Archaeologica.org

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... -confirmed

Archaeologists announced today that they have located not just the site of the Battle of Bosworth, but the spot where – on 22 August 1485 – Richard III became the last English king to die in battle when he was cut down by Tudor swords.

Nearby Henry Tudor was crowned Henry VII, with the crown which had tumbled from the dying Richard's head.

The crucial evidence, including badges of the supporters of both kings, sword mounts, coins and 28 cannonballs, was found in fields straddling Fen Lane in the Leicestershire parish of Upton, where no historian had looked before.

I agree, great work. I've always wondered What If Richard had prevailed and the Tudor's had not come to power?

Ah....would England still be Catholic?

Donna wrote:I agree, great work. I've always wondered What If Richard had prevailed and the Tudor's had not come to power?

YOU CAN'T TELL THE PLAYERS WITHOUT A SCORECARD
OR
An Extremely Brief History of the Wars of the Roses

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/vineyard.html




And... It would appear that descendents of the Tudors still occupy the throne of England.

http://www.genealogymagazine.com/boleyn.html
http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/the-la ... -ancestors

circumspice wrote: It would appear that descendents of the Tudors still occupy the throne of England.

That's the whole point of a hereditary, a.k.a. dynastic, monarchy, circumspice...

I thought all European royalty was pretty much related to one another after centuries of political marriages.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

circumspice wrote: It would appear that descendents of the Tudors still occupy the throne of England.

That's the whole point of a hereditary, a.k.a. dynastic, monarchy, circumspice...

The Tudor line supposedly went extinct with the death of Elizabeth 1st. Her only acknowledged illegitimate sibling, Henry Fitzroy, predeceased her. He died without issue. The two Carey children of Henry VIII's were unacknowledged, but generally known to be Henry VIII's offspring. They were quite prolific.

Margaret Tudor, Henry VII's eldest daughter, was married to the King of Scotland early in Henry's reign. When Elizabeth died James VI of Scotland was the nearest blood relative.... a relationship which I would not even try to sort out but good enough for the age.

Minimalist wrote:Margaret Tudor, Henry VII's eldest daughter, was married to the King of Scotland early in Henry's reign. When Elizabeth died James VI of Scotland was the nearest blood relative.... a relationship which I would not even try to sort out but good enough for the age.

Oops! (smack forehead) I forgot about Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth's cousin. Mary's son became Elizabeth's heir, being crowned as James Ist when he took the throne of England.

James IV Stuart married Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII. Their son, James V Stuart, sired Mary Queen of Scots. Mary married her 2nd cousin Henry Stuart and James VI Stuart King of Scotland/James I Stuart King of England was their son.


In total, nine Stuart monarchs ruled just Scotland from 1371 until 1603. After this there was a Union of the Crowns under James VI & I who had become the senior genealogical claimant to all of the holdings of the extinct House of Tudor. Thus there were six Stuart monarchs who ruled both England and Scotland as well as Ireland (although the Stuart era was interrupted by an interregnum lasting from 1649-1660, as a result of the English Civil War). Additionally at the foundation of the Kingdom of Great Britain after the Acts of Union, which politically united England and Scotland, the first monarch was Anne of Great Britain. However, she died without issue and all the holdings passed to the House of Hanover, under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701.

There is a somewhat tortured blood link from James I to George I, also.

Minimalist wrote:There is a somewhat tortured blood link from James I to George I, also.

Ouch! I bet it is. As you stated in a previous post, all European royalty are pretty much related due to political marriages.

I shudder to even consider the descendents of Queen Victoria and the resulting medical problems due to consanguinity...

the resulting medical problems due to consanguinity...

Eh? Albert's family suffered from Haemophlia B, but there was no more consanguity than in any of Europe's upper classes as Europe's royals were 10 a penny.
Our present royals are healthy enough.

Roy.

I shudder to even consider the descendents of Queen Victoria and the resulting medical problems due to consanguinity...

Very largely a bugbear of fairly recent manufacture, CS. The Pharaohs of Egypt married their sisters for hundreds of years with no ill effects. As did the Inca royal stratum. And the Ptolmaic Greeks weren't far behind them. Sometimes it seems the Herodians never even bothered with the marriage aspect. There are a lot of fables around sexuality that history shows to be falsehoods; that consanguinity necessarily results in less fit offspring is one of them. If the stock's sound to begin with, up to a point, inbreeding just produces more of it. Many of the Rabbinical genealogies have been an unbroken string of first-cousin unions from time out of mind.

Sounds like a East Tennessee family reunion.

Forensic crime scene investigators are really up against it there. Dental records are useless (nobody has any teeth left by age 25), and all the DNA is essentially identical

(Just kidding)