Richard III of England - DNA Contribution...

Being that we are All Cousins of various degrees to The Plantagenet's", I would think our contributions would bring about an accepted solution to this research... or at least some kind of DNA Markers that might give better insight. :)

It makes sense but the easiest thing to do would be to simply match each other via gedmatch then confirm matches in relation to shared ancestors. Researchers are not to the point where they can locate plantagenet dna out of someones DNA if you know what I mean. They are growing in sophistication but they are not quite there yet so they really are not interested in any descendants, cousins etc. of Richard. If you want to play gedmatch, let me know. We do it all the time.

This gets more interesting as we go. I enjoy the commentary, but also seeing so many cousins come out of the woodwork, as they say. Just to think about the people, places and times to which all these connections take us, boggles the mind. I think the interest in Richard III is that we have confirmation of DNA. Marc Antony and Cleopatra are my 64th GGPs and King David is my 98th GGP, and yes, I too can trace back to Adam and Eve. On the one hand, having nobility in the family is very helpful, because for the reasons brought up by Woodman Mark Lowes Dickinson, OBE, and more, they kept records. I haven't looked for other gods, but the Bible isn't the only record of history. But in none of these do we have DNA to compare. Yay, for Richard! I just wish we could get at the DNA and be able to confirm at least that relationship.

Woodman Mark Lowes Dickinson, OBE, you show as my 16th cousin twice removed.

Linda Wellman, you show as my 14th cousin once removed.

Gary Page, you show as my 15th cousin four times removed.

Wanda Marie Pierce, you show as my 11th cousin.

All that, and Richard was a highly controversial character in his own right (with a lot of pot-stirring by one W. Shakespeare to keep it going to infinity).

:-)

Gerhard,

I suppose it is possible that DNA science will (one day) put "genes" in genealogy in some reasonably accurate way.

In the meanwhile, if Geni (and similar exercises) have any value - something which my wife hotly contests, I see it in the context of family history. A "family" does not depend entirely on genes. It is also about who was brought up as the child of whom (which is why I regret that no provision is made on Geni for adopted children).

Two contrasting examples, which only make sense in the context of family or social history if some research on lives can be carried out and put in profiles:

(i) some 18th century MP or other had a quite notoriously promiscuous wife, to whom he was deeply devoted (as she seems to have been to him) while he was obviously aware of her sexual life. One of the jokes made about him was that his burgeoning family was a "Compendium"; no-one could work out who was likely to be the biological father of any of "his" children. But such jokes do not seem to have been made out of cruelty, as so many jokes about cuckolds were, but out of a sense of affection and wonderment about how the family withstood such stresses: he was a devoted "father" to "his" children and they repaid him with equal devotion.

(ii) Wolf Hall. Sir John Seymour (father of Henry VIII's wife Jane Seymour and of the Lord Protector under Edward VI) had a long, and undoubted, adulterous relationship with his son's first wife. The Lord Protector notoriously complained that he could not know whether "his" first couple of sons were his sons or his brothers, and eventually got Parliament to disinherit them - and remove them from succession to his title - on the grounds that they were in fact his brothers. DNA testing is unlikely ever to reveal the truth. Geni obstinately clings to Edward Seymour as being the father, rether than the brother, despite a Parliamentary verdict, as it does in at least one other contested paternity case where the law eventually (nd rightly or wrongly) ruled: an example of an instinctive hostility to the suggestion that some titled peple might be bastards, I think.

One could multiply examples, and of course each of them are different.

Mark

Someday, they will be able to isolate and target DNA bloodlines. We are always progressing. Think of DNA as one kernel on a cob of corn and you kind of get an idea of how it would work. In order to isolate and target genetic markers of a family line they first have to have the proper software and program. If you are a Man and you have 6 or 7 surnames between now and Richard iii how do you suppose they would find the connection to Richard iii if they do not even know if they have has his match to begin with? I would imagine the fewer the name changes between Richard iii and now the better the odds of isolating and finding that bloodline but again, it's not relevant because it's not a straight line and that's all they look at right now which makes sense.

Considering what horndogs those old kings were, there may very well *be* a few "lost Plantagenets" around. I had some hopes for the Anne Arundel Plummer line, but - same Y-DNA group, not even a close match.

Are you related to Anne Arundel Maven?

Oh boy am I related to Anne Arundel!!! Thomas Plummer Sr. is a direct ancestor, and I've got Anne Arundel Waterses and Ijamses and Edwardses and Linthicums and just about half the county in my family tree. :-)

It's even worse with Northampton/Accomack, VA, which is another branch....

Hi Cousins, Richard III's grandmother, Elanor Percy, Countess of Northumberland is my 14th great grandmother. He is my 1st cousin 15 times removed. It is a coincidental relationship. I am a descendant of the Plantagenet, Norman and Viking kings (and spouces), among many others, also concidental relationships.

Queen Elizabeth is my 16th cousin twice removed. Both of us have inherited the white hair gene. So I believe that there is some but faint connection to my ancestors. Neither my mother nor father had white hair, gray yes, white no. No, I'm not the milkman's son.

Of further interest, perhaps: Richard III is a 46th GGS of Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra. They are my 64th GGPs. So I got curious. Thus far I've found that these other cousins above are also Great Grand Children of MA and Cleopatra, which may explain how we are all cousins. Perhaps you already knew:

John Patrick McCaffrey

Alfred "Ed Moch" Cota

Judy Rice

Maven B. Helms

Wanda Marie Pierce

Woodman Mark Lowes Dickinson, OBE

MC & Cleopatra are my 60th ggp...I must be older than you, Lois! :)

I see there are more in the list, who are also Great Grands of Marc Antony and Cleopatra. It's too much to be coincidence:

Carrie Ann Todd

Justin Swanström

Candace Kitten Schermerhorn

Daphne Elaine Beames

Ulf Ingvar Göte Martinsson

Linda Wellman

Gary Page

Not necessarily, Linda, because generations inbetween had children at differing ages. ;-)

Yep :) We All Have Our Deep Family Roots, that should say something about Our DNA too lol.

Try Tiglath-Pileser I (king of Sumeria or somewhere). I knew a cat called this, once.

Mark

Maven, that's awesome...so close..:) I may share one Arundel with you 16th Grandmother Elizabeth Arundel 1465 but that's a long time ago. Lois, so funny, I never looked at Cleopatra, never thought she was on here, now I hear a Katy Perry song coming on, so true Alfred :) lol'
I looked at my tree again, the line to the York's is the thinnest and it only goes to Edmund Langley 16th Grandfather with too many surnames in between. The funny thing is my Nephew is a Doppleganger for Edward 2nd duke of Norwich, Edmund's son. Richard of Conisburgh. Richard and Edward are 18th Uncles exactly with their Sister Constance of York being my 15th Grandmother. How the hell does that happen? That' so messed up that not even History Link or Geni can figure it out. I need an expert to map out my tree and connections because once I finally figured out that that Edward and Philippa are my Grandparents six times and cousins too many times to mention that all their ancestors and descendants have turned into a big tangled web that I still haven't figured out. No one, and I mean no one should have 4 siblings as the same Grandparents and not so close together.

I'm not sure about Anne Arundel herself, but I'm related to a good half of Anne Arundel *County* in the old days....

As for bramble thickets, in just about seven or eight generations my Northampton/Accomack tree turns into an impenetrable snarl. I think I'm related to a few founders six or seven different ways. It's more than Geni can handle, and the paths tend to get very, very screwy.

Those pedigree collapses occur at the most interesting places. For you Maven, it is the Arundel's?

I'm not a fan of these old lines, as many of you know. If you have one of them, you have them all because they all channel through the same small group of people.

If you've got Edward III, then you have Odin, and Tiglath-Pileser and Thutmose III, and King David, and Cleopatra, and Zeus, and King Herod, and just about anyone you've ever heard of.

When these lines aren't actual fakes, they're just scholarly speculation along the lines of, "If he was his father's heir it's possible he was son of one of the primary wives so maybe his mother was X."

It's fun to think that these lines could be true, and fun to play with them, but my sincerest wish for Geni is that someday they will give curators the power to lock relationships. When that happens, I expect most of the curators will own up to the fakes and start cutting lines. Geni will lose some of its speculative color, but when we find interesting ancestors we'll be more confident there's real evidence.

I can't imagine why anyone would make a fake line. Seems so unprofessional not to mention nightmarish for curators. Things were simpler back then it seems. People had simple rules, they could make bold moves and live bold lives without a lot of resistance. They had a lot of problems and challenges like us but they were different ones. People are bogged down with a lot of stuff these days so it's fun to fantasize about and be a part of the past when it wasn't like that so much. Finding an ancestor that you can relate to and feel a part of might be a healthy thing because after all, it's just fantasy. It's some harmless fun like you say Justin so long as no one makes stuff up and gives curators a headache. Back then, you could probably send them to the castle for torture or something like that. So simple....lol

I am not a fan of these old line i follow them but do not add them to my tree if i cannot document a relative i do not put them in my tree unless the colour is all blue you are the best on geni Justin and so honest i appreciate all the hard work you do on Geni

I just want to join Judy Rice's words about Justin Swanström and his work on Geni.

I agree with Justin about the old lines of myths. They should be cut off and shown seperately for the lovers of myths.

There is a parallel discussion about whether "God Almighty" is a living or a deceased profile - I guess that most of the profiles connected to Richard III are also connected to God Almighty.
Is the "bible belt" trying to take over geni - or what?

I had been linked to so many faked lines - old Danish uploads - vikings, Irish and Scottish clans and it took me hours and years to realize the FAKES. I had paid quite some money and already entered a lot of data including the churchbook sources for my profiles - therefore it was not as easy to leave geni. It was just a disappointment about the people you had abused the tool; (no disappointment about the tool.)

And unfortunately, Judy, it is not possible to "not add somebody to your tree" - they add themselves by merges.
I know by now some of the narrow channels which are faked to connect to Mongols, Romans and even Chinese Emperors.
I do not want to use "geni" just as a fantasy product (in that case I would buy a strategy game from toysrus) - I have not been paying money to geni for old sagas. I know the sagas from Island and the 42 bible chapters about David and Salomon who were very small clan chiefs...these saga profiles do not have to be linked to my profiles.
I cannot remove them because so many profiles are linked to the few narrow "channels of fake" and - unfortunately these profiles are not handled properly. I just mention one terrible example: Johanne Andersdatter von Everstein / Stenbrikke.

Wanda, why don't you watch "game of thrones" ? so you could fantasize about old times with simple rules. I don't know if I had misunderstood your comment. Was it meant to be funny or something else ?- please explain.

Well, yesterday 12 people were killed in Paris by lunatics who were triggered and motivated by the torture which had been done in Abu-Ghraib - and still is done by the US government elsewhere in the world. So, please, do not mention torture. I have mentored several refugees from Syria during the last year.

If "geni" is just a "harmless fun" about fantasy lines, geni should let us know in their advertising: we like genealogy about hobbits, the clans of game of thrones and also - if you want - the bible and the Koran. If historical reality doesn't matter, if facts are replaced by fun and fantasy the users should be informed about it.
I got the impression that the posted article about the DNA of Richard III remains were not appreciated in this discussion and not even considered. There were all kinds of excuses not to read the article and - I guess - everybody likes to be grand.....grandson of Richard IIl?

Even the most professional Genealogist can make mistakes that were recorded many years ago, but that's what research is all about?
Be it fake and/or in error... sooner or later it gets adjusted out and the more solid information stands on it's own and supportive by it's accurate facts. :)

In "Current archaeology" February 2015, Issue 299, you find "Richard III: case closed?
You have different DNA for males and females. They found that up to day the matchline was broken. It was at least one false-paternity in the Family tree from Edward III via John of Gaunt.
There was a 16% chance of false-paternity in that Chain.
DNA is not so easy to use as it looks like i Geni.

I ask myself why certain people who want this site to
be genuine, don't even bother to put in places, years,
in so many profiles that they handle, is that serious?
If there is no data, I understand, but neglecting, no.

Gerhard, for real? You thought I was serious?

Are "coincidental" lineages any less important than yDNA or mtDNA relationships? Please recall that a "coincidental" relationship is a mxed gender lineage, such as father to daughter to daughter to son,etc.

It happens that I have a coincidental lineage to Brian Boru and a yDNA relationship to him. I cannot find a direct yDNA lineage to him from a list of son to father to father to father 25 times because records were burned in Ireland. Yet, there it is. However, I have a coincidental trail to him.

Old Brian Boru's line has been tested as R-L226. If you match the haplotype *and* have not more than three or four individual markers mismatching, then yep, you're probably a direct-line male descendant, whether or not you can ever find the paper trail.

Anything else, and you're probably "just" a coincidental descendant.