Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 February 12

= February 12 =

Edward VI
At the time of Edward VI's death most of the only potential successors were female from his sisters to his cousins Mary, Queen of Scots, the Grey family and Margaret Clifford, Countess of Derby. Were there any more remote male descendants (from female lines) of the Tudor beyond these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7CF0:3070:FC2F:A874:570E:B9CD (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I followed links from Henry VII of England and found that, when Edward died, only nine (or debatedly eight) of Henry's legitimate descendants were alive, all women. Now that I've closed those tabs, it occurs to me to find who was the next-born male; someone else can do that. –Tamfang (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of Edward's sisters, Princess Mary and Princess Elizabeth were illegitimate. Sleigh (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they weren't. Both of Edward's sisters were declared illegitimate at various times, and legitimate at other times, based on whatever was politically expedient.  -- Jayron 32 12:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true. During the entirety of Edward's lifetime, both Elizabeth and Mary were illegitimate. In fact, Elizabeth was never declared legitimate again after her mother's downfall, not even during her own reign - because doing so would undermine the Church of England. Mary had herself declared legitimate only when she ascended the throne. The Third Succession Act restored "Lady Mary" and "Lady Elizabeth" to the line of succession, but only as the specifically nominated bastards. Surtsicna (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon was still alive when Eddy VI died. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So were Lady Salisbury's sons and grandsons: Reginald, Geoffrey, Arthur, Thomas, Edmund, another Geoffrey, Henry, another Arthur, and another Geoffrey. These were all Yorkist heirs, however. There was one male descendant with a much stronger claim, missed by Tamfang: Henry Stuart, son of Margaret Douglas, daughter of Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII. Surtsicna (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which explains why there was such consternation in Elizabethan England when he married Mary, Queen of Scots - his own claim to the throne of England was felt to reinforce her claim. Wymspen (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I checked back in Henry VII's background. If you go back to his grandfather, Owen Tudor, Henry VII was the only living descendant of Owen Tudor, so he had no cousins to follow lines from either.  The nearest male heir would have been a more distant cousin, possibly someone in the York or Lancastrian lines; if there were any of those left.  -- Jayron 32 12:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Henry VIIs' male line great grandfather Maredudd ap Tudur also only had one son, so we have to go back farther for a male line. His great-great-grandfather would have been Tudur ap Goronwy, and though he had 5 sons in total, I can't find any information on their lines.  Most of them were put under attainder and executed for their roles in the Glyndŵr Rising anyways, and may possibly have never had children except for Maredudd. Thus, from Edward VI, going back 5 or 6 generations, Edward was quite likely the only remaining male Tudor left.  I'm fairly convinced that the best male heir left would have been Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, noted above.  His son would inherit the throne anyways on the extinction of the last Tudor, Elizabeth.  -- Jayron 32 13:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But we should bear in mind that the only Tudors who had any claim to the English throne were those descended from Lady Margaret Beaufort. Surtsicna (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * True enough. But if there was only one male Tudor after 6 generations, there would still be only one male Tudor if you go back 3.  -- Jayron 32 14:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * With all the attainders you mentioned, it does not seem surprising. What fascinates me more are the extinctions of the Plantagenets and the Hapsburgs - thriving houses ruling empires and producing male heirs and spares all over the place until each caused its own end. The difference, of course, is that in one case the cousins hated each other too much and in the other the cousins loved each other too much. Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sort of how the House of Windsor will follow Charles to the throne, there are still Habsburgs around today, see Karl von Habsburg, who descends from Maria Theresa. -- Jayron 32 15:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maria Theresa's are Habsburg-Lothringens, as they have always called themselves. Why our article refers to de:Karl Habsburg-Lothringen as Karl von Habsburg is a mystery to me. Surtsicna (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it's what he calls himself on his own website; "Karl von Habsburg is an international media entrepreneur". I suppose he should know. Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Plantagenets extinct? Not according to the Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you define your terms? Do you mean male-line, non-morgantic, legitimate issue decended from Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, or do you mean every genetic decendent of him?  "Legitimate issue" has always been a political, not biological, question.  -- Jayron 32 19:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And the comment that began this thread is an example. Owen Tudor’s son Jasper is thought by some historians to have sired two illegitimate daughters, one of whom is an ancestor of Oliver Cromwell. If this is true, Henry VII wasn’t Owen’s only descendant. (And that’s ignoring the possible paternity of Roland de Velville.) 24.76.103.169 (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"would have been a more distant cousin, possibly someone in the York or Lancastrian lines; if there were any of those left"

Edward IV of England still had several living descendants in 1553:
 * 1) Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587).
 * 2) Adam Stewart (d. 1575). We do not have an article on him.
 * 3) Lady Jean Stewart (c. 1533-1588).
 * 4) James Stewart (c. 1529-1557). We do not have an article on him.
 * 5) Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney (1533-1593).
 * 6) John Stewart, Lord Darnley (c. 1531-1563). We do not have an article on him.
 * 7) James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray (c. 1531-1570).
 * 8) Robert Stewart, junior (d. 1581). We do not have an article on him.
 * 9) Mary I of England (1516-1558).
 * 10) Elizabeth I of England (1533-1603).
 * 11) Thomas Stukley (c. 1520-1578).
 * 12) Richard Edwardes (1525-1566).
 * 13) Catherine Carey (c. 1524-1569).
 * 14) Mary Knollys (c. 1541 – 1593). We do not have an article on her.
 * 15) Henry Knollys (c. 1542-1582).
 * 16) Lettice Knollys (1543-1634).
 * 17) William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury (1544-1632).
 * 18) Edward Knollys (1546–1580). We do not have an article on him.
 * 19) Robert Knollys (1547–1626). We do not have an article on him.
 * 20) Richard Knollys (1548 – 21 August 1596). We do not have an article on him.
 * 21) Elizabeth Knollys (1549-c. 1605).
 * 22) Francis Knollys (c. 1552-1648).
 * 23) Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon (1526-1596).
 * 24) George Carey, 2nd Baron Hunsdon (1547-1603).
 * 25) Katherine Carey (ca. 1550-25 February 1603). We do not have an article on her.
 * 26) Ethelreda Malte (c. 1527-1559).
 * 27) John Perrot (1528-1592).
 * 28) Frances Grey, Duchess of Suffolk (1517-1559).
 * 29) Lady Jane Grey (c. 1537-1554).
 * 30) Lady Katherine Grey (1540-1568).
 * 31) Lady Mary Grey (c. 1545-1578).
 * 32) Margaret Clifford, Countess of Derby (1540-1596).
 * 33) Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (c. 1527-1556).
 * 34) Lucy Somerset (c. 1524-1583).
 * 35) Catherine Neville (1546 – 28 October 1596). We do not have an article on her.
 * 36) Dorothy Neville (1547 – 23 March 1609). We do not have an article on her.
 * 37) Lucy Neville (d. 1608). We do not have an article on her.
 * 38) Elizabeth Neville (c. 1550 – 1630). We do not have an article on her. Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Gustav Fabergé…
… was the father of famous Peter Carl Fabergé. According to our article, Gustav's father was the artisan Pierre Favry, whose name is supposed to later have changed to Fabrier. However, unfortunately, the article does not explain firstly, why Favry's name first changed into Fabrier, and secondly, how it later became Fabergé. Can anybody provide relevant information here (and/or maybe synchronize the pertinent explanations within the article)?--Boczi (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * House of Fabergé describes the evolution of the family name; though it does not explain the whys, only the whats. There's a reference there maybe worth following.  -- Jayron 32 14:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "The gradual name change smacks of an attempt at social betterment. The aristocracy of nineteenth-century Russia still spoke French and looked to Paris as the fount of culture. It would have done the former Favrys no harm to stress their Gallic origins". Faberge's Eggs: One Man's Masterpieces and the End of an Empire (p. 6) by Toby Faber. Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added a note to that effect to the Gustav Fabergé article. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much indeed!--Boczi (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Protestant churches in Boulogne
Reading Lloyd George's War Memoirs. In writing about the gun conference at Boulogne in June 1915 he mentions the English Episcopal Church and the Scottish Presbyterian Church near the hotel where the conference was held (Chapter XIX). Do we have any pictures of these churches, and any information about their history? DuncanHill (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The former Anglican church, having become a garage for some years, has been restored and is now used by the Latin rite Catholics who follow Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - see Wymspen (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find mention of the Scottish Presbyterian Church, but note that the town was badly knocked-about during the Battle of Boulogne (1940), RAF bombing of invasion barges for Operation Sealion, and to a lesser extent, by Operation Wellhit (1944). Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it had been knocked about a bit in the first go - the hotel used for the conference didn't survive that (the war I mean, not the conference). DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wymspen. DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Roy Romanow
According to an unsourced statement in the Roy Romanow article, two prime ministers tried to get him to stand for federal office as a Liberal. Since the NDP has a federal presence, why would anyone (let alone experienced politicians) imagine that he'd leave the NDP and become a Liberal for federal purposes? I mean, I suppose Liberals would appreciate him changing parties, but saying "you ought to do this" as a matter of real-life political strategy is just different from saying "ahh, I'd just love it if you joined our party" to the leader of a different party. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, while you're at it, do Canadians run or stand for office? This says "run", but I thought "stand" was correct. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We typically say “run”. Also this is exactly what Bob Rae did, he was the NDP premier of Ontario but later joined the federal Liberal party. I’m not sure why, aside from lust for power - the NDP has been the official opposition at the federal level but has never formed a government. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The NDP holds a place in Canada similar to the Liberal Democrats in the UK; it serves as a counterbalancing third party whose fortunes rest solely on the attitude of the populace towards the other two parties; they generally only do well as a "protest vote" against the other two parties. Canada's "official opposition" status held occasionally by the NDP is probably as well as they can do.  Canada's politics is quirky, with WILD swings in party strength.  It wasn't that long ago that Canada had an essential one-party government; where the "official opposition" was Bloc Quebecois (a separatist party) (de jure) and the Reform Party of Canada (de facto), which itself only existed for about a decade.  The NDP fits in with those groups in terms of its electoral history, so it doesn't seem out-of-the-ordinary that NDP politicians seeking more prominence would consider joining one of the other two parties.  -- Jayron 32 13:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Our Romanow article also notes (though with a "citation needed" template) that his "government was more conservative than previous NDP administrations, and was considered a practitioner of Third Way policies." The Liberal Party in Canada is effectively the centrist party, so it would be the best fit for a "conservative" NDP politician. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly, though left-right political spectrum doesn't do justice to Canadian political interests. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but it arguably fits it better than it does US politics (i.e. just badly instead of terribly). The general lack of gun and religious special interest groups allows Canadian politicians to be slightly more self-consistent (we don't really have a junk-pile party like the Republicans that have chosen to support wildly discordant special interest groups), and the lack of polarity that comes with a multi-party system also allows politicians to find their own space a little better. Bob Rae switching from NDP to Liberal was in no way similar to say, Hillary Clinton deciding to join the GOP - it would be more akin to Bernie joining the Democrats. Matt Deres (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)