specific generation of the split unless a whole lot of people were tested, i.e. the Hanovers AND FitzClarences (if they are still around - can't be bothered to look) AND any descendants of George's brothers and uncles, and even then only if you were lucky (it requires the test subject to share a detectable mutation with George III and his sons that is absent from George's brothers and father).

But this is not really going to happen, because this has all the hallmarks of an Anna Anderson 'I am really the long lost child of the king' type of claim, and it is not likely to garner much enthusiasm outside of the claiming family - this is not medieval Norway where someone can show up claiming to be such a long-lost scion and end up as king.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Post by taf

Post by Peter Stewart
But isn't Hanna Lightfoot alleged to have had a son to George III? Is it known
that there is no male-line descent from any son that she may have had fitting
this story, so that Y-chromosome analysis as in the Jefferson/Hemmings case is
definitely unavailable (assuming someone thought this remotely worthwhile in
the first place?

Sorry, don't know. Will was talking about autosomal, so I responded autosomal.

I didn't grasp the full context of the discussion as I haven't read all the posts.

Even if Y-DNA testing of two alleged agnatic descendants of X is carried out, this cannot possibly prove descent from the same person AS DOCUMENTED, or as alleged - for instance, if a FitzClarence had an unrecorded adulterous liaison with a Lightfoot-Rex (which, given their antecedents, is hardly unthinkable) then this might lead to false confidence over the nonsense about George III & Hannah.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

Post by Peter Stewart
Even if Y-DNA testing of two alleged agnatic descendants of X is carried
out, this cannot possibly prove descent from the same person AS DOCUMENTED,
or as alleged - for instance, if a FitzClarence had an unrecorded adulterous
liaison with a Lightfoot-Rex (which, given their antecedents, is hardly
unthinkable) then this might lead to false confidence over the nonsense
about George III & Hannah.

That is always a caveat to this testing, which is why you never really want to reach a conclusion based on just two samples. In a perfect world you would have a minimum of three branches at the 'nodes' you are investigating, (descendants of multiple documented sons of the prospective father, and multiple sons of the prospective child), plus 'rooting' samples, branching farther back the male line to reinforce the likelihood that the detected haplotype was the ancestral one and not the result of, for example, a multi-child-producing infidelity in the critical generation. With enough matches, the chances of coincidental matching becomes vanishingly small, although with basic testing one can never fully eliminate an alley-cat effect, where a single over-performer manages to spread his DNA through a disproportionate percentage of a community, whether that be an actual village or a social grouping, and thereby producing the kind of coincidental matches that would give a false conclusion.

With detailed enough testing (not the kind you usually get in a commercial kit) and enough samples, one can theoretically produce a perfect branching tree but the identity of the people occupying the individual branching points remains a supposition based on comparison with the paper-trail tree, but at a certain level of perfect correspondence, Occam's Razor is appropriate.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Post by taf

Post by Peter Stewart
Even if Y-DNA testing of two alleged agnatic descendants of X is carried
out, this cannot possibly prove descent from the same person AS DOCUMENTED,
or as alleged - for instance, if a FitzClarence had an unrecorded adulterous
liaison with a Lightfoot-Rex (which, given their antecedents, is hardly
unthinkable) then this might lead to false confidence over the nonsense
about George III & Hannah.

That is always a caveat to this testing, which is why you never really want to reach a conclusion based on just two samples. In a perfect world you would have a minimum of three branches at the 'nodes' you are investigating, (descendants of multiple documented sons of the prospective father, and multiple sons of the prospective child), plus 'rooting' samples, branching farther back the male line to reinforce the likelihood that the detected haplotype was the ancestral one and not the result of, for example, a multi-child-producing infidelity in the critical generation. With enough matches, the chances of coincidental matching becomes vanishingly small, although with basic testing one can never fully eliminate an alley-cat effect, where a single over-performer manages to spread his DNA through a disproportionate percentage of a community, whether that be an actual village or a social grouping, and thereby producing the kind of coincidental matches that would give a false conclusion.
With detailed enough testing (not the kind you usually get in a commercial kit) and enough samples, one can theoretically produce a perfect branching tree but the identity of the people occupying the individual branching points remains a supposition based on comparison with the paper-trail tree, but at a certain level of perfect correspondence, Occam's Razor is appropriate.

The most interesting - and possibly consequential - case I can think of would be to test the legitimacy or otherwise of Alfonso XII of Spain, to see if the Carlists were right or wrong about his biological paternity. If it turned out that he was not really a Bourbon, Occam's razor might even take down a monarchy.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by taf

Post by Peter Stewart
Even if Y-DNA testing of two alleged agnatic descendants of X is carried
out, this cannot possibly prove descent from the same person AS DOCUMENTED,
or as alleged - for instance, if a FitzClarence had an unrecorded adulterous
liaison with a Lightfoot-Rex (which, given their antecedents, is hardly
unthinkable) then this might lead to false confidence over the nonsense
about George III & Hannah.

That is always a caveat to this testing, which is why you never really want to reach a conclusion based on just two samples. In a perfect world you would have a minimum of three branches at the 'nodes' you are investigating, (descendants of multiple documented sons of the prospective father, and multiple sons of the prospective child), plus 'rooting' samples, branching farther back the male line to reinforce the likelihood that the detected haplotype was the ancestral one and not the result of, for example, a multi-child-producing infidelity in the critical generation. With enough matches, the chances of coincidental matching becomes vanishingly small, although with basic testing one can never fully eliminate an alley-cat effect, where a single over-performer manages to spread his DNA through a disproportionate percentage of a community, whether that be an actual village or a social grouping, and thereby producing the kind of coincidental matches that would give a false conclusion.
With detailed enough testing (not the kind you usually get in a commercial kit) and enough samples, one can theoretically produce a perfect branching tree but the identity of the people occupying the individual branching points remains a supposition based on comparison with the paper-trail tree, but at a certain level of perfect correspondence, Occam's Razor is appropriate.

The most interesting - and possibly consequential - case I can think of would be to test the legitimacy or otherwise of Alfonso XII of Spain, to see if the Carlists were right or wrong about his biological paternity. If it turned out that he was not really a Bourbon, Occam's razor might even take down a monarchy.
Peter Stewart

It's not consequential because Alfonso XII inherited the throne from his mother who had been legally made heiress by her father. It was her being made heiress that led to the Carlist Wars, not the question of Alfonso XII's legitimacy. Should we take a group of reactionaries seriously?

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by taf

Post by Peter Stewart
Even if Y-DNA testing of two alleged agnatic descendants of X is carried
out, this cannot possibly prove descent from the same person AS DOCUMENTED,
or as alleged - for instance, if a FitzClarence had an unrecorded adulterous
liaison with a Lightfoot-Rex (which, given their antecedents, is hardly
unthinkable) then this might lead to false confidence over the nonsense
about George III & Hannah.

That is always a caveat to this testing, which is why you never really want to reach a conclusion based on just two samples. In a perfect world you would have a minimum of three branches at the 'nodes' you are investigating, (descendants of multiple documented sons of the prospective father, and multiple sons of the prospective child), plus 'rooting' samples, branching farther back the male line to reinforce the likelihood that the detected haplotype was the ancestral one and not the result of, for example, a multi-child-producing infidelity in the critical generation. With enough matches, the chances of coincidental matching becomes vanishingly small, although with basic testing one can never fully eliminate an alley-cat effect, where a single over-performer manages to spread his DNA through a disproportionate percentage of a community, whether that be an actual village or a social grouping, and thereby producing the kind of coincidental matches that would give a false conclusion.
With detailed enough testing (not the kind you usually get in a commercial kit) and enough samples, one can theoretically produce a perfect branching tree but the identity of the people occupying the individual branching points remains a supposition based on comparison with the paper-trail tree, but at a certain level of perfect correspondence, Occam's Razor is appropriate.

The most interesting - and possibly consequential - case I can think of would be to test the legitimacy or otherwise of Alfonso XII of Spain, to see if the Carlists were right or wrong about his biological paternity. If it turned out that he was not really a Bourbon, Occam's razor might even take down a monarchy.
Peter Stewart

It's not consequential because Alfonso XII inherited the throne from his mother who had been legally made heiress by her father. It was her being made heiress that led to the Carlist Wars, not the question of Alfonso XII's legitimacy. Should we take a group of reactionaries seriously?

Of course the Carlists weren't the only ones to question the legitimacy of Alfonso, and aren't so to the present. Their reactionary ideas have nothing to do with the somewhat marginal popularity and security of the Spanish monarchy today, that would quite likely tip over into an inexorable republican movement if it was shown that the current royal family is not agnatically descended from their legal forebears. My point has nothing more to do with Carlism, or with Borbon succession law, than that.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by taf

Post by Peter Stewart
Even if Y-DNA testing of two alleged agnatic descendants of X is carried
out, this cannot possibly prove descent from the same person AS DOCUMENTED,
or as alleged - for instance, if a FitzClarence had an unrecorded adulterous
liaison with a Lightfoot-Rex (which, given their antecedents, is hardly
unthinkable) then this might lead to false confidence over the nonsense
about George III & Hannah.

That is always a caveat to this testing, which is why you never really want to reach a conclusion based on just two samples. In a perfect world you would have a minimum of three branches at the 'nodes' you are investigating, (descendants of multiple documented sons of the prospective father, and multiple sons of the prospective child), plus 'rooting' samples, branching farther back the male line to reinforce the likelihood that the detected haplotype was the ancestral one and not the result of, for example, a multi-child-producing infidelity in the critical generation. With enough matches, the chances of coincidental matching becomes vanishingly small, although with basic testing one can never fully eliminate an alley-cat effect, where a single over-performer manages to spread his DNA through a disproportionate percentage of a community, whether that be an actual village or a social grouping, and thereby producing the kind of coincidental matches that would give a false conclusion.
With detailed enough testing (not the kind you usually get in a commercial kit) and enough samples, one can theoretically produce a perfect branching tree but the identity of the people occupying the individual branching points remains a supposition based on comparison with the paper-trail tree, but at a certain level of perfect correspondence, Occam's Razor is appropriate.

The most interesting - and possibly consequential - case I can think of would be to test the legitimacy or otherwise of Alfonso XII of Spain, to see if the Carlists were right or wrong about his biological paternity. If it turned out that he was not really a Bourbon, Occam's razor might even take down a monarchy.
Peter Stewart

It's not consequential because Alfonso XII inherited the throne from his mother who had been legally made heiress by her father. It was her being made heiress that led to the Carlist Wars, not the question of Alfonso XII's legitimacy. Should we take a group of reactionaries seriously?

Of course the Carlists weren't the only ones to question the legitimacy of Alfonso, and aren't so to the present. Their reactionary ideas have nothing to do with the somewhat marginal popularity and security of the Spanish monarchy today, that would quite likely tip over into an inexorable republican movement if it was shown that the current royal family is not agnatically descended from their legal forebears. My point has nothing more to do with Carlism, or with Borbon succession law, than that.
Peter Stewart

I feared, that, my reply would be misunderstod so I'll clarify. While Alfonso XII may very well have been illegitimate, legally, it isn't important because he inherited the throne from his mother, not from his father. You may be right, though, that if proven true, it may further decline the Spanish monarchy's popularity.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by taf

Post by Peter Stewart
Even if Y-DNA testing of two alleged agnatic descendants of X is carried
out, this cannot possibly prove descent from the same person AS DOCUMENTED,
or as alleged - for instance, if a FitzClarence had an unrecorded adulterous
liaison with a Lightfoot-Rex (which, given their antecedents, is hardly
unthinkable) then this might lead to false confidence over the nonsense
about George III & Hannah.

That is always a caveat to this testing, which is why you never really want to reach a conclusion based on just two samples. In a perfect world you would have a minimum of three branches at the 'nodes' you are investigating, (descendants of multiple documented sons of the prospective father, and multiple sons of the prospective child), plus 'rooting' samples, branching farther back the male line to reinforce the likelihood that the detected haplotype was the ancestral one and not the result of, for example, a multi-child-producing infidelity in the critical generation. With enough matches, the chances of coincidental matching becomes vanishingly small, although with basic testing one can never fully eliminate an alley-cat effect, where a single over-performer manages to spread his DNA through a disproportionate percentage of a community, whether that be an actual village or a social grouping, and thereby producing the kind of coincidental matches that would give a false conclusion.
With detailed enough testing (not the kind you usually get in a commercial kit) and enough samples, one can theoretically produce a perfect branching tree but the identity of the people occupying the individual branching points remains a supposition based on comparison with the paper-trail tree, but at a certain level of perfect correspondence, Occam's Razor is appropriate.

The most interesting - and possibly consequential - case I can think of would be to test the legitimacy or otherwise of Alfonso XII of Spain, to see if the Carlists were right or wrong about his biological paternity. If it turned out that he was not really a Bourbon, Occam's razor might even take down a monarchy.
Peter Stewart

It's not consequential because Alfonso XII inherited the throne from his mother who had been legally made heiress by her father. It was her being made heiress that led to the Carlist Wars, not the question of Alfonso XII's legitimacy. Should we take a group of reactionaries seriously?

Of course the Carlists weren't the only ones to question the legitimacy of Alfonso, and aren't so to the present. Their reactionary ideas have nothing to do with the somewhat marginal popularity and security of the Spanish monarchy today, that would quite likely tip over into an inexorable republican movement if it was shown that the current royal family is not agnatically descended from their legal forebears. My point has nothing more to do with Carlism, or with Borbon succession law, than that.
Peter Stewart

I feared, that, my reply would be misunderstod so I'll clarify. While Alfonso XII may very well have been illegitimate, legally, it isn't important because he inherited the throne from his mother, not from his father. You may be right, though, that if proven true, it may further decline the Spanish monarchy's popularity.

What Spanish law ever allowed a throne to be inherited by illegitimate offspring, of a mother or father? Surely if the Carlist allegation against Isabella II had been true and proved, she would have been disgraced - not allowed to legitimise her son, whose legal paternity would have been summarily set aside.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by taf

Post by Peter Stewart
Even if Y-DNA testing of two alleged agnatic descendants of X is carried
out, this cannot possibly prove descent from the same person AS DOCUMENTED,
or as alleged - for instance, if a FitzClarence had an unrecorded adulterous
liaison with a Lightfoot-Rex (which, given their antecedents, is hardly
unthinkable) then this might lead to false confidence over the nonsense
about George III & Hannah.

That is always a caveat to this testing, which is why you never really want to reach a conclusion based on just two samples. In a perfect world you would have a minimum of three branches at the 'nodes' you are investigating, (descendants of multiple documented sons of the prospective father, and multiple sons of the prospective child), plus 'rooting' samples, branching farther back the male line to reinforce the likelihood that the detected haplotype was the ancestral one and not the result of, for example, a multi-child-producing infidelity in the critical generation. With enough matches, the chances of coincidental matching becomes vanishingly small, although with basic testing one can never fully eliminate an alley-cat effect, where a single over-performer manages to spread his DNA through a disproportionate percentage of a community, whether that be an actual village or a social grouping, and thereby producing the kind of coincidental matches that would give a false conclusion.
With detailed enough testing (not the kind you usually get in a commercial kit) and enough samples, one can theoretically produce a perfect branching tree but the identity of the people occupying the individual branching points remains a supposition based on comparison with the paper-trail tree, but at a certain level of perfect correspondence, Occam's Razor is appropriate.

The most interesting - and possibly consequential - case I can think of would be to test the legitimacy or otherwise of Alfonso XII of Spain, to see if the Carlists were right or wrong about his biological paternity. If it turned out that he was not really a Bourbon, Occam's razor might even take down a monarchy.
Peter Stewart

It's not consequential because Alfonso XII inherited the throne from his mother who had been legally made heiress by her father. It was her being made heiress that led to the Carlist Wars, not the question of Alfonso XII's legitimacy. Should we take a group of reactionaries seriously?

Of course the Carlists weren't the only ones to question the legitimacy of Alfonso, and aren't so to the present. Their reactionary ideas have nothing to do with the somewhat marginal popularity and security of the Spanish monarchy today, that would quite likely tip over into an inexorable republican movement if it was shown that the current royal family is not agnatically descended from their legal forebears. My point has nothing more to do with Carlism, or with Borbon succession law, than that.
Peter Stewart

I feared, that, my reply would be misunderstod so I'll clarify. While Alfonso XII may very well have been illegitimate, legally, it isn't important because he inherited the throne from his mother, not from his father. You may be right, though, that if proven true, it may further decline the Spanish monarchy's popularity.

What Spanish law ever allowed a throne to be inherited by illegitimate offspring, of a mother or father? Surely if the Carlist allegation against Isabella II had been true and proved, she would have been disgraced - not allowed to legitimise her son, whose legal paternity would have been summarily set aside.
Peter Stewart

You're right, sorry, I was focusing on another point and forgot this.

[taf]

Post by Peter Stewart
What Spanish law ever allowed a throne to be inherited by illegitimate
offspring, of a mother or father?

Ever is a long time. If you extend this to medieval León/Castile, Alfonso VI seems to have made his illegitimate (perhaps legitimated by marriage) son the legal heir, even though his succession it didn't come to pass in the end.

The Aragon nationalist interpretation of the partition following Sancho III's death would credit Ramiro I also with inheriting a throne as a bastard, but I find Ubieto Arteta's rendering of events more compelling - that Ramiro was given some lands, but even after acquiring Gonzalo realm and rendering his vassal status under García entirely nominal, he still used an obfuscatory title rather than calling himself a king, nor did his son until Sancho Ramírez got hold of Pamplona.

This does not negate your point - the legal framework, social strictures and the situation on the ground were substantially different in the 11th century than in modern times.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by taf

Post by Peter Stewart
What Spanish law ever allowed a throne to be inherited by illegitimate
offspring, of a mother or father?

Ever is a long time. If you extend this to medieval León/Castile, Alfonso VI seems to have made his illegitimate (perhaps legitimated by marriage) son the legal heir, even though his succession it didn't come to pass in the end.
The Aragon nationalist interpretation of the partition following Sancho III's death would credit Ramiro I also with inheriting a throne as a bastard, but I find Ubieto Arteta's rendering of events more compelling - that Ramiro was given some lands, but even after acquiring Gonzalo realm and rendering his vassal status under García entirely nominal, he still used an obfuscatory title rather than calling himself a king, nor did his son until Sancho Ramírez got hold of Pamplona.
This does not negate your point - the legal framework, social strictures and the situation on the ground were substantially different in the 11th century than in modern times.

Yes, and if medieval Iberian precedent = Spanish law, then Catalonia would be governed independently from Madrid to this day.

Peter Stewart

[j***@gmail.com]

I was hoping you could explain this some more about having to be unlucky not to detect it...

It is well documented that roughly 50% of 4th cousins will be identified as a match at all using a commercial genealogy autosomal DNA test. 5th cousins less and so on.

Joe cook

[taf]

Post by j***@gmail.com
I was hoping you could explain this some more about having
to be unlucky not to detect it...
It is well documented that roughly 50% of 4th cousins
will be identified as a match at all using a commercial
genealogy autosomal DNA test. 5th cousins less and so on.

Don't overthink this. Just using your numbers, the reigning queen is of the generation where descendants of George would be fourth cousins, so if there is a 50% chance of detecting this cousinhood, then you flip the coin and either are lucky and get heads, or are unlucky and get tails.

I actually did my approximation based on expected megabases of shared contiguous genomic DNA compared with frequency of detectable markers, taking into account the bell-curve of recombining fragment lengths, but the above calculation gets to the same answer much more simply based on your empirical results.

taf

[j***@gmail.com]

Your insight is appreciated and your knowledge in this area far exceeds mine. I didn't present any empirical results though, the number presented was derived mathematically in the way you describe.

Although I've recently spent more time looking at my own results and just finished making charts for the 100 or so cousin matches which are both paper and DNA matches. I don't know if I'm incredibly lucky or incredibly unlucky but it turns out that there have been no NPE in my direct line as far back as can be determined. All the cousins (4th and 5th..and occasionally slightly beyond when all the stars line up..such as having many tested relatives) all are who we thought they were. This was not my expectation..I have seen claims of a general 1.5% npe rate in English speaking countries.

It didn't hurt to have already amassed a 10k+ person's database of most of the descendants of my 3rd great grandparents, so when matches pop up it's quick to look them up.

Cheers,
Joe C

[P J Evans]

Post by wjhonson

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson

Post by d***@gmail.com
19 years later from the time of these postings, will say there is truth as certain things have been passed down thru my family including a 1928 newspaper with my great grandmother speaking of such (this is before internet). She tells the story exactly and who raised the young son of King George and Hannah. I have this newspaper in my possession. My sister has certain royal items passed down to her as well. There has been a cover up but not surprisingly as these elites who rule have told many lies that are now starting to come out.

If so, you can confirm your supposed royal descent by a simple DNA test.

Not that simple. A comparison sample would be needed, and even non-royals are sometimes hesitant to allow themselves to be tested solely to satisfy someone's genealogical curiosity.
taf

I'm not suggesting that it's simply.
Only that it's possible.
Six million people already have Autosomal DNA results.
If one of those claims to be descended from George, they can be compared against another kit that claims the same thing.
You would be able to say, you match, or you don't match, at least.
Not claiming that would *prove* the case, but all DNA tests are evidence./

"If so, you can confirm your supposed royal descent by a simple DNA test."

No qualifications or restrictions on the DNA test there.

I doubt that DNA would show ANYTHING in this case - they'd need a male-only descent from George and a female-only descent from Hannah for comparison, and both are unlikely to be available, if they exist at all.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by P J Evans

Post by wjhonson

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson

Post by d***@gmail.com
19 years later from the time of these postings, will say there is truth as certain things have been passed down thru my family including a 1928 newspaper with my great grandmother speaking of such (this is before internet). She tells the story exactly and who raised the young son of King George and Hannah. I have this newspaper in my possession. My sister has certain royal items passed down to her as well. There has been a cover up but not surprisingly as these elites who rule have told many lies that are now starting to come out.

If so, you can confirm your supposed royal descent by a simple DNA test.

Not that simple. A comparison sample would be needed, and even non-royals are sometimes hesitant to allow themselves to be tested solely to satisfy someone's genealogical curiosity.
taf

I'm not suggesting that it's simply.
Only that it's possible.
Six million people already have Autosomal DNA results.
If one of those claims to be descended from George, they can be compared against another kit that claims the same thing.
You would be able to say, you match, or you don't match, at least.
Not claiming that would *prove* the case, but all DNA tests are evidence./

"If so, you can confirm your supposed royal descent by a simple DNA test."
No qualifications or restrictions on the DNA test there.
I doubt that DNA would show ANYTHING in this case - they'd need a male-only descent from George and a female-only descent from Hannah for comparison, and both are unlikely to be available, if they exist at all.

I'm puzzled by "if they exist at all" - are you questioning legitimacy within the princely family of Hanover that is legally descended in male line from George III?

Peter Stewart

[P J Evans]

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by P J Evans

Post by wjhonson

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson

Post by d***@gmail.com
19 years later from the time of these postings, will say there is truth as certain things have been passed down thru my family including a 1928 newspaper with my great grandmother speaking of such (this is before internet). She tells the story exactly and who raised the young son of King George and Hannah. I have this newspaper in my possession. My sister has certain royal items passed down to her as well. There has been a cover up but not surprisingly as these elites who rule have told many lies that are now starting to come out.

If so, you can confirm your supposed royal descent by a simple DNA test.

Not that simple. A comparison sample would be needed, and even non-royals are sometimes hesitant to allow themselves to be tested solely to satisfy someone's genealogical curiosity.
taf

I'm not suggesting that it's simply.
Only that it's possible.
Six million people already have Autosomal DNA results.
If one of those claims to be descended from George, they can be compared against another kit that claims the same thing.
You would be able to say, you match, or you don't match, at least.
Not claiming that would *prove* the case, but all DNA tests are evidence./

"If so, you can confirm your supposed royal descent by a simple DNA test."
No qualifications or restrictions on the DNA test there.
I doubt that DNA would show ANYTHING in this case - they'd need a male-only descent from George and a female-only descent from Hannah for comparison, and both are unlikely to be available, if they exist at all.

I'm puzzled by "if they exist at all" - are you questioning legitimacy within the princely family of Hanover that is legally descended in male line from George III?
Peter Stewart

It's out of my period and area, so I don't know - but I doubt that most of them would donate DNA for something like this.

[Michael Cayley]

I am afraid I regard this as an old set of myths - though myths which still keep raising their head. The evidence has been well-researched.

It is rather unlikely that the prim and proper George III had a clandestine marriage, or even an affair, with Hannah Lightfoot

Hannah married Isaac Axford in 1753. He died in 1816, and remarried at the end of 1759, describing himself as a widower. It is not, I think, known for certain when Hannah died, but even if you believe there was a clandestine marriage to George III in 1759, it would be likely to be bigamous on Hannah’s part and hence invalid.

The documents to support the allegation of a clandestine marriage were produced by Olivia (or Olive) Serres, an artist and writer who had fallen on hard times, in the 1810s and 1820s and was seeking to get money from the Crown. She seems to have had an obsession with royalty. Olivia kept changing her story. She started by claiming to be natural daughter of the Duke of Cumberland, George III’s uncle.This story evolved and grew more fantastical over time, with allegations of two other clandestine marriages, one of the Duke of Cumberland to Olivia’s mother, and the other of her mother being the product of a secret marriage between her uncle (a clergyman) and a Polish princess who never visited England. Her claims grew even wilder, with a claim that George III had made her Duchess of Lancaster. Olivia’s husband did not believe any of this. And she also produced documents purporting to demonstrate a secret marriage between George III and Hannah Lightfoot. It seems pretty clear to most experts that these were forged, and ineptly so. They include, for instance, a so-called signature of William Pitt the Elder in which he signs himself as Earl of Chatham some years before he became Earl.

Lavinia seems to have followed in her mother’s fantasising footsteps. In 1866, in an attempt to secure a bequest from the estate of George III, Lavinia and her barrister produced the so-called evidence cobbled together by Olivia, including of the purported 1759 marriage. It is scarcely surprising that the courts dismissed her case.

As for the claim that one George Rex was a son of George III and Hannah Lightfoot, that too experts dismiss. Rex was a family surname, not an indication of close connection with royalty. According to Wikipedia, genetic testing has shown descent from George III improbable. On the DNA testing, see also https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/rex/674/. George was born in 1765, which is almost certainly some years after Hannah’s death.

None of this will of course put off those who want to believe stories like these. They make good fireside tales.

[Michael Cayley]

I should have made it clear that the Lavinia referred to in my previous post was Lavinia Ryves, Olivia Serres’ daughter. That bit of info got lost in an edit. Sorry!

[Michael Rochester]

I can confirm your arrogance and misplaced self absurdness by your pompous posts.