bastad or not to be bastard thats is the question

There is no reason to think the Plantagenet yDNA changed after Edward III. Edward III was a maternal grandson of Philippe IV. Their yDNA would not be the same, except by coincidence.

The Plantagenet yDNA is unknown. Some people think it might be R1b-U106 based on triangulation. Some descendants have been tested, but the results are being withheld pending test results on Richard III. William the Conqueror is also speculated as R1b-U106.

The Tudor yDNA is speculated as R1b-L21.

You can read about the yDNA of British kings here:
http://www.surnamedna.com/?articles=y-dna-of-the-british-monarchy

There is some doubt about the yDNA of French kings. A test on a handkerchief dipped in the blood of Louis XVI showed G2a, but tests on modern descendants showed R1b-Z381. Some people think the handkerchief was contaminated. Others think that Philippe I of Orleans might not have been the biological father of his children.

You can read about the DNA of European kings here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25236-Haplogroups-of-European-...

it is detail that i dont understand,

but the 6 foot 4 edward iv puzzle me ,you give good qualification scientifique argument mr Swanström
french and english came from same source of bloodline as part of the family they are close related as i see genealogy close bound...

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descendance_de_Louis_XIV

Louis XIV de France a eu seize ou dix-sept enfants naturels (dits autrefois bâtards) connus, dont huit furent légitimés et six atteignirent l'âge adulte. Il eut pour politique de les marier dans les branches latérales de la maison de Bourbon : Bourbon-Condé, Bourbon-Conti, Orléans, non sans susciter de vives résistances des intéressés. L'objectif poursuivi était non seulement d'assurer aux bâtards une position satisfaisante à la cour, mais surtout d'abaisser les branches cadettes, ce qui fut la politique constante d'un monarque qui n'avait jamais oublié les leçons de la Fronde.

Cette politique devait toutefois faire la fortune de la maison d'Orléans. En effet, aucun des neuf enfants du duc du Maine n'ayant eu de postérité, c'est le duc de Chartres, futur Philippe-Égalité, qui recueillit, par son mariage avec Adélaïde de Penthièvre, fille du duc de Penthièvre, fils unique du comte de Toulouse, l'héritage colossal des légitimés.

they where legetimated! so dna cant do nothing nice try hehehehe

Philippe I of Orleans was a son of Louis XIII and a brother of Louis XIV.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_d%27Orl%C3%A9ans_(1640-1701)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_I,_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans

The Capet DNA is based on testing descendants of Philippe.

http://www.geni.com/path/Philippe+I+de+Bourbon+duc+d+Orl%C3%A9ans+i...

mr Swanström i give you benefit of dna thing that i not understand but stay in this direction speculations are not part of a scientifique aproche..

thank you for the link
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25236-Haplogroups-of-European-...
wowww now it take another direction

how many got rh negative blood just askin
fantastique =AWSOME XD

Which speculation worries you? The speculation that Philippe I was not the biological father of his children? Or the speculation that Edward IV was the son of Blaybourne?

only the term speculation it go no where not scientifc.
you have good reverse psychologie background and i really enjoy cause it go futher than the discussion is about am fine..
its the fun part XD

maybe in french royalty they got hiden history but not illegimate .but til now not get sufisent answer about it

http://www.unedeplus.fr/2009/11/03/qui-est-aujourdhui-lheritier-du-...

nice one mr Swanström
i do learn faster history with good teacher! hehehe

Tell them, when that my mother went with child
Of that insatiate Edward, noble York
My princely father then had wars in France
And, by true computation of the time,
Found that the issue was not his begot"

(Richard III (William Shakespeare) Act 3 Scene 5)

Edward IV of England was 6 feet 4 what about hes parents?

Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York et Cecily Neville, Duchess of York

i have read that Edward IV was taller than average surounding thats include hes family.
back to read more.

Six foot four was taller than average for his time, but Edward's siblings George and Margaret were also known for their height. Besides, the politics of the day were all determined by you lineage. If your political opponent wanted to attack you, all he would have to say is that you were not your father's son, as then you wouldn't be a threat anymore. If you were a women, your opponents would say that you were a prostitute, to attack your honor and credibility. Both are just pieces of propaganda that really mean nothing. In Edward's case, saying that he was a bastard was the same thing as the Tudors calling Richard III a hunchback and a monster. Both are false, and both are hundreds of years old Lancastrian propaganda.

thank you Emily Damiano
hypothesis have been talked now i just need to get real// acording to a text or a url a web page not just personal opinion .i do know how war was made up .propaganda ..now you say it it false i like to read from a reliable source//

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare
Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1589 and 1613.[6][nb 4] His early plays were mainly comedies and histories, genres he raised to the peak of sophistication and artistry by the end of the 16th century. He then wrote mainly tragedies until about 1608, including Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, and Macbeth, considered some of the finest works in the English language. In his last phase, he wrote tragicomedies, also known as romances, and collaborated with other playwrights.

should now proceed to a votation for fictious profile for blaybourn as potencial father of Edward IV of England?

i do not endorse fictional profile, but to this one i will make a exeption based on some claim from not exterior source than the internal english folklore.

based on shakespear that be a reliable figure prooved as/of credibility

if no one got nothing more to add i will proceed of the fictious blaybourn profile creation as potencial father of Edward IV of England

if no response in 36 hours i gona write another message to autorise that fictual profile about blaybourn creation and thats gona be establish as.

vote? or not i let other decide or debate

Hi Mart!
What I posted earlier is not my personal opinion; it's an actual thought presented by numerous historians. Here's a link to the Wikipedia page for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Controversy

Also, Shakespeare is not a very credible source. He said that Richard III, Edward's brother, was an extremely deformed hunchback, but in reality, he just had scoliosis. Shakespeare also said that Cecily Neville was pregnant with Richard for two years, which is impossible.

Again, I highly doubt that Edward IV was not the son of Richard Plantagenet. It just seems like 500 year old propaganda to me.

I don't think we need a profile for Blaybourn. Instead, we should put a paragraph in the overview for Edward IV, with a link to the Wikipedia article.

Martin, la généalogie de Shakespeare est fictif, car il est [basé sur l'histoire de] et pas [la biographie réelle].

Shakespeare a écrit des romans sur la base de la vie de personnes réelles et fictives. Ce n'est pas une opinion ... c'est un fait.

I don't think a new profile for Blaybourn should be created. It should just be an add-on in Edward's "About Me" section and/or as a curator note.

Private User, you did some nice cleanup on Edward IV. It looks much, much better than it did. Do you want to add a section about his disputed father, or do you want me to do it?

merci mi²♥ à l'égard de mon côté français ce geste genre
:-D
mais je veux persévérer a un profil de type persone chair plutôt qu'un
notes ajouter à une biographie.

demandé d'arrêter mes recherches dans ce manque de preuves? réglage ou une retraite d'un dossier pour ne pas perturber les communautees qui protègent!. accepter sur ce site de geni qui accepte fiction et possède à la fois une valeur historique et support / ou patrimoine inteclectuel de la connaissance humaine qui ont déjà beaucoup de profil fictif je précise!. me demander de ne pas créer ou demander quelqu'un qui pourrait le faire pour le profil de blaybourne cest me faire une catalepsie cérébrale par la force sans explication neutre

une personne fictive physique sont roit dexistance .droit même à savoir un profil avec fictif

detag this there no breach in the peace.
(Signalé) sous quel nature quel base?

http://www.geni.com/path/Edward+IV+of+England+is+related+to+Perrot+...

Mart: Either Direction through Perrott or ap Rice the I-1 Bllood looks like it may be from a forefather. Tudor has the common ancestor with a Plantagenant somewhere or the Y values would not be so Identical.

I-1 is an earlier arriver than R1b and the precursor to Stewart-Tsar Nicklas II who have been matched. The Tudor /John Rice 1630 values are within 2 steps or less on all the measured Y sites across 17/25 measured and calculated. So draw your own conclusion. The common ancestor to both lines was a Scandanavian King and arrived prior to William the Conquorer in 1066. I suppose it's just a guess but 900 AD would be in the territory I would think. Great information Mart: keep digging. DCR

FYI: Justin may disagree but Rollo in Normandy ca 910 looks like a reasonable candidate for common ancestor prior to WTC. DCR 1948

Yep, I disagree. When I have the urge to speculate I do it in the privacy of my own home, not out in public where everyone can see ;)

i dont know the actual position of you all... are you subject to her majesty the queen or ministry a british subject?

you defend your ground a respect this but if your not a british subject i do have to remind you that i am one.

we talking about creation of fictif profile remember?

Even better than subjects of HM -- most of us are cousins ;)

;)

you are sovereign mr Swanström thats why in have the rights to be in preservation mode.
but here on geni we are not in a real world we are just talking about a probable theory true or not it exist. maybe in few day few weeks years....that discussion will be talking again and another user with no background gona find the same about
Edward IV of England and blaybourn

Me being a subject of a British monark, for heavens sake, absolutely no. I am a proud subject of the Norwegian monark and I am doing my best to serve him here on Geni!!!

greetings mr Pedersen i dont know about norwegian royal/politics but thanks to proudly say it .

your opinion about that discution if you wish will be listen

Mr Rice
http://www.geni.com/path/Sir+Owen+Tudor+is+related+to+Dale+C+Rice?f...

http://www.geni.com/path/Sir+Owen+Tudor+is+related+to+Perrot+ap+Ric...

http://www.geni.com/path/Martin+is+related+to+Sir+Owen+Tudor?from=6...
7 generation from my father!

http://www.geni.com/path/F+lepage+is+related+to+Sir+Owen+Tudor?from...
from mother

and here we got mr Swanström
http://www.geni.com/path/Sir+Owen+Tudor+is+related+to+Justin+Swanst...

i do know why it turn out to very personal now mr Swanström
but we should not !

i got 7 generation from father...whitout Edward IV of England

http://www.nationalarchives.ie/genealogy1/introduction-to-genealogy/

Mart: I got a near immediate response from this site....hope you find them helpful. DCR 1948

we do have alot of irish here into Quebec i gona share this link to few lads of mine XD
thanks