Where does the Plantagenet come from in the hyhpenate line? Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd ed, Vol2(?) might have it?

+2 votes
Some sources start the addition with his generation, but the connection is opaque to me.
asked in Genealogy Help by Fann Fann G2G6 Mach 2 (23k points)
Why is their son called Plantagenet?  It's only a middle name.  They called him that because they were snobs.

This is after 1800, so you have to go back 3 or 4 centuries to find any actual Plantagenets.  But apparently they were descended from Katherine Grey, sister of Lady Jane Grey, the 9-day Queen.  Her mother was a Brandon, daughter of Henry VIII's sister Mary Tudor, daughter of Elizabeth of York, the heiress of the Plantagenet dynasty.

Well, technically (so far as the English throne & later that of the UK is concerned), there were no Yorks, only Plantagenets.  There were no Lancasters, only Plantagenets.  There were no Tudors, only Plantagenets.  There were no Stuarts, only Plantagenets.  There were no Orange-Stuarts, only Plantagenets.  There were no Hanovers, only Plantagenets. There were no Saxe-Coburg&Gothans only Plantagenets.  There are no Windsors, only Plantagenets.  So, technically, every person with their claim to royal line-linkage is a Plantagenet!  cheeky

We all have our snobberies!

LOL . . . that is incredible!
Hi Melanie I am not sure that there is really any such "technical" definition as the ones you mention. So all we can do is talk about how terms were used in different periods.

But at least with the word Plantagenet I think it has been used fairly consistently for a long time to refer to only one male line, the one which was originally the male line of the counts of Anjou, and which covers the kinds from Henry II until Richard III. The Tudors, Stewarts, Hannovers, and Windsors (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) etc are not in that line, although they were successors and claimants to be heirs (just as the Plantagenets took over as heirs of the previous Norman dynasty)

A simple chart can help show the male lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_English_and_British_monarchs

Lancaster and York were the names of political factions, but from a family point of view they can be see as names for two branches (or groups of branches) of the Plantagenet family.

If one digs around in the chart, this Richard is "closer*" to the House of York and House of Tudor than the House of Plantagenet, acknowledging that "Plantagenet" was antecedent to both:

Dame Elizabeth Woodville-Grey = married secondly Edward IV (York

Firstly = Sir John Grey of Groby

Their son, Thomas Grey KG 1st Marquess of Dorset = Cecily Bonville

Their son, Hon Thomas Grey KG KB PC 2nd Marquess = Margaret Wotton of Kent-Boughton Malherbe

Their son, Henry Grey 3rd Marquess of Dorset = Lady Frances Brandon Duchess of Suffolk

Their daughter (2 of 3+), Lady Katherine Grey Lady Herbert Countess of Hertford was Richard's ancestor

However; their daughter (1 of 3+) and Katherine's sister, Lady Jane Grey Nine Days Queen, House of Tudor

Of course, part of this "analysis" presumes that *Royal Blood flows back in time. 

Perhaps another House of Plantagenet connection exists?

If Lady Jane Grey had lasted longer, we'd have to say she was the 1st and last of the House of Grey.

But 10 days is the minimum for a dynasty.
Fann Fann I can't really follow you well but I think it comes down to saying all the male line dynasties in the royal family are still blood relatives to each other? Of course they are also relatives to a lot of other people though, so I am not sure what the point is. Keeping it simple:

1. Dynastic names like Plantagenet tend to be used for male lines, at least in western European medieval countries.

2. Royal families are bigger than patrilineal dynasties normally, because each new line claims to be a rightful heir to an older one, in order to make their claim appears as legitimate as possible.

3. In effect the upper nobility of England was also one big family. They were quite aware of this and mentioned it often, calling each other cousin and so on. So everyone knew, and it was part of the system, that a family that might be Earls today, could well be "plan B" if the current line has a problem.

Assuming that the default relationship is the most direct one displayed by Relationship Finder, Richard 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos (Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville-1) is not a direct-male line descendant of (his nearest) subject kin, John I Plantagenet, Lackland King of England-Lord of Ireland: John is the 20th great grandfather of Richard 

A direct descendant, as in grandchild? Yes, but Plantagenet did not pass down to him the nearly the same way that Nugent, Brydges, Chandos and Grenville did. Presumptively, his adoption of the names of the closer in-laws and progenitors had much to do with acknowledgment/inheritance of land or titles. Plantagenet descendants do interweave among other of the Duke's relatives. I have not done an exhaustive analysis, but it doesn't look like any Plantagenets were nearly as close as Nugents, Byrdges, Chandos nor Grenvilles, and (though in-laws/hybrids) especially not as in line with the other hyphenates in order of closeness.

My main point, too, is that the WikiTree profile for the subject Duke's profile does not include Plantagenet as part of his surname, but Wikipedia does. It's an observation - not a suggestion that either style is correct, as I do not know which is considered the correct style. 

In the process of noting it, I also noted that "Plantagenet" is a remote ancestor. As of yet, I do not see any evidence that this Richard is a male heir of the Plantagenet lineage, but that too, is just an observation.

Fann Fann I can not follow what you are saying.
There aren't any male heirs, the last 2 were the Princes in the Tower.

The only surviving Y line from Henry II, on paper, is through the illegitimate Charles Somerset.  Wikipedia editors are trying to spread the rumour that Charles was legitimated, but it seems unlikely.

But the DNA says there's a problem with that line somewhere.

Do you understand:

1) Richard 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos (Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville-1) is the subject of this post?

2) He is not a direct male line descendant of John Lackland, King of England (House of Plantagenet), though he is a 20th grandson of him?

Those are really the main salient points about why it is interesting that he added Plantagenet to his hyphenate name, as shown on Wikipedia: Richard Plantagenet Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, KG GCH PC FSA.

Presumably the 1st Duke had his son christened with Plantagenet as a middle name.

WikiTree has about 55 people with Plantagenet as a given name.
I agree with RJ's various posts. Being a Plantagenet descendant does not make a person special, and there is doubt about whether there is any male line Plantagenet descendant. In the period we are looking at, middle names did not indicate any kind of claims to land for example, but were often a way of advertising ancestry. In this case with so many middle names, it does indeed simply look like snobbery.

Coming back to the question of whether Wikitree should include any more information, the article has almost no information so adding some would be fine of course. But Wikipedia is not a great source, so it is best to check some of the other sources.

But if the question is about what to put specifically in the name fields keep in mind that wikitree might have limits which cause problems for all these middle names.
He was baptised at St James Picadilly on I would say 10 Sept 1823 (ancestry says 12 but then they transcribe his father as Hagcort Chandos )

Richard Plantagenet Cambell Nugent Chandos Grenville Temple son of Richard Marq. of Chandos and Mary his wife

London Metropolitan Archives . Baptism Register, St James Picadilly Ref.DL\T\090\016

( different order of names and no Brydges; of course the clerk may have muddled them not exactly your average entry even in that church)

1 Answer

+2 votes

Would you rather this:
Stowe Armorial or The Grenville Armorial produced ca. 1822 and 1839 shows 719 quarterings of the family

Stowe Armorial

Or this?
Somewhere In London

The Traffic Light Tree, Pierre Vivant, in Canary Wharf at the entrance of Billingsgate Fish Market, London, England

BTW: when you go back far enough, you do run into Stewarts and Tudors, I did notice. The line did have a few hits as PM, not sure how that tradition stacks up, as I really haven't been a very good student of history.

answered by Fann Fann G2G6 Mach 2 (23k points)
Your next project is to compile the ancestor table and check out the shield.  Make sure they weren't faking.

Related questions

+1 vote
1 answer
58 views asked Oct 5, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Chris Hampson G2G6 Mach 8 (88.9k points)
+9 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
2 answers
154 views asked Sep 24, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Terry Welshans G2G3 (3.6k points)
+4 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
3 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
+8 votes
2 answers
266 views asked Dec 19, 2013 in Genealogy Help by Roger Travis G2G6 Mach 2 (23.5k points)
+2 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer
164 views asked Mar 23, 2014 in Genealogy Help by anonymous

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright