Children from Royal lineage?

Question

What is being done about connecting children born from affairs which some of the Kings were known to have had?

I've noticed a few strange statements on various boards, concerning "commoners" (not being documented), though it is documented (and disputed, due to classism and tensions from the 'legitimate' lines). The fact remains that there very definitely (like it, or not) many children born of the philandering of the Royals... Being labeled 'illegitimate' doesn't change their genealogy. So, what is being done with those profiles (besides arguing, and trying to unlink their ancestry)? Are projects on WikiTree trying to assist these children of, or dismiss them (not sure, from what I've seen here).

Likewise curious about the use of only one (main) source in a lot of the Royals profiles (which seems to be 'Douglas Richardson'). Why are there not several (even if they all dispute each other) sources for cross comparison and leads to further investigation? It's always best practices to have more than one source to back up information.

Comments

I would like HELP with this... Please
My biological Grandmother and her sister Tommy Lou are children from a LEGAL MARRIAGE OF ROYALTY BLOODLINE.. My Great Grandmother divorced unknowing or knowing Jack Mclauren Royal Bloodline.. Not sure 100% on if she knew..  I DOUBT IT ...
My Mother is still living as her 2 Brothers

---

I was doing research at LDS I HAVE DIRECT LINEAGE LINKS DOCUMENTED WITH PICTURES 1200 + B.C.
WHAT TYPES OF TESTING AS COLLABORATING EVIDENCE IS NEEDED TO EASE MINDS ????? I'M OPEN BUT CAUTIOUS
FLORIDA UNITED STATES

---

These direct links are through my Great Grandfather Jack B. Mclauren my Biological Grandmother Jacqueline Mclauren BIOLOGICAL FATHER ROYAL BLOODLINE
THANK YOU

---

Audrey, I think that's fantastic! I think the best way to go about it is to include that information in profiles that you make. Cite the source  so that people can easily find the information (if possible). It seems there are some people within the groups that are upset that there are (many) others with 'royal' heritage.. Perhaps in their fervor they forgot that many families like knowing their history- and that history does happen to be a royal lineage.

I think the best way to handle those naysayers is to make the best possible profile that you can.

---

Royal ancestry is more common than most people suppose. But be sure to avoid using online family trees, including those on Ancestry as sources, as there is a lot of misinformation in them (also, when you click on those links you rarely get any information as to when or where critical events took place).

Look for baptisms, marriages, census entries, etc. and use those to clearly corroborate the lines, step by step until you can link up to the main tree at a place that is solidly established. The forum here is really helpful if you run into ambiguous data.

---

I AGREE...and appreciate your guiding

---

I appreciate your kindness and guidance thank you

---

I will help you with what ever I can. I know when I get to the branches in my tree where I list William The Conqueror as my ancestor, I am sure people are going to choke and spit when I try to prove that I am one of many descendants that came from a illegitimate child born from a affair the King had with one of the Queens ladies in waiting.

They may be Kings, but with male human hormones screaming and temptations being right in their face all the time, one could easily slip away for a trist, or an affair giving way to the unexpected expected. 

 

Answer 1

Douglas Richardson is a well-respected genealogist with 40 years of experience who holds a Masters in history and understands medieval Latin. That's likely why you see his work cited so often. There's so much junk genealogy concerning royal forebearers, if we didn't have the pre-1500 certifications, we'd have 20 new "daughters of William the Conqueror" a week, and 50 new "daughters of Charlemagne" a week!

Comments

That seems a bit odd, not to allow other scholars, researchers, and academics, a place in there. Using only one person, regardless of his background, is still not good sourcing. Though he may have his views and he may spot things, there should be room for discussion from other people in the fields (since, again, he is not the only one). It also helps to have a variety of pre-1500 researchers who can quote various (different) sources. That would seem to be more of a tight ship, rather than information coming from one place alone. Though, much of Royal ancestry was sort of done that way as well; those, whom they hired, writing up documents for them.

It's an interesting thing, observing that people are noticing that history is not as clear cut as has been previously supposed. Though many historians have tried to do their best to address the many (not overly announced) children springing from Royal lineages.

---

There's no rule that only Douglas Richardson's research should be used, however, if you cite someone else's research, you should do your best to find someone who knows their stuff. I'm not sure if you've mistakenly got the impression that Douglas Richardson is trying to "whitewash" history by not including illegitimate children. On the contrary, he's diligently combed through contemporary records and found quite a number of illegitimate children, such as Sir David Owen (illegitimate uncle of King Henry VII of England) and James Stewart, canon of Glasgow, an illegitimate son of King Robert II of Scotland.

---

I would echo Jessica in stating that other researchers, academics etc are just as valuable as sources for profiles on WikiTree.  Personally I think they can be preferable, given that Richardson in his printed works doesn't offer inline citations.

The Gen Medieval list which is now has a version on Google Groups is a good place to find some of his original research where he will cite his sources, and also other researchers who will often offer other sources to confirm or deny his arguments.  Good for finding other sources to investigate as well.

---

Jessica,

No, I don't think Douglas Richardson is trying to whitewash history. I was questioning why (some) people are disconnecting lines when profiles disagree with one source. I also noticed that there seems to be people who are (strangely) upset when there are profiles linked to royal ancestry. I think we need to watch those (carefully) when there are mass disconnections. It's important for people to know their family history (and, it teaches them, and gets them interested- most times).

I can see the issue with all the mountains of Gedcoms (and profiles with paid - ancestry.com - links, and no real information), and I know the frustration in trying to keep up with them- and find sources for them (as well as the many abandoned profiles).

As far as "20 new daughters a week (Charlemagne)"... Yeah, that is an unfortunate part of history (philandering = many, many, offspring).

I think, though it's good to use (seemingly) solid sources ('people who know their stuff'), there is also a danger in that method. The danger being that those sources may have been so heavily invested in what they were taught that they miss (sometimes obvious) mistakes, or information which doesn't add up. New sets of eyes can do wonders.

I think we all have frustrations in dealing with sources because they can be quite tangled, and (sometimes) misleading.. History was not written with pure, untainted, truthful accuracy. And we have had a lot of wars, threats, and various other obstacles (thanks to royal bickering) which has made what-should-be-enjoyable genealogy research (for example) an exercise in patience...

---

Dear Private Gervais,

Be assured that the European Aristocrats Project doesn't rely solely on the works of Douglas Richardson.  We welcome other reliable sources.  Many of the profiles in the EuroAristo project were created back when gedcoms could be uploaded and anyone and everyone could add whoever they wanted with absolutely no legitimate sources.  Slowly and surely, a very small group of researchers is going through profiles and trying to add one good source.  If you were experienced with medieval genealogy research, you would be aware of Douglas Richardson and his books.  If you are interested in researching and locating other good sources for any of the profiles, we encourage you to do so.  While you may not be pre-1500 certified, you still can leave a comment on the profile page for the PM.  I know a couple people that assist in this way.

If you look at numerous of the HSA (historically significant ancestor) profiles, you will note that numerous illegitimate children are listed.  Wikitree strives for accuracy.  Our aim is to have a list of all offspring of each person, regardless of whether they were legitimate or illegitimate.

Darlene - Co-Leader, European Aristocrats Project

---

You are correct in one aspect- being that I was not aware of Douglas Richardson. Though I have taken time to investigate why this name keeps coming up (with much tension, argument, and passion)... I am, however, versed in medieval history, albeit not from the Richardson books. This is an issue which points a good reason for questions. Simply telling people that Douglas Richardson holds such and such titles doesn't mean much. It would be up to the people to look into him, and into other sources. And, probably the best advice is to understand that no one is above mistakes (which is why it's really good to have sources which may not be 'professionally' invested, because that heavy investment could affect good information).

History can be tricky, surely anyone with medieval history (or simple observation) can see that. I can certainly appreciate the challenges. As far as 'legitimate' sources... that is tricky, especially when one culture deems something legitimate whilst ignoring another culture (who operate differently). A good example being First Peoples tradition (which was deeply honored) of 'Oral history'- adversely, the colonists deemed those histories 'illegitimate'... thereby losing (and causing a whole group to lose) much valued knowledge (because the colonists were illiterate in First Peoples language, and the colonists lacked First Peoples education).

It's tricky.

As far as Richardson, is this who you are referring to? http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers

---

Yes that's him. He gets criticized a lot an makes mistakes. But for the subject of tracing gateway ancestries the quality and volume of his work is very useful.

...And recent. Douglas keeps up to date with most online updates in discussions on soc.genealogy.medieval and has printed updated books every few years.

Remember that no one is arguing that we should ONLY use him (except in the special case of the Magna Carta project's certification, which is based on the idea of checking lines against him) so that is a bit of a "straw man". A valid question is why he is used so much, and the answer because his books are useful and recently published.

---

That is so true, and so wrong for people to be so narrow minded with tunnel vision.  No disrespect, but yes there are many excellent historians besides a few mentioned who have their own theories and possibly truths to be told.  I am a descendant of The House Of Stuart like so many others are, and even though I have been shown who, when, and where, it doesn’t really matter to me to prove it to people, because it doesn’t change anything.  This story is told from my Stuart Family from Scotland, and that is why I haven’t gone any farther than my Great Great Great Grandmother Sarah Stuart, yet.

I love genealogy so much, because it is better to read history when some how the readers are connected to the stories.

---

Magna Carta project doesn't only cite Richardson. I posted on a profile today (yesterday?) the following:

Note - Magna Carta project policy states:

"Magna Carta Ancestry and Royal Ancestry by Douglas Richardson are the foundational sources for the Magna Carta Project. Where there is a conflict regarding the facts on a profile, we follow Richardson, unless there is more recent published research that adds to or corrects his work." (this presumes the conflict is among secondary, not primary, sources. ~ Liz Shifflett, Magna Carta project co-leader, 2018)

---

​Keeping Sources updated and documented is the primary goal of every great historical factual Story.  I have seen people use outdated sources that could undermine hours upon hours of new sourced data that should have been kept current with the flow of information so easily past between people these days due to the internet. Old sources questioning parentage and family tree connections should be removed after the new correct updated information ties everything together. Common sense really goes a long way when we genealogists fill in the gapping holes left unfilled because of sources not etched out in granite. Misspelled surnames and incorrect dates can halt a growing tree to one that might become stale, and stop growing.

Just a thought

 

Answer 2

The Magna Carta project page addresses the reason for citing Richardson. I believe it says he has published the fewest errors in his research.

Answer 3

Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry book exists mainly to deal with the gateway descents from

- Hamelin, bastard of Geoffrey of Anjou

- William Longespee, bastard of Henry II

- 3 accepted bastards of King John

- 3 accepted bastards of his legitimate younger son Richard Earl of Cornwall

Without those lines, the book would just be Henry III Ancestry and would add almost nothing to the Magna Carta lines.

Many descents are also traced from William the Lion through his illegitimate daughter Isabel.

Richardson's Royal Ancestry book also deals with the bastards of Henry I, but this doesn't add as much as you might expect.

The Stewart kings had loads of bastards, and many 18th century colonial immigrants descend from them.  This isn't a well-studied area.  The lack of Visitations, county histories and Bartrums means there's no easy introduction to Scottish gentry genealogy below peerage level.

Presumably we've got all the bastards of Charles II, William IV etc.

Comments

Perhaps a little tact could be used in calling someone a 'bastard'. Yes, people long ago used that malicious term, however, we have (living) descendants (today) who deserve better language about their ancestors. Words such as 'bastard', and 'illegitimate' were used to tack shame onto the children which sprang from the activities of the royals (as well it did with some non royal folk as well). Words (such as those) used to 'disgrace' (and shame) children, and keep them (or their family) from help. Though, I would point out that people can note where the real disgrace rested- and it was not on the children of the philanderers ;)

I think it's time to start being respectful about the language (used today) about those children which came from the long list of royal affairs.

---

Your understanding appears to be based on a rather modern interpretation of the term. Antoine de Bourgogne, Le grand bâtard for his contemporaries, was comte de La Roche (Ardenne), de Grandpré, de Sainte-Menehould et de Guînes, seigneur de Crèvecoeur, Beveren et Tournehem, he was chevalier of the Golden Fleece and had the Order of Saint Michael bestowed on him. Not exactly the shaming your comment suggests.

---

Perhaps what is needed is more information for modern readers, not less. I don't think we help anyone by deciding to dumb down anything.

In other words I agree with Helmut. I think the old meanings of words are not too difficult for modern people to understand if we write well enough. This is especially true in the context of trying to explain genealogy or indeed medieval people, to readers actually interested in learning about those subjects.

---

""The bastards", as they were called, were compared to mules, unnatural hybrids who should not reproduce. "No issue should come of such species," the king once said. Louis, nonetheless, found appropriate spouses for his bastards.

As bastards were considered impure, their mothers might attempt to purify them through pious behavior.". From Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Jean-François Fitou, Saint-Simon and the court of Louis XIV,  page. 106

"

(From Wikipedia): 

"Charles II

Charles II fathered at least 20 illegitimate children, of whom he acknowledged 14. The most famous of these was James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, his son by Lucy Walter. After Charles' death, Monmouth led a rebellion against his uncle James II.

When Nell Gwynn brought her first child to Charles, she told it, 'Come hither you little Bastard and speak to your father!'.

"Nay, Nellie, do not call the child such a name", said the king. "Your Majesty has given me no other name by which I may call him.""

 

Obviously I could go into other examples where those terms ('bastard' and 'illegitimate') were used to inflict a societal (and royal) view of the children (certainly not in a kind way). 'Dumbing down' also smacks of an arrogance, which is meant to make the receiver feel somehow less. Language is important. 

---

Yes, but these are modern examples, not medieval. Each period had a different approach on this question, and of course it mattered who the parents were.

---

I agree, in medieval times, legitimacy may have mattered in matters of inheritance, but in other matters, the bloodline counted more.

There's a very well respected Devonshire/Cornish family who have proudly used the surname Bastard for hundreds of years, tracing their descent from Robert the Bastard, an illegitimate companion of William the Conqueror. Only in the last few generations have people been changing it. William himself, of course, bore the same epithet. There may have been opprobrium there, but it seems to have been surmountable :)

---

---

My Great Great Grandmother is one of the Scottish Stuart descendants you are referring to as bastards, but she is directly related to James I

Answer 4

1. I would say trying to find lines from illegitimate children is one of the biggest projects for a lot of genealogists interested in royals. I don't know why you'd think it was neglected. I think the real royals are often poorly written up. But it is a difficult subject because there are a lot of debatable cases.

2. I also don't think anyone is arguing that we should only use Richardson. Richardson is handy, but no source on such subjects is perfect. Thinking about what you might be seeing:

*I think the main reason you'll find lots of articles with only 1 source is that there are even more articles which should exist but don't or which have no source at all. In other words there is a lot of work to do, and so it is just logical that there are more articles with one source than with multiple.

*Why would that one source often be Richardson? Simply because his books are convenient. If Richardson's books did not exist then we would just have less articles and less sources in articles and more mistakes. People would constantly be trying to use all the wrong and conflicting information from other websites.

Answer 5

I think the specific answer to "what is being done?" is -- exactly the same thing as is being done with respect to all other profiles and connections between profiles on WikiTree -- that is, painstaking work to add the best currently available research to the profiles that are on WikiTree, which often were uploaded from GEDCOMS without adequate sourcing.

This means adding profiles and connections when we have good documentation that the people are real and the relationships are real.  It also means disconnecting people when there is no adequate reason to believe that a relationship exists.  

There are many illegitimate relationships documented on WikiTree.  They are also often harder to document because at the time people may have been hiding the relationship.

There are also many "hangers on" currently on WikiTree, where people hopeful of a glamorous ancestry have added relationships which can't be adequately documented.  When such false relationships are discovered, they are being disconnected.  

Where there is controversy, there is a place to document it in the profile under ==Research Notes==.

Answer 6

Because there is so much "garbage genealogy" out there, and so much got attached to WikiTree in its early days, de-linking children who never belonged in a family is a necessary task.  

But like everything else on WikiTree, it needs to be done with caution and collaboration.

Generally, if I am working on a profile, I will add a section on ===Children=== which identifies all the children of the person being profiled which have some kind of credible documentation.  Then I'll look at the children that are actually linked on WikiTree.  If I find some children linked for whom there is no credible documentation, I'll add another section, something like ===Linked Children with No Sources===  and identify such children below.  

This doesn't change anything, but it gives an immediate flag:  if you're researching and depending on these links, this is a weak link.  If you have an attachment to this child being part of this family, it's time to do some research and get them into the documented group!  And ultimately, if no new information is found, the link between this child and this family may be broken.