Category Archives: Columns

“Much Ado About Nothing?” – Pondering Richard III’s DNA

by The Laird o’Thistle
December 4, 2014

The announcement this week that DNA evidence has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the car-park bones from Leicester are those of Richard III is most welcome. But, it was the other news about Richard’s DNA that is garnering the headlines, mostly variations of, “DOUBT CAST ON ROYAL ANCESTRY!”

It appears that Richard III’s male-line descent from the Plantagenets has been disproven. Somewhere in the family line a husband was cuckolded by an adulterous wife (or, an infertile husband found a willing stand-in to father an heir for him). Speculation is rife as to the “who-what-when-where” this break in the royal line occurred. Most of the speculation, however, gets a failing grade in historical research!

A quick and simple look at Wikipedia (no less) indicates that there has been speculation, apparently since the fifteenth century, that the paternal grandfather of Edward IV and Richard III was illegitimate. He was known as Richard of Conisburgh (1375-1415). Richard of Conisburgh was ostensibly the son of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, the fourth son of King Edward III. (Edmund’s two elder brothers were Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, of whom more, anon.) Richard of Conisburgh’s mother was Isabella of Castile. His elder brother was Edward, the second Duke of York in the Plantagenet line. (Edward was the highest ranking English casualty at the battle of Agincourt, dying there in October 1415. He had no children.) Richard of Conisburgh married Anne Mortimer in 1408, and they had two surviving children, a son and a daughter. Their son, Richard (1411-1460), became the third Duke of York after the death of his uncle, and was the father of Edward IV and Richard III. In the summerof 1415 it was discovered that Richard of Conisburgh was part of a plot to assassinate King Henry V, and, after a hasty trial, Conisburgh was executed.

Questions about Richard of Conisburgh’s paternity have existed for years. He received no lands from his “father”, and was not even mentioned in Edmund’s will. It is believed that he may have been the offspring of an adulterous liaison between Isabella of Castile and John Holland, the first Duke of Exeter. Although passed over by his father, Conisburgh was favored by his mother who, in her will, appealed to King Richard II (Conisburgh’s godfather) to grant her son an annuity… which he did. This may be notable because, besides being Richard of Conisburgh’s godfather, Richard II was the maternal half-brother of John Holland. (Holland’s mother was Joan, the “Fair Maid of Kent”, a granddaughter of King Edward I. John Holland was a son of Joan’s first marriage. Her second marriage was to Edward III’s eldest son, Edward the “Black Prince” of Wales. Richard II was the offspring of that second marriage.) After the deposing of Richard II in 1399, Conisburgh “received no favors” from the Lancastrian Henry IV.

So much for Richard of Conisburgh. It seems likely to me that the new DNA discovery will eventually be found (if they can get evidence from the Holland family) to confirm the old speculation. What all the articles that I have seen thus far fail to take into account, however, is that the House of York’s primary claim to the throne – putting them ahead of the Lancastrians – was not based on their male-line descent from Edmund of Langley. It was based on their descent through Richard of Conisburgh’s wife, Anne Mortimer, who was the heiress of Edward II’s second son, Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence. The question of Richard III’s male-line descent… and that of Edward IV… is moot, so long as their father was their father, the son of Anne Mortimer.

Anne Mortimer (1390-1411) was the daughter and eventual heiress of Roger Mortimer, fourth Earl of March, and Eleanor Holland. (Eleanor was a grandniece of John Holland, above.) Roger Mortimer was, in turn the son and primary heir of Philippa of Clarence, the only child of Lionel of Antwerp. Roger Mortimer was widely, though not officially, recognized as the “heir presumptive” to the childless King Richard II. Mortimer, however, was slain in Ireland in 1398, and the family claim was shunted aside by Henry IV’s coup the following year. Mortimer’s elder surviving son and daughters were not well treated by the Lancastrians, and Anne Mortimer was the only one to have issue. Anne’s marriage to Richard of Conisburgh occurred without parental consent, but it was validated by the Pope in 1408. Anne died shortly after the birth of her son Richard, the eventual third Duke of York, in 1411.

Anne Mortimer was the key to the House of York’s claim to the throne, over against the Lancastrians. It was her claim that was being pressed in the Wars of the Roses. It was her claim that passed through her son to King’s Edward IV and Richard III. It was her claim that passed through Edward IV’s daughter, Elizabeth of York, to the Tudors with Elizabeth’s marriage to Henry VII. The question of the male-line descent of Edward IV and Richard III is moot… as is the question being asked by some about legitimacy in the Lancastrian line. While the English laws of succession… until the recent change prior to Prince George’s birth… practiced male primogeniture, they never excluded descent via the female line. England was never a land where the Salic Law (allowing only male-line descent) was recognized. (Ironically, Shakespeare includes a notable discussion of the Salic Law in his Henry V.)

It is fairly safe to assume, then, that despite the sensational headlines of the moment, there is no actual threat to the legitimacy of the British royal line, past or present, in this Richard III news. There may be a newly confirmed anomaly, but the legitimacy of the historic succession is not in question here.

Best wishes to all for a Merry Christmas, and a “Gude New Year” to ane and ‘a!

Yours aye,
Ken Cuthbertson

What To Do With Richard III?

by The Laird o’Thistle
August 17 2013

There has been a lot of royal re-burying going on in recent years. First there were the Romanovs in Russia, then just recently the Karadordevics in Serbia, and currently there is the planned reburial of Richard III in England… which has hit a slight snag. Within the last few day The Plantagenet Alliance, made up of some of the descendants of Richard III’s extended family (he himself having no issue who produced heirs), have won the right to ask Britain’s High Court to institute a judicial review of the plan to re-inter the remains of the last Plantagenet monarch in Leicester Cathedral. The Plantagenet Alliance prefers that the remains be interred instead at York Minster.

It all seems a bit surreal and absurd… as if some fifteenth- or twentieth-generation descendant of Richard III’s sister had any truly valid personal interest in what happened to Uncle Dickie’s poor old bones. But between two cathedrals, two towns, two tourist sites vying for a new attraction… aye, there’s the rub! So, as noted by Mr. Justice Haddon-Cave, who approved the appeal, the scene now shifts to the Temple in London where, ironically, John Beaufort of Lancaster and Richard Plantagenet of York supposedly began the conflict of the Wars of the Roses in 1455.

Sensibly, Mr. Justice Haddon-Cave also noted that the royal family, the state, and the church also need to be involved in deciding about the disposition of Richard III’s remains, not just the many-times-removed grandnieces and grandnephews of The Plantagenet Alliance. His recommendation is that there be an independent advisory group of experts and members of the Privy Council set up to decide the issue, and that is good, so far as it goes.

My own thought is that here, if ever or anywhere, a good case can be made for the direct intervention of the Queen. Elizabeth II is not only Richard III’s successor as Head of State, but she is also herself a many-times removed grandniece (being a sixteenth generation descendant of Elizabeth of York, a daughter of Edward IV and the wife of Henry VII). If Mr. Justice Haddon-Cave’s worthy advice is adopted, then let the independent commission be appointed to advise not some judicial or governmental entity, but the Sovereign. Then there can be no doubt that whatever decision is made is final, by “Command of the Queen!”

Personally, I think Richard III’s bones should rest, in honor, in Leicester. That is where they have been for five hundred and twenty-eight years already, and that accords with the understanding by which the archaeological dig was permitted in the first place, and with the archaeological “best practice” of reinterring human remains close by where they were discovered. Plans have been made for the creation of a dignified raised tomb in an appropriate setting within Leicester Cathedral. That surely suffices.

Once the decision is finally and truly made, the reburial can proceed in a timely fashion. It is providential that the hereditary Earl Marshal of England (the Duke of Norfolk), who oversees royal funerals among other things, happens to be a Roman Catholic. For it does seem fitting that representatives of that faith should be involved in the rites accompanying the entombment of a king who lived and died more than a generation before the Reformation, and whose first burial was within the precincts of a house of the Greyfriars (Franciscans). On the Anglican side, perhaps the Archbishop of York might diplomatically join the Bishop of Leicester in dedicating the new tomb.

It would also seem appropriate, on the “state” side of the occasion, for the current Prince Richard, HRH the Duke of Gloucester, to be involved in the ceremonies for the previous Richard, Duke of Gloucester. He would be the ideal person to be the Queen’s personal representative on the day. That, plus a few heralds from the College of Arms, and a berobed Knight of the Garter or two would be just enough to lend appropriate dignity without being too far “over the top.”

Such is what I would do with what is left of Richard III, were I in charge. I’m not, of course. Whatever unfolds, however, my most sincere hope is that the enthusiasts will not manage to usurp the occasion. Richard III is long since dead, and his poor bones should be allowed to rest again in peace.

Yours Aye,
Ken Cuthbertson

P.S. Following up on last month’s column, I was gratified to have gotten at least one of wee Prince George’s names right. On the other two names, the choice of Louis is not a huge surprise, as a nod to the Mountbatten lineage. Alexander, however, is a very interesting choice. Some have suggested that it is a nod to the Queen, whose second name (of three) is Alexandra. Perhaps. The only current Alexander in the extended royal family is the Duke of Gloucester’s son, the Earl of Ulster. The Gloucesters were neighbors to the Wales family at Kensington Palace when William was young, and Prince William is said to have been named in honor of the current Duke’s elder brother who died in an air crash. So perhaps there is a tie. It will be interesting to see if Alexander, Earl of Ulster, shows up among the godparents at the christening.

What’s in a Name?

by The Laird o’ Thistle
July 05 2013

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s baby is due any time now. We will soon know its gender, but it will probably be a while until we know the child’s name. The British royals have a tradition of keeping the names of their newborns to themselves for a while after the child is born. That, however, is not curbing the speculation.

Whatever its gender, this child is set to become monarch someday… if the British Crown survives and Great Britain is not swamped by rising sea levels. So, whatever name is chosen will have to be deemed suitable.

Except for Princess Anne’s family, the Windsors have always been a fairly conservative lot in such matters. Although a monarch can traditionally choose their regnal name from any of their baptismal names, the fact that there is so much lifelong media coverage nowadays makes it unlikely that a future monarch will choose anything other than her or his first name. Thus we seem destined for a Charles III, a William V, and a…? The Windsors also tend to draw on old family names, but not on names too closely associated with any other current member of the family, at least not on anyone too close to the throne or too young.

Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales, chose very solid royal names for their two sons:

William Arthur Philip Louis
Henry Charles Albert David

The Duchess’s parents were also extremely traditional in the naming of their three children:

Catherine Elizabeth Middleton
Philippa Charlotte Middleton
James William Middleton

Then there are the grandparents:

Charles Philip Arthur George
Diana Frances
Michael Francis Middleton
Carole Elizabeth (Goldsmith) Middleton

And, finally, there is a certain pair of great-grandparents:

Elizabeth Alexandra Mary
Philip

There are, of course, numerous additional options, particularly if William and Catherine opt to delve back into the Victorians as Prince Andrew and Sarah, Duchess of York, did for their daughters.

If I were to guess, and that is all that this essay is, I would bet that if it is a girl the name of the new little princess will include the names Catherine, Elizabeth, and Diana. But I would also guess that none of those will be the child’s first name. I rather think that H.M. might prefer that her name not be first. Diana would be possible, but it might also be viewed as a somewhat awkward choice in relation to William’s father. There have been several Queen Catherines as consorts over the centuries (Woodville, Aragon, Howard, Braganza), but the name has not been a very lucky one, historically speaking.

Other options? Victoria would be good, but that is the name of the current Crown Princess of Sweden. The possibility of two Queen Victorias overlapping in different countries might be off-putting. I am intrigued by the idea of Charlotte. George III’s consort was Queen Charlotte. Charlotte is the feminine form of Charles. Philippa Middleton’s middle name is Charlotte. That said, there is also the unfortunate history of George IV’s daughter Charlotte, heiress to the throne, who died in childbirth in 1817. Sophia is a rather trendy name that would, at the same time hearken back to Sophia of Hanover, the mother of George I, who did not inherit because her cousin, Queen Anne, outlived her by only a few weeks. One last, but to my mind perhaps best option, is Alexandra. It is one of H.M.’s names, bestowed on her in memory of her great-grandmother Queen Alexandra (wife of Edward VII). True, it is also the name of H.M.’s cousin, Princess Alexandra. But as she is now apparently withdrawing from active royal life for health reasons, and is quite far down the line of succession, I doubt it would not seem a conflict.

My guess, then, for a girl’s name:

Alexandra Catherine Diana Elizabeth

The name for a boy is equally puzzling. Once again I think it likely that the names William, Charles, and Philip will be included. But, again, I somewhat doubt that any of those names will be primary. Michael may be included in honor of Michael Middleton, but also not as a first name. Other names, then? Edward is taken, by the Earl of Wessex. This Scot would love to see another King James, but wee Jamie Wessex (Edward’s son) has that name currently in use. David would please both the Welsh (St. David) and the Scots (two kings by that name), but it is rather too politically biblical. Arthur would be too mythically daunting. Albert would be an interesting choice, a nod to both the Prince Consort (Victoria’s husband) and to the Queen’s father, “Bertie” (George VI). My wager, however, is that they may simply opt for good old George.

My guess for a boy’s name is thus:

George William Philip Michael Charles

All of this, of course, is offered in speculative good fun. In a couple of months we will know the child’s name. I the meantime I pray for a safe delivery and good health for mother and child, and for the continued recovery and well-being of Prince Philip.

Yours Aye,
Ken Cuthbertson

Be sure to check out all of the Laird o’Thistle’s other columns here…

A British Abdication?

by The Laird o’Thistle
May 05 2013

After a hiatus of nearly a year I am back to Unofficial Royalty, probably more as an “occasional” columnist henceforth than as a regular monthly contributor. But, for the moment, here I be.

The reason I disappeared for so long was that, after eight years of monthly columns, I really felt I had run out of worthwhile things to say, and I was finding no new topics of sufficient interest to me to delve into the rather arcane research involved. But then, this week, along came the abdication of Queen Beatrix, and the investiture of King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands….

At lunch with friends on the first of May, I heard a table of older men talking of the Dutch transition, and one of them said: “Prince Charles was surely looking glum! The old lady just keeps hanging in there.” And, suddenly, there was my topic: “What if” Queen Elizabeth II were, after all these many years, to suddenly change her mind about abdicating the throne and handing it over to the Prince of Wales? At this point I do not really expect that to happen; but, “What if…?”

The thing that most impressed me in the transition from Queen Beatrix to King Willem-Alexander was the affection and esteem that flowed between them. The words each spoke of the other on the palace balcony, and the looks exchanged between them, were priceless. The photo shots of the now Princess Beatrix matriarchal brooding and beaming over her young granddaughters during the investiture ceremony were heartwarming. There was no death, no funeral, no shadow of grief over a late Majesty “of happy memory” such as has long haunted Elizabeth II’s accession anniversary. It was simply a proud mother handing over the helm to her son, and stepping gracefully back into a well-earned retirement.

So, what if Queen Elizabeth were to follow suit? How might it be conceivable?

What I have noticed over the last few years is how Her Majesty’s age is showing more and more. She seems smaller, and more round-shouldered. She moves and treds more carefully, and concentrates more intently. At times she looks more weary. All, even as she soldiers faithfully on. She does not seem to have quite the zest and energy of her mother at the same age. (Nor did her mother carry anything like a comparable workload.)

Most men taking Zenegra medicine are able purchase generic viagra icks.org to treat ED and impotence. Even icks.org levitra 60 mg sometimes due to ED, marriages are also affected. With this medication, men can http://www.icks.org/data/ijks/1482460671_add_file_8.pdf generico viagra on line get complete recovery from this condition. However, according to the studies people consuming overdose buy generic levitra get the risk of severe side-effects.

Nothing short of a catastrophe – either the total failure of her own health, or the death of Prince Philip – would, I suspect, cause H.M. to even consider stepping aside before the end of 2017. I choose that date for several reasons. 2015 will mark three major milestones. In May and August of that year the world will mark the 70th anniversaries of the end of World War II, first in Europe and then in the Pacific. The Queen and Prince Philip will, as able, want to be deeply involved in those commemorations. And then in September of that year H.M. will surpass Queen Victoria to become the longest reigning British monarch, ever. In 2016 the Queen will turn 90, and Prince Philip will be 95. 2017 then brings the 65th anniversary of the Queen’s accession, and marks another very significant historical anniversary… the centenary of the House of Windsor on July 17. In 1917 the longterm survival of any monarchy seemed “iffy” at best. Yet the House of Windsor has not just survived, but flourished. As just the fourth monarch, and as only the third generation, of this dynasty, it must be in the Queen’s mind to preside, if possible, over that celebration.

November of 2017 will also see the 70th wedding anniversary of Elizabeth and Philip. Barring unforeseen circumstances it could be an ideal time, right after that, for the “old lady” and her beloved spouse to finally step back, performing in the process yet another great precedent-setting act of service in modernizing the British monarchy. (Charles might also appreciate becoming King before he turns 70!)

Is it conceivable? Contrary to popular opinion I think it might be. Above and beyond anything else, Queen Elizabeth II may be counted on to “serve” the British Crown. That was her pledge at age twenty-one, and her guiding principle over the sixty-one years of her reign thus far. If it were to become clear that what best served the Crown was for her to stand down, she would. The recent example of Pope Benedict XVI points the way, perhaps even better than the Dutch transition, as the Supreme Pontiff of Rome chose act upon his own realization that age and health were preventing him from doing the job as it needs to be done. So he flew off in a helicopter to Castle Gandolfo, to walk in the garden and play the piano.

Do I want the Queen to abdicate? I never thought I would say that I did. But I am beginning to think that it might be a good thing, for her and for all. She absolutely should stay the course until she passes Queen Victoria, for that achievement is just too close now to consider anything else. But then I hope that she will give herself the freedom to consider the possibility… the opportunity. Perhaps some day, before long, she and her friend Princess Beatrix really ought to sit down and have a good chat about it. Eh?

Yours Aye,

Ken Cuthbertson