Does this count as Royalty? [closed]

+4 votes
339 views
Hello , Im Semi New to wiki tree still and the whole geneology thing. Anyways my question is. My 19th great grandmother is Elizabeth Woodville of york [ pretty sure she was a princess ] and all her kids are my first cousins. I have a distant relationship with Queen Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon of Windsor [ 10th cousin]  and Princess Diana is my 11th cousin. I have other ties as well that I will provide if needed. But my friends were joking around saying that makes me royalty in some form , so I decided to get advice on it from people here ,so does this make me a princess or something like that?

Thank you for taking the time to read that and to respond , best wishes on the rest of your day - Cheryl

[ heres the other wikitree ID's Bowes-lyon-5 , Spencer-40 ]

[ and my relationsip was found through the relationship finder on here if that helps]
WikiTree profile: Elizabeth York
closed with the note: Question has been awnsered
in Genealogy Help by Cheryl Lyons G2G Crew (890 points)
closed by Cheryl Lyons
That does not give you a title, not at all. A title is usually a birthright and since your NINETEEN TIMES great grandmother was royal, it does mean that you have royal blood.  The thing is that if you were to be given a title you would have to be in the range of 4th cousins. But it definitely doesn't make you a princess. In reality every white person with a speck of English blood is related to royalty. So don't think this is anything too special. ;)

4 Answers

+14 votes
 
Best answer
Before you can claim any relationship to these people you need to have a well sourced tree showing the step by step connection. I took a quick look at some of the people in your tree and think you still have some work to do on sourcing.

Being connected to someone 19 generations ago gives you no claim to royalty. Ancestors that far back can have thousands of descendants. Only those who were within a certain distance of the direct line would be be considered royal and have titles.
by Lynda Crackett G2G6 Pilot (630k points)
selected by Pip Sheppard
I think there is a rule that only the Queen’s immediate family can have that title, at least in Britain. Though often, I believe, and parents can opt out of any title for their children if they wish. Am I right?
Pip, Thanks for the best answer star. Yes, you are right that they can opt not to take the titles.
I'm a queen and I'm absolutely certain of it because that's what the label on my pantyhose says.
+8 votes
She wasn't a princess, she was Queen of England.  But she was a widow with kids when she married the king.  It's very unusual for kings of England to have stepchildren.

Not unprecedented - Eleanor of Aquitaine was a divorcee.  Her kids were French royalty.

But I don't think stepkids count as royalty generally.

It happens again soon, because Camilla has kids.  But I haven't heard of any plans to give them an HRH.
by Anonymous Horace G2G6 Pilot (568k points)
The Woodvilles claimed descent from the Reviers earls of Devon, hence their title, Earl Rivers, but I don't think the line has been made out.  There were mutterings at the time about Elizabeth not having enough class to be a Queen, but she had loads of continental ancestry on her mother's side, and a line back to Henry III through his daughter Beatrice.

It's also not unheard of for widowed Queens to remarry and have kids with a 2nd husband.  They keep the title of Queen, but their kids aren't royal.

Eg. Henry I's widow Alice of Louvain, and King John's widow Isabel of Angouleme.

In Scotland, David I's wife Maud of Huntingdon came with stepchildren, and James IV's widow Queen Margaret (Tudor) had a child by her 2nd husband Douglas.  And one by her 3rd according to this

http://www.thepeerage.com/p10143.htm#i101421

+3 votes
Unfortunately, no, you’d have no claim to anything and because the 14th century was quite a long time ago and Elizabeth Woodville was not born a Royal. Had she been a Princess, then you’d still have no claim because all these centuries later you are now too far removed from the ‘inner circle’ who are now titled, etc.

Further, given what we’ve discovered about Edward IV, biologically he wasn’t a Royal either, should never have sat on the throne, so neither were his kids to Woodville, Royal. And the whole succession after has been a lie.

However, we can’t change history........so all you have is ‘bragging’ rights basically, to the wife of a King, assuming you’ve a solid, credible trail showing the relationship.
by D A G2G5 (5.1k points)
edited by D A
+3 votes
No, I'm afraid you don't count as a prince/princess any more than me.  We belong to the junior, unimportant, and sometimes illegitimate lines that are generally ignored.

Still, it makes for cool genealogy research.
by J-M Mustchin G2G6 (8.6k points)

Related questions

+28 votes
8 answers
+2 votes
1 answer
+7 votes
1 answer
1.3k views asked Apr 1, 2019 in The Tree House by James LaLone G2G6 Mach 5 (57.9k points)
+15 votes
3 answers
295 views asked Jan 12, 2019 in The Tree House by Pip Sheppard G2G Astronaut (2.2m points)
+5 votes
0 answers
91 views asked Dec 17, 2017 in The Tree House by James LaLone G2G6 Mach 5 (57.9k points)
+11 votes
6 answers
+15 votes
1 answer
227 views asked Jul 22, 2017 in Policy and Style by Richard Shelley G2G6 Pilot (220k points)
+13 votes
6 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...