![](https://assets11.geni.com/images/external/twitter_bird_small.gif?1699376784)
![](https://assets13.geni.com/images/facebook_white_small_short.gif?1699376784)
Interesting story in today's news about DNA tests on Richard III. Scientists compared Richard's yDNA with the yDNA of the Somerset family. No match.
The yDNA should have been the same because paper records show both families are descended in the male line from Edward III. Richard is descended from the Yorkist branch and the Somersets are descended from the Lancastrian branch.
The tests give us new info about the Plantagenet DNA. Richard III belonged to haplogroup G-P287, while the Somersets belong to haplogroup R1b-U152. One of these is probably the real Plantagenet DNA, but we don't know which.
The media speculation is centering around the idea that John of Gaunt might not have been a biological son of Edward, but apparently only because that would create the most drama. Another possibility is that the NPE is somewhere in the Somerset line because so many of them were gay.
Read more here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/11268218/Rich...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30281333
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631...
Telegraph.co.uk article spazzed the fact that the Tudors were NOT male-line descendants of John of Gaunt - their descent passes through Margaret Beaufort, who could not possibly have passed on any Y-DNA (for obvious reasons).
They also spazzed the fact that the current British royal line has several other female-line ancestors. Y-DNA doesn't prove a lot in *that* situation.
The BBC article makes the same mistakes and is even more sloppily written.
This seems to parallel, rather exactly, the Thomas Plummer of Anne Arundel situation. The founder was confirmed as Y-DNA haplotype G (very rare in England, "somewhat rare" in France), but several supposed male-line descendants tested haplotype R1b (very common everywhere in Western Europe), and in each case there were questionable paper-trail links.
A few of Thomas Plummer's male-line descendants were found to be haplotype G and a good match to his pattern, strongly suggesting that the hanky-panky was on the other lines.
Henry VII's Lancastrian descent was through his mother, Margaret Beaufort. Elizabeth of York could not have passed on any Y-DNA either (women can't, because they don't *have* any - duh!).
The claim on the Tudor side was even more dubious, consisting of an alleged secret second marriage between Owen Tudor and Catherine de Valois, who was Henry V's widow. No male-line Plantagenet ancestry *there*.
Expect to hear a great deal of half-baked malarkey in the next few days and/or weeks, while the media struggle to get the story sorted out.
The "givens" at the moment are that yes, the car park skeleton is definitely Richard III, with a rare (French-flavored) Y-DNA haplotype and a well-documented mtDNA haplotype.
The questions are, where do the Y-DNA mismatches fall, and what do they mean? (As far as the ancestry of the present British royal family, they are of no significance whatsoever, due to several changes of dynasty and several passages through the female line.)
There are two very different issues here. Careful not to confuse them.
There is the DNA issue. Which result represents the Planatagenet DNA? Was the break on the York side, the early Lancaster side, or the later Lancastrian (Somerset) side? There hasn't been a Plantagenet king since Richard III, so this part is purely historical.
Then there is the issue about inheritance of the throne, which is primarily just a media side show. All kings after Richard III inherit their claim from the Tudor union of Lancaster and York. If one of those had an NPE, there is still the other. And that means the idea of a break in the legitimacy of the line is just hype.
in the article it states The instance of female infidelity, or cuckolding, could have occurred anywhere in the numerous generations that separate Richard III from the 5th Duke of Beaufort (1744-1803), whose living descendants provided samples of male-line DNA to be compared against that of the Plantagenet king.
dna can not tell us where the npe is
In many ways this is very similar to a more famous French case, where researchers thought they had identified a handkerchief dipped in the blood of Louis XVI. They tested and found it was Haplo G.
Then, earlier this year, the full genome was sequenced and found not to match modern three modern members of the same dynasty, who were R1b. This study had the additional benefit of using the full sequence to extrapolate physical features. Those features didn't match Louis XVI.
The current thinking is the blood was falsely attributed to Louis XVI, although some people think it is more likely there was an NPE somewhere later on the line leading to the modern Bourbons.
I don't think I'd be making any bets just yet on Richard III.
The Haplogroup G groups are lighting up with info today. Brian Hamman, who is a co-admin with Anne Berge and me on the G-L497 project posted some a link to a map that shows the locations of 14 living men who match Richard III:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/richard-iii-case-closed-after-52...
If someone wants to do more checking, Richard III is B8YDF at ysearch.org.
Haplogroup G is "rare" in Europe. About 1-3 per cent of the population. Higher in Tuscany, Switzerland and the Tirol, declining as you move further north. Current thinking is that it originated in or near the Caucasus and spread to Europe with the first farmers, then nearly exterminated by invaded R1bs.
Hugues du Perche, comte de Gatinais is Richard III of England's 12th great grandfather!
http://www.geni.com/path/Richard-III-of-England+is+related+to+Hugue...
I read somewhere that Richard III's great-grandfather, Edmund of York, did not include Richard III's grandfather, Richard of Conisburgh, Earl of Cambridge, in his will as there had been a rumor that Cambridge was not his son. Isabel, Edmund's wife, may have had an affair with John Holland, the Duke of Exeter, so perhaps Edward IV and Richard III weren't Plantagenets at all. That makes the Wars of the Roses interesting!
Or alternatively, Elizabeth Browne, who married the 2nd Earl of Worcester, Charles Somerset, was known to have been the mistress of Thomas Cromwell and perhaps even of Henry VIII. Imagine if these dukes of Beaufort were actually male-line Cromwells or Tudors!
We'll probably never know, but it's so interesting! Thank you for sharing!
Found duplication in the Plantagenet line due to people not checking for extant profiles. Was able to merge Edward I (he wasn't locked for some reason), but Edward II IS locked.
Master Profile: Edward II, king of England
Duplicate: Unknown Profile
More locked duplicates:
Edward III
Master Profile: Edward III, king of England
Duplicate: Unknown Profile
John of Gaunt:
Master Profile: John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, 1st Earl of Richmond
Duplicate: Unknown Profile
There are lots of other associated duplicates.
It sure seems to me that locking profiles "to avoid incorrect merges, confusion and mess" - actually CREATES confusion and mess.
I can tell you that in the early American lines, I can talk anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours to merge in a duplicate tree. You have to be very careful and royal trees are probably more likely to have bad spouses, children etc., not to mention all the data field conflicts that have to be resolved. When people's trees are done sloppily or by new users, there can be infinite loops with the generations in the wrong place.
The majority of us no longer lock profiles since field locking was introduced but (1) there are leftover locked profiles from before and (2) in certain really heavily trafficked areas like royals, Charlemagne, and the Biblical tree they have to be locked I believe. And some people merge in duplicates and a few do not.