User talk:NoSeptember/Descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror

Great-Grandfather count
When I count back the generations listed between Elizabeth II and William I I see 32 generations, which should make William I Elizabeth's 29th Great Grandfather. Yet the chart lists William as her 22nd Great-Grandfather? Am I wrong about this (and why) or is the chart? (posted by Special:Contributions/68.226.92.169 on July 1st, 2008)


 * I agree that this section is wrong, starting with the generation before Victoria. If Victoria is a 2nd great grandmother (which is correct), her uncles would have to be 3rd great uncles. And so on and so on. For instance, Elizabeth I, and Mary I, would be first cousins 14 times removed. Would whoever did this initially explain the reasoning? I haven't changed anything yet. Pacomartin (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was also confused, but I figured it out. This section lists the "closest descent" and not the "royal line descent".  Because Mary of Teck is more closely descended from George III than her husband the "closest descent" goes through her starting with Victoria's uncles.  These non-direct-royal-line descents become more common the further back you go.  Also, Elizabeth's mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, brings in a closer descent to any Seymour monarch, such as Edward VI, while Edward's siblings Mary I and Elizabeth I are not Seymours so they can't bring in this closer relationship.  Henry VI being Henry VII half-uncle through his mother Catherine of Valois is another example.  This also explains why monarchs such as Stephen and Henry IV have any sort of direct relationship at all despite being off the direct line.


 * I added a paragraph before the table to try and explain this a few weeks ago... hoping to prevent other readers from sharing my confusion. It would be nice if each time there is a "blip" in the table like the ones between Victoria and her uncles or Edward VI and his siblings that it would be spelled out.  The descendency from Stephen is spelled out on this talk page.  I think the Henry IV descendency is because of Humphrey of Gloucester's daughter Antigone marrying into the Grey family but I'm not positive.  The possible descendencies get much more numerous the further back you go. --DavidRF (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to have a second column showing the relationship in the direct royal line. So that it is easy to compare. Pacomartin (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

John of Gaunt
Henry VII is a descendent of John of Gaunt and not of the House of Lancaster, who's founder was Henry's half-great-granduncle Henry IV. FooFighter 16:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You are correct.  Please sign your talk comments with four tildes, ~, which will automatically add your name and date.  NoSeptember   talk  16:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Cheers! FooFighter 15:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit it. Maybe the topic can be changed to cover reasons for all instances when the senior line is passed over.  For example: Was Phillipa's family so unpopular that no one objected to Henry IV's claim to the throne? While right by conquest has its point, there must always be a group that strongly supports the better Primogeniture claim to the throne.  I think it would be good if these situations could be discussed as a guide to why the rightful heir is sometimes passed over.  NoSeptember   talk  16:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Earl of March was only 7, hardly old enough to contest Henry, but I believe later on there were uprisings in his name.67.85.254.111 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may have been because at the time, Henry IV had both of Roger's sons in custody, though he treated them well. But it's not clear if their elder sister Anne was confined with them, verlooked,or left with either her mother or some other relatives; I'm not sure whom. If not in custody, this could have been a sign Henry didn't think she'd succeed to the thrown either due to her gender or due to her having two brothers. What do you think of this? FooFighter 17:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps we should change this to a section called "Instances when the senior line was passed over." We could also add a paragraph on parliament's passing over the remaining Stuart line as well.  I created this article to help me understand the succession history.  I am not an expert, but I find the article useful.  Feel free to make the changes you think are appropriate.  NoSeptember   talk  17:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

1) James Francis Edward Stuart, younger brother of Queen Anne. The last of this line was his second son Henry Benedict Stuart, who died in 1807. See the next skipped branch for the present day heir of the House of Stuart. 2) James II's younger sister Henrietta Anne Stuart, who married Philippe I d'Orléans, Duc d'Orléans, left one surviving daughter, Anne Marie d'Orléans, wife of Victor Amadeus II, Duke of Savoy. Anne's present heir is Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Prinz von Bayern.
 * An intersting note: had there been no Act of Settlement 1701, and had Anne Marie's son Carlo Emanuele not survived to sire children, Anne's eldest daughter Marie-Adélaïde of Savoy would have become Anne Marie's heir. Anne Marie would have become "Anne II" on the Queen's death. Since Marie of Savoy predeceased Queen Anne, that would have made Marie's third and sole surviving son, Louis XV of France, heir presumptive of his grandmother, "Anne II" and probably have started another European war of succession. The simple solution in that case would be for Parliament to legislate the crown to the line of Anne's third daughter, Maria Luise Gabriela di Savoia, who predeceased her mother. But that creates a whole other conflict, as Maria Luise was married to Felipe V de Borbón, King of Spain towards the end of 1701. This would have probably sent Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor into a fit as a war similar to the War of Spanish Sucession, fought to keep the crown of Spain out of the hands of the heir to the the French throne and the two empires seperate, would need to be fought to see that the Spanish and British crowns not merge. This line was probably skipped in the Act of Settlement precisely for this reason.


 * Just to correct you, in 1714, had there been no Act of Settlement (whether or not there had been a Bill of Rights and the existence of the reigns of Anne and William & Mary, and had no other legislation or bar to the throne been put in place instead) then James Francis would have been King and Anne Marie would have been his heir-presumptive; she would only have become queen if James died before the birth of Bonnie Prince Charlie in 1720.Nocrowx (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

3) Elisabeth Charlotte Pfalzgräfin von Simmern, only daughter, third line of Karl I Ludwig Kurfürst von der Pfalz, second son of Elizabeth Stuart. Her current heir is Adam Karol Czartoryski.
 * No it isn't. Her current heir is Princess Margherita of Savoy, Archduchess of Austria-Este.  She is descended from Princess Hélène of Orléans, second daughter of Philippe, comte de Paris, whereas Czartoryski is only descended from Princess Louise of Orléans, fourth daughter of the Comte de Paris. john k 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

4) Ludwig Otto, Prinz zu Salm, only child of Luise Marie von Simmern, eldest daughter, first line of Edward Pfalzgraf von Simmern, sixth son of Elizabeth Stuart. His current heir is Alexis Franz Antonius Maximilian Carolus Benedictus Mathias Maria Prinz von Croÿ, who is 95 years old. Alexis's son Maximilian Heinrich Karl Maria Prinz von Croÿ will succeed him upon his death.
 * Alexis died in 2002, and, furthermore, isn't the heir. You apparently missed Florentin, Prince of Salm-Salm and went to his younger brother - the current heir is Carl Philipp, Prince of Salm-Salm. john k 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Edward III

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster

John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset

John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset

Margaret Beaufort, married to Owen Tudor, Earl of Richmond

Henry VII

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


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


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

When Henry summoned parliament, one of the first acts he had passed was a declaration that basically established that the Crown rightfully rested in his person and settling it on "the heirs of his body lawfully comen". That means that the right of succession was limited to the offspring of Henry alone, nullifying all other claims. There was no mention in this of Elizabeth of York, who -at that time- wasn't yet married to Henry. In fact Elizabeth's rights were implicitly nullified by the act along with all the others. If Henry had married someone else, his children by that marriage would have become the sole royal heirs. The declaration however remains silent about the nature of Henry's right to the throne itself. It just mentions him as the rightfull King. His rights were surely tenuous since the descendants of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford were explicitly excluded from the right to succession when they were legitimised by Richard II. His cause in claiming the throne was however arguably Lancastrian. He was the champion of the Lancastrian 'party' based on his descent, while the exclusion from the succession of his line by Richard II was conveniently ignored. It can therefore be argued that Henry's right was by conquest alone and that his appearance on the throne started a whole new hereditary line. The act confirming his right to the throne however nullified all other claims, including that of his later wife Elizabeth of York. Therefore his children could not claim any "added" legitimacy through their mother. The only source I have available at this moment is a book called "Debrett's Kings and Queens of England" by David Williamson, published by Webb & Bower in 1986 ISBN 0-86350-101-x in which the act establishing Henry's rights is described. I'll see if I can find a web based link. Gerard von Hebel 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is all interesting stuff. Of course parliament was often pliant to a strong king's will and what was passed in one reign may easily be overturned in another. I think once Henry 8th was on the throne he would have had a strong interest in legitimating the claims through both his father and his mother, in order to unite factional support under him (since much of his father's reign was spent still fighting off his opponents. Henry 7th may have conquested (sic), but there was no assurance that someone else might not re-conquest (sic)). We can't over-rely on what was enacted at any one time, because we need to be sure that later law hasn't changed things. I find it highly unlikely that later monarchs and parliaments would have specifically rejected Elizabeth of York's claim, when it was the strongest primogeniture claim and was totally supportive of whoever the current monarch was. This will be a tricky issue to resolve with certainty. NoSeptember  22:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II
Please see the discussion here: --Mais oui! 10:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:List_of_monarchs_of_Scotland

Family Tree
Which is better:
 * Without the lines (as currently in the article, or
 * With the lines, as below:


 * It seems like someone has updated the article to use lines as in the Family Tree as in your markup. Whoever did this, you are the God of HTML+CSS table trickery! -- Skierpage (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Direct Line"
Is there a reason why Prince Charles, who is not yet Charles III, is included? This seems inappropriate, unless HM The Queen has died and nobody has bothered to tell me.
 * You are correct, he was added by someone but should not be listed.  NoSeptember  05:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Stephen
Until today, this article said that Elizabeth is a multi-generational direct descendant of Stephen of England. I imagine it's possible that she's descended from Marie of Boulogne. Any inputs? Corvus cornix 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone is changing it. Elizabeth is a great19-granddaughter of Marie of Boulogne through at least seven lines. Charles 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you document that? I tried to go through the descendants of Marie to find a verifiable ancestor of Elizabeth, and got into a tangled mess.  :)  Corvus cornix 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Working backwards, we have a direct descent of Elizabeth II from Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Charles descends from three children of Landgrave Henry I of Hesse, a great-grandson of Marie.


 * Charles of Mecklenburg-Streliz ← Christiane of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen ← Antonia Sybilla of Barby ← Sophia Ursula of Oldenburg-Delmenhorst ← Anton of Oldenburg-Delmenhorst ← Anton of Oldenburg ← Anna of Anhalt-Zerbst ← George of Anhalt-Zerbst ← Sigismund of Anhalt-Zerbst ← Elizabeth of Henneberg ← John of Henneburg ← Adelaide of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
 * Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Maria Catherina of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel ← Maria of East Frisia ← Edward of East Frisia ← Anna of Oldenburg ← Anna of Anhalt-Zerbst ← George of Anhalt-Zerbst ← Sigismund of Anhalt-Zerbst ← Elizabeth of Henneberg ← John of Henneburg ← Adelaide of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
 * Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← John of Mecklenburg-Schwerin ← Anna Sophia of Hohenzollern ← Albert in Prussia ← Frederick of Brandenburg-Ansbach ← Albert of Brandenburg ← Frederick of Brandenburg ← Frederick of Hohenzollern ← Elisabeth of Henneberg ← Adelaide of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
 * Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← John of Mecklenburg-Schwerin ← John Albert of Mecklenburg-Schwerin ← Albert of Mecklenburg-Schwerin ← Magnus of Mecklenburg-Schwerin ← Dorothea of Hohenzollern ← Frederick of Brandenburg ← Frederick of Hohenzollern ← Elisabeth of Henneberg ← Adelaide of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
 * Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Sophia of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp ← Adolph of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp ← Frederick of Denmark-Norway ← Dorothea of Hohenzollern ← John of Brandenburg ← Frederick of Brandenburg ← Frederick of Hohenzollern ← Elisabeth of Henneberg ← Adelaide of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
 * Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Sophia of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp ← Adolph of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp ← Frederick of Denmark-Norway ← Christian of Denmark-Norway ← Dietrich of Oldenburg ← Agnes of Honstein ← Dietrich of Honstein in Hohenstein ← Elisabeth of Waldeck ← Sophia of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse
 * Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ← Sophia of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp ← Christina of Hesse ← Philip of Hesse ← William of Hesse ← Louis of Hesse ← Louis of Hesse ← Herman of Hesse ← Louis of Hesse ← Otto of Hesse ← Henry of Hesse


 * There you have it, all seven of them. Charles 01:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks muchly.  Corvus cornix 02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Family tree section should show this. Jooler 08:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository and if we do this for Marie of Boulogne we ought to do it for everyone else... And that would be a mess. Charles 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The family tree should show how come Stephen is a grandfather and not just a cousin. Otherwise the entry I incorrectly modified is likely to be changed again by someone else seeing an apparent error. Jooler 09:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will change it back then. I will not, however, support further augmenting the list to make it even more huge. Charles 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I refer you to WP:OWN Jooler 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article mentions closest relationships. You go read OWN. Charles 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay - seven lineages would clutter the table up, but I think it is worth putting a note on the 'Genealogical Relationships to Elizabeth II' table explaining that relationship and any other that might not be perceivable from the information contained within the displayed section of the family tree. Jooler 02:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is hard to do that though without literally laying out the descent or adding a ton of notes. That could also be done for every other monarch as well and that would be enormous and unwieldly. There really is no way to do it without having articles like Descent of Elizabeth II from Stephen, etc, and that would be ridiculous since William is a very solid reference point to base an article and few other monarchs are. Charles 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles, which Henry of Hesse is this? Corvus cornix 22:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it, Henry I, Landgrave of Hesse. Corvus cornix 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And Henry's descent is Henry II, Duke of Brabant <- Henry I, Duke of Brabant <- Marie of Boulogne <- Stephen of England. Tadaa!  :)  Corvus cornix 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There you go ;) Charles 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that should be Maud of Boulogne instead of Henry I of Brabant. Henry I was Maud's husband.  Corvus cornix 16:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

More Stephen
Its been a while since the above discussion, but the article on Stephen of England mentions a more direct connection to the royal line. Namely:
 * Stephen of England->Marie of Boulogne->Mathilde of Boulogne->Matilde of Brabant->Adelaide of Holland->John II, Count of Holland->William I, Count of Hainaut->Philippa of Hainault who was Edward III's consort and shares all his descendents. Every monarch since Richard II has descended from Stephen and Stephen enters the main "Royal line" with Lionel of Clarence. DavidRF (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a bit further away than "20th Great-Grandfather" that the above brings, but it integrates the royal line in more quickly.DavidRF (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

(I realise this would mean the generation numbers would all have to be changed.) 86.135.201.125 21:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this could work as an extra section of the article, showing the link between the Saxon monarchs and the Norman monarchs. But since William I is commonly reagarded as the start of the current line (and the "last successful invasion"), the current set up should remain for the primary list. NoSeptember   talk  21:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

The Merovingian descent through Charlemagne

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * No, it shouldn't. In fact, it shouldn't show any of the descents. This is an article about the descent of Elizabeth from William the Conqueror, and with the exception of the bogus Charlemagne line that I have removed due to it being reality-challenged, none of these descents involve William the Conqueror at all. This is not Interesting descents of Elizabeth I. I have to say, I think the entire page is ill-conceived as an encyclopedia article. It seems more to be interested in the genealogical underpinning of the right of the current monarchy to rule, or something of the sort, but is more just a listing of interrelationships among English monarchs since William I. It contributes little to the actual understanding of the underlying issues of succession, and is rather just a collection of genealogical trivia relating to the English crown. Then there is this 'descents from other old people section'. The relationship to the rest of the article or to the stated subject of the page escapes me. Unless someone can defend the inclusion of these, I may delete them all. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll put them back. Because they are interesting. Vidor (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as the question asked by Cazo3788 above, I'd suggest that the difference is that the article traces out Elizabeth's descent from kings of England, with emphasis on William but including her relationship to the old Saxon kings. There might, if you can document it, be value in showing Elizabeth's descent from other royal houses of Europe.  You could make a separate article, or expand this one and change the title.  Maybe a separate article would be better, as Elizabeth's relationship to the previous occupants of her throne is a different matter from her relationship to, I dunno, the House of Romanov or something.  Vidor (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters about the descent from other royal lines outside the British Isles, it her descent from the past monarchs of the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that legitimizes her rule as Queen. Can anybody find me Elizabeth II's descent from an Irish high king, preferably Brian Boru because he was one of the most powerful Irish monarchs.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is the underlying logic, royal legitimacy, then the descent of the Scottish kings from Egbert of Wessex is entirely irrelevant, randomly chosen descents from a couple of rulers of Wales is arbitrary (there are innumerable descents from Llywelyn, was legitimacy claimed through this particular connection?), the selection of Ulster and Mann for inclusion but not Dublin and York is likewise arbitrary, while the inclusion of descent from Swein is of dubious relevance, as his own legitimacy wasn't exactly sterling, and no monarch subsequent to Canute made any claim to legitimacy based on such a reign. Agricolae (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's basically applying male primogeniture to the period where I understand it never existed. But I've heard before in a documentary that the Kings of Scotland claimed that as heir general of Margaret of Wessex, they claimed that they were the rightful Kings of England applying that Norman introduced systems of male primogeniture to the Anglo-Saxon kings. Also, Ulster=Northern Ireland, Mann=Lordship of Mann, High Kings=the rest of Ireland, maybe there should a section for other parts of Ireland. As for the Welsh lines, they were the only ones I could find, it would be interesting to apply her descent from other rulers of other parts of Wales though. Basically it's kinda of tracing Elizabeth II's descent from every King of England not on the main line, including the foreign Danish kings, and also other monarchs of the British isles. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And you are thus suggesting violating WP:NOR. Again, this is not Interesting ancestry of Elizabeth II. The Cerdic descent is an obvious extension due to the claims of legitimacy.  If you can find documentation of a Scottish claim to the English crown, then that too is perhaps appropriate. However, just randomly picking one of several thousand descents from Diarmait is entirely arbitrary. First, the British monarchy make no claim to Irish legitimacy by descent. Likewise, picking one of the many descents from one of several monarchs just because it is the first one someone found is unsupportable.  Arbitrary descents from arbitrary kings. Why should a page on Descent of Elizabeth II from William I also include tracing Elizabeth II's descent from every King of England not of the main line, and also others?

Elizabeth & Tudors
I daresay someone has mentioned it at some point, though i have looked and don't see it, and the history of HM's genealogical relationships table is a little complicated with vandalism...anyway, can you tell me why Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth I don't have the same relationship to HM? I mean, HM and Edward don't share a closer relationship through Jane Seymour, do they? And he has no descendants to create a closer relationship through.... So, i'm confused. Cheers, Lindsay 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well just for completeness' sake, because i doubt that i'm the only person to have noticed the discrepancy: I changed it, and someone changed it back; apparently they don't have the same relationship.  'Twould have been quicker and easier to know that before, but....  Cheers, Lindsay 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After a bit of research, I verified that the Seymour connection is actually through the Queen's mother's side. Through the Cavendishes and Boyles.  Took a bit of effort, though.  Is there some way that one example of each of the closest relationships can be spelled out?  The next puzzle is to find out the source of Henry IV's direct descent. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Descent from Edward IV
I'm lowering his descent from 15 to 14. He's only 5 back from James in the direct line, so he can't be more than five back from him in the closest descent list either. DavidRF (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Relationship of Elizabeth II to Dracula (Vlad III the Impaler)
I have moved this section from the main article as it seems contentious to me and as it is about a living person it should be removed until a source can be found (WP:LIVE). Can anyone back up this claim? Also the randomly capitalised words make it look very untidy. (Also can somebody please put a box or something around the text to make it separate from the discussion.

'Elizabeth has a bloodline that goes back to the father of Vlad III the Impaler, Prince of Wallachia and known as Dracula''. She is a descendant of Dracula's pious half-brother, Vlad Călugărul, or Vlad the Monk. Dracula would be Queen Elizabeth's 14th great grand-uncle.


 * Elizabeth II
 * George VI
 * Mary of Teck
 * Francis, Duke of Teck
 * Klaudia Rhédey de Kis-Rhéde
 * Countess Ágnes Inczédy de Nagy-Várad
 * Baron Gergely Inczédy de Nagy-Várad
 * Baroness Ágnes Kendeffy de Malmoviz
 * Katalin KUN de OSDOLA
 * Kristina (Christiana) RACZ de GALGO
 * Peter (Petru) RACZ de GALGO
 * Adam RACZ de GALGO
 * Zamphira Logofat de SZAZSEBES	(Female)
 * Stanka (Stanca) BASARAB of WALLACHIA	(Female)
 * Mircea The Shepherd (Voivode) of VALACHIA	(Male)
 * Radu cel Mare Radu IV `the Great' (Voivode) of VALACHIA
 * Vlad Călugărul
 * Vlad II Dracul''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scroggie (talk • contribs) 22:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Legends aside, Vlad III the Impaler was a real member of the European aristocracy and Francis, Duke of Teck's mother was the daughter of a Transylvanian Count, so this is not as far-fetched as it sounds at first glance. It actually appears quite reasonable.  That said, I'd vote to exclude it on TRIVIA grounds rather than LIVE worries.  These royals were all related somehow and its not a direct descendency so I don't see why its a big deal.  Others have noted concern that there's too many descent lists on this page already. DavidRF (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivia I think (but it would be cool though) rdunn  PLIB  10:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Terminology on Cousins
This page currently says William III was Elizabeth II's 1st cousin 8 times removed, but shouldn't he be her 2nd cousin 9 times removed? Then, shouldn't Mary II and Anne be Elizabeth II's 3rd cousins? And finally, shouldn't Elizabeth II and Lady Jane Grey be 2nd cousins? Some reasoning and explanation behind these family terminologies would be nice.


 * The paragraph before the table explains how there can be jumps in the table due to junior-line's being closer (Grey's sibling is an ancestor of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon). William III is an interesting case, his grandfather Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange is a closer relative to Mary of Teck and possibly other royals, making him a first cousin.  Nothing complicated about Mary II and Anne, though, as Great-grandaughters of James I, they are clearly second cousins. Your question is a common one here, so I've added a third column to the table for spelling out where the closest relationship differs from the royal line.DavidRF (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

William III cousin count
By my count, I have 1st cousin, 9 times removed for William III and not 8. William III's grandfather was Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange who was the 9th-Great Grandfather of Elizabeth II. George VI->Mary of Teck->Franz of Teck, Duke Alexander, Henriette Nassau-Weilburg->Carolina Orange-Nassau->William IV of Orange->John William Friso->Casimir II->Albertine Agnes->Fredrick Henry. There's another link between Duke Alexander and Frederick Henry through the Prussian Kings but its the same generation count. I couldn't find a closer link. Anyhow, I'm going to increase the cousin count. If one of the genealogical gurus from above if its indeed 8 removals, then please let me know. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sophia, Electress of Hanover, Monarchs in the Senior Direct Line
The label is misleading. Use of the term "monarchs" seems to connote installation or assumption or reign. But Sophia, Electress of Hanover, never occupied the British throne. Should another term or terms be used instead of "Monarchs in the Senior Direct Line"? Rrcs law (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem confusing to me. It says "there are 18 monarchs of England GB or UK in the direct royal line", 32 names follow, 18 of them have "HM" in front of them while 14 (including Sophia) don't.  What's confusing about it?  DavidRF (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A minor point, but why are English monarchs depicted in bold face, but Scottish monarchs are not? I cannot find a rationale for this.--Stevouk (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is detailing the link between Elizabeth II and William I, so it focuses on the English line. Bolding the Scottish monarchs in the "The descent from the Kings of Scotland" section would be a nice enhancement to the article.DavidRF (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Descent from the other Harald
The article, of course, mentions Elizabeth's descent from William of Normandy and also describes her descent from Harald Godwinson. But it doesn't include a section on her descent from the other Harald of 1066:. I have the descent as: James VI and I - Mary - James V - James IV - Margaret of Denmark - Christian I of Denmark - Hedwig of Schauenburg - Gerhard IV of Holstein - Ingeborg of Mecklenburg-Schwerin - Euphemia of Sweden - Ingeborg of Norway - Haakon V - Magnus VI - Haakon IV - Haakon III - Sverre Sigurdson - Sigurd II - Harald IV - Magnus III Olafsson - Olaf Haraldson - Harald III Siggurdson (Hardrada)

This is 19 generations from James VI to Harald Hardrada. There may be shorter lines, I don't know. Rmhermen (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * the problem with trying to put in Hardrada is that most monarchies in northern europe were related to each other so we would have to create a massive family tree for everyone even remotly related to the remaining royal families... Also he isnt really notable in english history apart from leading the vikings at stamford bridge. rdunn  PLIB  09:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Stamford Bridge is why I think the article should mention him. I mean, descent from William is only interesting because of Hastings. Descent from Harold Godwinson is mentioned already. 22:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Stamford Bridge is the only time of Hardrada apearing in English history... Um, you're not confusing Hardrada with the Harefoot are you? rdunn  PLIB  07:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the point being that, had the tides of battle flowed another way, any of the three could have been England's ruler. And that the present rulers are descended from all three. It seems odd that the article only covers descent from two of the three possibilities. Rmhermen (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Descent from William only interesting because of Hastings? The shift to the House of Normandy was a huge defining moment in royal english history.  All the name numbers reset to "I".  Hadrada's claim to the English throne was dubious (no blood relation to Canute).  His descendent line is dubious (Sverre is not the son of Sigurd).  So, I don't think its odd that Godwinson and the Conquerer are on the page and Hadrada is not.  Its a trivial page, but in my opinion this is an extra level of trivia.DavidRF (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Louis, Philip, the Stuart Pretenders & Others
Louis, if he has any lines from Anglo-Saxon England, should be put up in relation to E-II. Francis should be shown on the generational chart, if or when his lineage can be substantiated as coming from England or Scotland. Philip has a line from John of Gaunt and likewise fits in as a cousin by blood and marriage to E-II, also being King of England, Ireland and claimant of France up until E-I took over and those two even had a war over who had the right to rule after Mary I's death, trivialized out of context as the Spanish Armada.

I SUSPECT THE CONTINENTAL HERITAGE HERE WILL BE IGNORED.

Even James VI/I's second line from Margaret Tudor should be mentioned, since his father Henry claimed the crown matrimonial. The Old and Young Pretenders, as well as Henry Benedict Stuart all claimed the Crown and have direct relation to James II.

I SUSPECT THE SCOTTISH HERITAGE HERE WILL BE IGNORED.

How about Guildford Dudley's royal descent? He probably has some from Henry II or earlier, whilst he claimed the crown matrimonial. The Cromwells were descended from Jasper Tudor, uncle of Henry VII and thus granduncle of Margaret Tudor, who provides heritage in two lines to the first King of Great Britain, James Stuart.

I SUSPECT THE PARLIAMENTARIAN HERITAGE HERE WILL BE IGNORED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Many of your suspicions are unwarranted. Section 6 includes three lineages back to the Anglo-Saxons, one to the Scots and one to the Danes.  Also, there is an article on the Jacobite succession which is a child article of Alternate successions of the English crown.  Also, there is an article for Genealogy of the British Royal Family.  Here is another interesting article showing a snapshot of the succession by primogeniture at each change of ruler: History of the British line of succession.   Cromwell may indeed descend from Jasper Tudor - a half-brother of Henry V - and I've also seen a link from him back to Henry I, but Cromwell didn't claim sovereignty based on genealogy.  As for many of the others, the article has tried to focus on the direct royal line.  It is indeed true that almost all of the consorts can be traced back to royalty themselves.  If we include the Dudley's and Douglas's, then we'd have to consider including the Neville's, Beaufort's, Castile's, Valois's, Capet's, even Dracula.  I didn't originally write *this* article, but I understand the desire to keep it at a reasonable size.DavidRF (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

William is arbitrary
William as an ultimate source for the monarchy seems to lack importance, for even now there is once again an Earl of Wessex and all things Anglo-Saxon have approval, not only there, but on the popular level, which the mention of Wessex was supposed to reflect. William's place in royal history is hardly as favored as Edward III the Confessor, Harold II and even Edgar AEtheling, among both the people and the royals themselves. Perpetuating the William myth only serves to isolate the monarchy from the people or the people from the monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is because William is in a sense the last upstart with a junior claim to be able to hold onto the throne (through his descendants) that the list starts with him. The superior lines that you mention were extinguished by his ability to sustain his junior claim. Through intermarriage of course all the old lines are now connected with William's line.
 * Henry VII's claim was also junior, but since his children had a mother with a strong claim, that was a short lived anomoly. Also, you can take the newer restrictions (such as the Catholic exclusion) as a bone of contention about seniority. Nonetheless, the current line of monarchs' own claim to the throne basically goes back to William's claim to the throne, as weak as it was from a seniority standpoint at the time it was originally made. NoSeptember  17:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * George I's claim was not junior? john k (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it was junior, and it falls under the Catholic exclusion mentioned above. William I had a junior claim that only won due to military conquest. IIRC his relationship to Edward was through marriage not blood. The more recent deviations are based upon the decision of Parliament rule making. But Parliament has still selected the most senior line remaining after excluding those they wish to exclude (primarily Catholics), so the theory of senior line primacy continues. NoSeptember  23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There were many usurpers after William I. Henry IV, Henry VII are the most famous.  I don't think that's the appropriate rationale here.  I think its simply a case of when the name-numbering was reset.DavidRF (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blame it on the Plantagenet Edwards. They are the ones who decided to reset the numbering with Longshanks despite the fact that a few Edwards preceded the Conquest.  See Edward_I.  Several roayl lines that pre-date William I are on this page.DavidRF (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Other lines...
The article mentions how the last Queen Mother(and thus The Queen) is descended from Henry IV, yet fails to mention how. Likewise, Harold was a male-line descendant of Egbert, and thus of Cerdic, yet the "Harold" descent begins with him, despit him also being descended from other Anglo-Saxon English Kings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.132 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a link to Harold's section showing his family tree. The link is not without dispute, though (see his article) but its there now.  I've often been curious about the exact link between the Queen Mother and Henry IV's son Humphrey.  I've read in multiple places that the link is there but I've never seen it spelled out.  These links back to the main tree from a consort are often long and obscure (see link back to Stephen mentioned above).  It would be great to see all the names in between though.DavidRF (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So basically, anyone who wants to spell out the descent of Elizabeth II from Henry IV would have to fill this up: Emerson 07 (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Henry IV of England
 * 2) Humphrey of Gloucester
 * 3) Antigone Plantagenet
 * 4) ?One of the three known children of Antigone Plantagenet
 * 5) ?One of the nine known grandchildren of Antigone Plantagenet
 * 6) ?One of the 8192 11th great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 7) ?One of the 4096 10th great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 8) ?One of the 2048 9th great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 9) ?One of the 1024 8th great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 10) ?One of the 512 7th great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 11) ?One of the 256 6th great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 12) ?One of the 128 5th great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 13) ?One of the 64 4th great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 14) ?One of the 32 3rd great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 15) ?One of the 16 2nd great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 16) ?One of the 8 great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 17) ?One of the 4 grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 18) ?One of the 2 parents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 19) Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * 20) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom


 * Happy to (somewhat belatedly) oblige, though I have no intention of putting in all the links.


 * Elizabeth II
 * George VI m Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne m Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentinck
 * Rev Charles Cavendish-Bentinck
 * Lord Charles Cavendish-Bentinck
 * William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland m Lady Dorothy Cavendish
 * William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire
 * William Cavendish, 3rd Duke of Devonshire
 * William Cavendish, 2nd Duke of Devonshire m Hon Rachel Russell
 * William, Lord Russell m Lady Rachel Wriothesley
 * Thomas Wriothesley, 4th Earl of Southampton
 * Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton m Elizabeth Vernon
 * John Vernon
 * George Vernon
 * Humphrey Vernon m Alice Ludlow
 * John Ludlow m Elizabeth Grey
 * Richard Grey, 3rd Earl of Tankerville
 * Henry Grey, 2nd Earl of Tankerville m Antigone
 * Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester
 * King Henry IV

86.174.25.252 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have also been researching the possible descendants of Henry IV due to a recent speculation about Sophie of Wessex, HM's daughter-in-law. It is correct by my research as well. Anyone who descends from Elizabeth Wriothesley (born Vernon) is a descendant through Gloucester's illegitimate daughter, Antigone. Sophie of Wessex however descends from the Vernon family through Thomas Vernon, brother of Elizabeth Wriothesley's ancestor, Robert Vernon. -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Title
Descent of Elizabeth II from William I? Shouldn't this article's name be changed? It doesn't only show her descent from William I but many other monarchs of the British isles.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Descent of British Monarchs from William I" might be better, especially as once the Queen goes, it would have to be retitled "Descent of Charles-III-or-whatever ...". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's William I that is the problem, but I see your point in the future. This article doesn't solely show that descent. It shows her descent from many other monarchs of the British isles, such as the High Kings of Ireland, the Princes of Wales, the Anglo-Saxon kings, and etc.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the original purpose of the article was to explain the way in which the various kings and queens of England are descended from William I, the guy who started the royal line. Other royals may have popped up here and there since the article was begun. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Next question
OK, so Stephen Fry, and others,  claim that 40 generations ago,  everybody has 2 to the power of 40 ancestors  which is more than the entire number of people in the world 1000 years ago. Therefore, everybody is related to everybody else. The fallacy with this argument, is that in past centuries there was a lot of inbreeding both at the top and bottom levels of society. Theoretically, the Queen has 1024 ancestors at the tenth generation back. In fact, it is much fewer because some of her forebears were cousins. It gets even slightly more complicated when some of those cousins married cousins who were not on the same level in the tree. So if you figure out the 1024 tenth-level ancestors of the Queen,  how many actual distinct inviduals are there ?Eregli bob (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Better asked at the WP:Reference Desk as that is not the purpose of this page. Rmhermen (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, check out articles on Pedigree Collapse, like Pedigree collapse. Collision-Shift (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

any point
in sharing the fact that I can trace a direct descent from William the Conqueror as well? Or in other words, aren't there millions of people out there who are descended from him? --KarlB (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No point unless you are the Queen of England, Karl. Rmhermen (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes I *do* feel rather regal. I once said "off with their heads" but nothing happened :( --KarlB (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

fun
Here is one path, mapped out: --KarlB (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible Corrections to a mom born 38 years after her son :)
The List:

The descent from the Irish kings The descent from the High Kings of Ireland, also Munster and Leinster

The Problem:

0. Derbforgaill ingen Murchada 1. Murchad mac Diarmata

the linked page for Murchad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchad_mac_Diarmata) states: Murchad mac Diarmata (died 1070)

the linked page for Derbforgaill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derbforgaill) states: Dearbhfhorghaill (older spelling: Derbforgaill) (1108–1193)

So this means her natural son was born 38 years before her?

The Disabiguation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derbforgaill_%28disambiguation%29) does have a "Derbfhorgaill, Princess of Leinster, died 1080" (no page created on wp yet), who would better fit this list, and shorten it as well as follows:

-2. Brian Boru -1. Tadc mac Briain 0. Derbfhorgaill, Princess of Leinster 1. Murchad mac Diarmata

Here are some Extracts from http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/IRELAND.htm


 * Brian ('BRIAN Boroma, son of CEINNÉITIG & his wife --- ([941]-killed in battle Clontarf 23 Apr 1014)') & his second wife had two children:


 * 3.        TADHG (-killed 1023).  The Annals of Tigernach record that “Tadg son of Brian Boroma” was killed by “the Eili instigated by his brother…Dondchad” in [1021/23][974].  The Annals of Ulster record the death in 1023 of "Tadc son of Brian killed by the Éile”[975].


 * 4.        [son .  It is probable that Derborgaill´s father was one of the sons of Brian who are named above, but the primary source which names him as not yet been identified.  The mother of this son was most probably Brian´s wife Gormlaith as his daughter Derborgaill had a daughter of this name, which appears to restrict his identity to Tadhg or Donnchad.]  m ---.  One child:


 * a)        DERBORGAILL (-Imlech 1080).  The Annals of Ulster record the death in 1080 of "Derbhforgaill daughter of Brian´s son, wife of Diarmait son of Mael na mBó…in Imlech”[976].  m DERMOT MacMailnamo [Diarmait mac Máel na mBó] King of Leinster and of Ireland (-killed in battle Odba 7 Feb 1072).

This lines up with her son Murchad as listed in the list and his linked page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchad_mac_Diarmata):


 * 1.        MURCHAD (-Dublin 1070, bur Dublin).  The Annals of Tigernach record that “Murchad son of Diarmait son of Mael na mbó” invaded “Mann…and defeated Ragnall´s son” in 1061[643].  The Annals of Ulster record the death in 1070 of "Murchad son of Diarmait king of Laigin and the foreigners…buried in Áth Cliath”[644].  The Annals of Inisfallen record the death in 1070 of "Murchad son of Diarmiat son of Mael na mBó king of foreigners and Gaedil…in Áth Cliath”[645].  m ---.  The name of Murchad´s wife is not known.


 * The DERBORGAILL listed (#0) matches:


 * c)        DERBFORGAILL ... The Annals of Tigernach (Continuation) record that “Diarmait Mac Murchada king of Leinster forcibly carried off out of Meath the wife of Húa Ruairc…Derb-forgaill daughter of Murchad with her wealth” in 1152, adding in a later passage that she “came again to Húa Ruairc by flight from Leinster” in 1153[777].  m TIERNAN O'Rourke King of Breifny, son of ---.  Mistress (1152) of DIARMAIT King of Leinster, son of ENNA King of Leinster & his wife --- (-Fermanagh 1 May 1171).

(her father being: MURCHAD (Ua Maelsechlainn/Mac Domnall) (-after 1143). King of Meath, his father being: DOMNALL Ua Maelsechlainn (Mac Flann) (-killed 1094).  King of Meath)

Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, and the Medlands Project are not the sole Authority. But the mot readily accessible to the general public. Also see below for AotFM  >.< ) Collision-Shift (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

adding AotFM references From a web version of the Annals of the Four Masters (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100005B/index.html):

M1080.3 (matching Derbfhorgaill, Princess of Leinster, died 1080 on disamb page) Dearbhforghaill, daughter of the son of Brian, and wife of Diarmaid, son of Mael-na-mbo, died.

M1152.10 (matching Dearbhfhorghaill (older spelling: Derbforgaill) (1108–1193) in the original list) An army was led by Mac Lochlainn into Meath, as far as Rath-Ceannaigh, to meet the men of Ireland; and Toirdhealbhach proceeded into Meath, to meet Ua Lochlainn and Diarmaid Mac Murchadha, King of Leinster. They divided Meath into two parts on this occasion; they gave from Cluain-Iraird westwards to Murchadh Ua Maeleachlainn, and East Meath to his son, Maeleachlainn. They took Conmhaicne from Tighearnan Ua Ruairc, after having defeated him; and they burned the town named Bun-cuilinn, and gave the chieftainship to the son of Gillabraide Ua Ruairc, and their hostages were given up to Toirdhealbhach Ua Conchobhair. On this occasion Dearbhforgaill, daughter of Murchadh Ua Maeleachlainn, and wife of Tighearnan Ua Ruairc, was brought away by the King of Leinster, i.e. Diarmaid, with her cattle and furniture; and he took with her according to the advice of her brother, Maeleachlainn. There arose then a war between the Ui-Briuin and the men of Meath. Collision-Shift (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Princes of Wales
In the section on descent from the native Princes of Wales, Edward IV is listed as generation 16 rather than 15 as he is in the senior line. Is there any reason for this, or should the number be changed? Akwdb (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be renamed?
To begin with, the article in its present title is Descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror. Well, what if Elizabeth dies tomorrow? Will we just skip Charles completely and then skip William and then George? This is not an article about Elizabeth, but the line of descent from William the Conqueror to the current monarch, correct? If that is the case, then this title is completely wrong. Any ideas on a new name? I cannot think of a short one or one that fits the page. Perhaps William the Conqueror's line of descent to the current monarch? Maybe instead, ...to the current United Kingdom's monarch? For that matter, being an American, I'm not even sure if the UK capitalizes monarch. American's do not and though monarch isn't technically a title, it is not proper American English to capitalize things such as titles because we do not recognize them (sadly, many stupidly do capitalize them) so either way for us it's a no. I'm rambling now. Sorry. Anyway, I thought it more appropriate for the British to decide a more relevant title, than an American such as myself. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If Elizabeth dies tomorrow, we'll move it. For the time being, the present title is correct and simple. Besides, many articles will have to be moved when she dies: Her Majesty's Theatre, Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service and everything that "belongs" to "Her Majesty". I am sure there are more. Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Bunch of material not related to descent from William the Conqueror
No business being in here - this page has a clearly defined, narrowly focussed topic, as defined by its mage page name. There are other pages (too many other pages) that have other genealogies for Queen Elizabeth. This page should not be a coatrack for any lines of descent from anyone any editor on a whim decides is interesting. A page on descent from William should be about descent from William, full stop. Agricolae (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Mage name"? This page links to no other similar pages - what are they? If they exist they should link here. If they don't cover the topic in manner like this page, perhaps renaming this page would be a better choice? Descents of the British monarch might work. Rmhermen (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, you found a typo. You must be so proud.  The following is a non-comprehensive list.  So no, we don't need this page to be Descent of Elizabeth II from Whoever. Agricolae (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * British monarchs' family tree
 * Genealogy of the British royal family
 * House of Windsor
 * English monarchs family tree
 * English and British monarchs family tree (simple)
 * Alternative successions of the English crown
 * Line of succession to the British throne
 * Descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror
 * Ancestry charts of Lady Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton
 * Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Descent from the Franks)
 * Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Irish connection)
 * Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent)
 * Ancestry of Elizabeth II
 * Actually I had no idea what mage name meant. That is why I asked. Please do not make your deletion first and talk later as further participants will find it harder to determine what you are desiring to remove. Second, having looked at several of these pages I don't see any that show lines of descent. Which ones do you think are duplicated here? Rmhermen (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

What I am deleting:
 * The descent from the Saxon kings : Through the West Saxon royal line | Reason: no references, beginning with Ecgbert is arbitrary (he was never king of England), it does not match the topic of the page
 * The descent from the Saxon kings : Through Alfred the Great's daughter Aelfthryth | Reason: no references, completely arbitrary why this particular line is shown (Elizabeth descend from daughters of Edward the Elder and AEthelred too, and from each of them through, 10s or 100s of thousands of different pathways), it doesn't match the topic of the page
 * The descent of the Saxon kings : Through Harold Godwinson (Harold II of England) | Reason: no references, arbitrary choice of lines (again, Elizabeth descends from Harold numerous different ways), does not match topic of page
 * The descent from the Kings of Scotland | Reason: no references, does not match topic of page
 * The descent from the Kings of Scotland : (descent of David of Scotland from Ecgbert) | Reason: no references, completely arbitrary, does not match topic of page
 * The descent from the Kings of Scotland : (descent of Ecgbert from Creoda) | Reason: no references, does not match topic of page, does not match topic of section
 * The descent from the Danish Kings of England | Reason: no references, arbitrary choice of lines, does not match topic of page
 * The descent from King Stephen of England | Reason: no references, arbitrary choice of lines, does not match topic of page
 * The descent from native princes of Wales | Reason: no references, arbitrary choice of lines from princes, arbitrary choice of princes from whom to trace, does not match topic of page
 * The descent from the Irish kings : The descent from the High Kings of Ireland, also Munster and Leinster | Reason: no references, arbitrary choice of lines from kings, arbitrary choice of kings from whom to trace, does not match topic of page
 * The descent from King Henry IV of England : Shortest paths of descent from Henry IV to Elizabeth II | Reason: OR, no references, UNDUE (why is 'shortest' path noteworthy), does not match topic of page
 * The descent from King Henry IV of England : Longest paths of descent from Henry IV to Elizabeth II | Reason: OR, no references, UNDUE (why is 'longest' path noteworthy), does not match topic of page
 * Overall - with a clearly defined topic, there are criteria for what is appropriate and what is not, for why a certain line should be selected over another line - without one it is just a coatrack for a magpie collection of Original Research and 'whatever lines I think are interesting'. Agricolae (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have waited two weeks for a response to these criticisms, so I am now making the change. Agricolae (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your last comment on your revert is correct. "a revert without Talk is certainly not an expression of consensus". There has been no consensus - except that it appears that 5 people have changed it back, and only one person wants this change. Alan Davidson (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If no one who wants to retain the material can (or will) defend its presence, that speaks for itself. Using your own failure to engage as justification to retain the flawed version indefinitely doesn't fly.  Agricolae (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * True - but one person is not a consensus. It is not a big deal - but I would leave the information as it was. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for anyone to answer why a page on the descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror includes the descent from Ecgberht to Creoda. In fact, I have a better question, since I tire of being told to go consensus myself.  Why shouldn't this page just be AfDed, since the version you prefer is a massive WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:UNDUE, WP:V and WP:SYNTH}/WP:OR violation (which, in over a month in the face of numerous promptings you have not refuted) and my version is redundant with English and British monarchs family tree (simple)?  Agricolae (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith on your part. You made a case for change - which no one supports.  It appears that 5 users oppose the change, who have done so on 10 occasions.  The history page shows a consensus for the established article.  Agricole has not shown any consensus.  The summary and reasons for the reversions from the history page is:

‎*2a00:23c4:785:2700:405:476f:d292:28e6 [no comment] Alan Davidson (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alandavidson - Do not alter without consensus - one person is no consensus
 * 96.248.127.251 While this information might seem irrelevant to one user doesnt make it irrelevent to the other users.
 * Alandavidson Silence doses not mean consensus, as evidenced by those who want the status quo
 * 177.246.231.121 [no comment]
 * 177.246.231.121 [no comment]
 * Alandavidson needs discussion, not just silence - keep
 * Rmhermen revert - discuss first delete later if necessary
 * 2a00:23c4:785:2700:405:476f:d292:28e6 [no comment]
 * 2a00:23c4:785:2700:405:476f:d292:28e6 [no comment]
 * Yet again completely failing to address the criticisms raised, to answer the questions asked. It establishes a flawed set of incentives if it is legitimate to violate core policy, just so long as one also refuses to discuss it.  Agricolae (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Return
Good to see this back. My thanks. It has interesting information I cannot find elsewhere on Wikipedia - although there are other copy sites on the web. There was no consensus to ever alter it; but there was consensus to delete it. Cheers Alan Davidson (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)