Should there be an enquiry into the legitimacy of the Royal Family?

Question

I saw a TV programme earlier this year which suggested that the Queen isn't in fact a direct legitimate descendant of the original Plantagenet family. They tracked down a man from Australia called Michael, who they claim to be the true Monarch.

It was something to do with the fact that one of the Tudor kings' father was out of the country for more than a year before he was born. This strikes as odd, that such a greatly overdue birth was never recorded as overdue.

Also, Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of Queen Victoria, who carried the gene responsible for haemophilia. Why wasn't there a recorded case of a Monarch prior to Victoria suffering from the disease?

Can DNA technology settle this?

Answer 1

There have been a series of different "Royal" families in the UK. The current mob are nothing to do with the medieval monarchs.

Answer 2

I don't understand. the Queen isn't suppose to be a descendant of the Plantagenets, she's from the House of Windsor.

The Plantagenet House haven't ruled since the late 1400s when Henry VII succeeded to the throne and started the House of Tudor. And there have been several different Houses that have ruled in that time.  

Answer 3

No, who do you think could do the job any better John Smith from Bristol ? These people have been trained all their lives for the job.  

Answer 4

It could solve it but they would never agree to it.

Answer 5

This current line of monarchs took power with George I in the 1700's. He was descended from some of the earlier kings and not directly descended but related to others. I don't know much about who the Planagenets were, but I know she, is not directly descended from the Tudors

This line is mostly of German origin, although previously they may have been descended from French or something else.

Even if there was an illegitimate person centuries ago, what are you going to do? Go back and trace legitimate heirs from over 500 years ago and stage a coup?  The last Czars of Russia were descended from Catherine the Great. Her son Paul was probably not fathered by her husband, Czar Peter. That means the last hundred or so years of Romanovs may not have been Romanovs. But they still were in power until the revolution.

Since I'm not British I'm not sure of the significance of the Plantagenets. I vaguely remember the name from history but don't know anything about them.

As for hemophilia, I think down through history there was a lot of it in various parts of European Royal families. Victoria may have just come from a branch of the German royalty that had it and maybe some earlier ones did not.  

Answer 6

The "King of England"who was supposed to be out of the country for a year before the birth of his son Edward, was in fact Richard Duke of York, in the early 15th century. Richard's son Edward was tall, blond and handsome, unlike his rather weedy father - but Edward's mother was the tall, blonde and beautiful Cecily Neville. Edward's brother  George, the Duke of Clarence, claimed that his mother had betrayed his father with an archer called Blayborne, who was, you guessed it, tall, blond and handsome.You can figure what uproar resulted from that - Cecily was known as extremely religious and loved Richard deeply, they travelled together always and had 13 children in all. So probably, someone got their dates mixed up!

Anyway, Michael what's his face from Western Australia is the spitting image of Edward, the fourth of that name as king, just before his death - Edward died at 41, probably of congestive heart failure, as an obese geriatric, like his grandson Henry VIII.

Which doesn't make Michael any more legitimate as the monarch.

Regarding your DNA query: the aristocracy of England are so intermarried that it wouldn't surprise me if Michael and Elizabeth II share a lot of DNA.

Re the haemophilia thing:two theories obtain. One that Victoria had a spontaneous mutation leading to her children's illness and carrier status, the other that her mother was from a relatively obscure German house, so that children dying of haemophilia would not have been remarked until the mother married into British royalty. And Victoria's mother had only three children, including one son, not enough - unlike Victoria's nine - to demonstrate the inherited gene.

Hope this gives you a few clues, Blue.

Answer 7

"OH PLEASE ,NOT THIS OLD CHESTNUT AGAIN"

Answer 8

The monarch of the UK is whoever Parliament declares is the true heir not what someone claims through ancestry. The latest law on royalty is that only legitimate descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover can ascend to the throne, and if they marry a Catholic are excluded from the line of succession, if they are born Catholic they are also excluded.

The haemophilia is though to originate with Queen Victoria and is likely to be a spontaneous mutation, this could be due to inbreeding, this sort of thing will crop up from time to time with the high level of inbreeding in the royal family (that is why Prince William marrying a commoner is a good idea).