Are The British Royal Family Illegitimate? | Britain’s Real Monarch | Real Royalty
Edward the 4th was also a Commoner Bastard who should never have been ‘king”.
Edward 4th & Richard 3ed had the same mother, who was a SLUT!
If she had had as many sticking out as she had stuck in she would have looked like a porcupine.
Now what those pretenders and losers do on that sorry little Island for misfits does not overly concern me as my ancestors got out of there hundreds of years back, and my last ancestor who sat on the throne is known to be Edward the 1st.
Actually I found lines back to Edward 2nd and Edward 3ed also but like being cousins to some USA presidents like John Adams,(both of the yankee Adam’s), Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, F.D. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, L.B Johnson, and some more I can not even bring myself to name!
I don’t want to talk about that.
But the Fake pretenders over in merry ole have allowed the Commoner Bastard Big Pie Hole Harry to come to My Land, and Run His Huge Pie Hole about $#it which he is ignorant of and is none of his damn business anyway, and this pisses me off.
So all the Pedophile Ass Holes Pretending to be Royalty, are commoner bastards including the sea hag bitch pretending to be queen, who is a Fake monarch 600 years and 33 pretend kings and queens removed from Real Royalty.
However if all the losers in England promise to stay over on that sorry little island for pretenders & misfits, not trash up America with their inbred sorry ignorant cowardly asses, I will support the fake royals but real pedoist continuing to make asses of themselves over there on one condition!
Get Big Pie Hole Harry’s Commoner Sorry Ass The Hell Out of MY Land!
The Ole Dog!
Analysis of DNA from Richard III has thrown up a surprise: evidence of infidelity in his family tree.
Scientists who studied genetic material from remains found in a Leicester car park say the finding might have profound historical implications.
Depending on where in the family tree it occurred, it could cast doubt on the Tudor claim to the English throne or, indeed, on Richard’s.
The study is published in the journal Nature Communications.
But it remains unknown when the break, or breaks, in the family lineage occurred.
In 2012, scientists extracted genetic material from the remains discovered on the former site of Greyfriars Abbey, where Richard was interred after his death in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.
Their analysis shows that DNA passed down on the maternal side matches that of living relatives, but genetic information passed down on the male side does not.
However, there are a wealth of other details linking the body to the Plantagenet king.
“If you put all the data together, the evidence is overwhelming that these are the remains of Richard III,” said Dr Turi King from Leicester University, who led the study.
Speaking at a news briefing at the Wellcome Trust in London, she said that the lack of a match on the male side was not unexpected; Dr King’s previous research has shown there is a 1-2% rate of “false paternity” per generation.
The instance of female infidelity, or cuckolding, could have occurred anywhere in the numerous generations separating Richard III from the 5th Duke of Beaufort (1744-1803), whose living descendants provided samples of male-line DNA to be compared against that of Richard.
“We may have solved one historical puzzle, but in so doing, we opened up a whole new one,” Prof Kevin Schurer, who was the genealogy specialist on the paper, told BBC News.
Investigation of the male genealogy focused on the Y chromosome, a package of DNA that is passed down from father to son, much like a surname. Most living male heirs of the 5th Duke of Beaufort were found to carry a relatively common Y chromosome type, which is different from the rare lineage found in the car park remains.
Richard III and his royal rival, Henry Tudor (later Henry VII), were both descendants of King Edward III. The infidelity could, in theory, have occurred either on the branch leading back from Henry to Edward or on the branch leading from Richard to Edward.
Henry’s ancestor John of Gaunt was plagued by rumours of illegitimacy throughout his life, apparently prompted by the absence of Edward III at his birth. He was reportedly enraged by gossip suggesting he was the son of a Flemish butcher.
“Hypothetically speaking, if John of Gaunt wasn’t Edward III’s son, it would have meant that (his son) Henry IV had no legitimate claim to the throne, nor Henry V, nor Henry VI,” said Prof Schurer.
MORE Pretending To Be Royal Bull Shit: