Edward 3rd of England approximately 100,000,000 + descendants !!!

+13 votes

This is not a question as such, but very informative. There seems to be a lot of questions relating to 'am I descended from Edward 3rd etc or this dna test or what ever suggests I have common ancestors as some king etc' then you should read the attached link. As for me, and I have 59% Great British ancestry and 41% Western European ancestry that includes 7 convicts and 5 free settlers (I'm in Australia) the only 2 ancestors from these 12 (2 of the 5 free settlers) that I have been able to trace back, both go back to Edward 3rd, one though the Scottish aristocracy via James 1st and Joan Beaufort and the other though the English aristocracy via the Bedingfelds. So the statistics are certainly true for me. In another article I also read that all the people alive in Great Britain in the year 1000 are all ancestors of every person living today that have predominantly Great British ancestry. I hope this link helps to clarify some Edward 3rd questions.  Chances of being an Edward 3rd descendant

asked in Genealogy Help by Mark Hutchinson G2G2 (2k points)
retagged by Maggie N.
my name is melissa lynn wolford i seen in the pickaway co and morrow county my grandparts are looking for us..

we are the bales infints

my brother troy brain wolford

arthur edison wolford father

ohio shelby d wolford woodrow bales brenda sturgill

1 Answer

+11 votes
Yes I've seen that analysis before and I don't find it convincing at all. It totally fails to model the degree of overlap in ancestors and assumes each ancestor being an Edward descendant is an independent random event.

One of my planned retirement projects is to build some demographic models and see if I can demonstrate that NOT everyone is in fact likely to be a descendant of Edward.
answered by Matthew Fletcher G2G6 Mach 6 (69.2k points)
Andrew, I don't think Harry looks at all like Charles. He has red hair and looks a lot more like Diana's supposed lover, but I will conceed that all this is very speculative, but a simple DNA test would clear the smoke in order to make sure there is no fire.
Yes he has a reddish beard very much like his grandfather's once was, as has been shown by the media many times. I see no evidence of anything surprising, and indeed children do not always look so similar to family members and this does not necessarily mean anything.

Mark there are conspiracy stories being promoted to the weak-minded about everything right now, and while it causes problems in many aspects of life, genealogy is a field that is particularly exposed to problems when it comes to keeping fiction apart from facts.

When you feel yourself going this direction, please remind yourself that the love of such tall stories is an aspect of human nature which often sends us in completely wrong directions.

In any case, it is hard enough to keep fiction out of this genealogical community already.
Mark, I'll concede it is unusual for a royal Prince to have married an American woman, but their future descendants will be just as validly in line to the throne as William's are (unless of course Harry's alleged illegitimacy is ever proved in some way). Since the marriage had the Queen's formal permission (as the first six in line must have in order to get married) then it is a valid marriage, and the descendants are valid for the line of succession.

A commoner is anyone who is subject to Common Law, which is everyone who doesn't have a peerage title or royal title in their own right. Daughters of Peers, as Diana was, are still technically commoners. Even if Diana, as an example, was a bit of an unbalanced comparison to Meghan, then Kate is much the same as Meghan, as she too has only a very small amount of royal ancestry deep in her genealogy. Even Meghan is a descendant of Edward III, via one of his descendants, a Revd Skipper, who moved from England to New England in 1639.
Andrew, I am not a conspiracyst, I don't believe in Roswell, I believe Harvey Lee Oswald acted alone, I believe we walked on moon etc etc, I'm a mathematics and science guy. I believe one should also keep an open mind, but not so open that one's brains fall out, so no problems there. However I do believe there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant further investigation into Harry's parentage, that's all I am saying. Also, on a site like wikitree I think it totally appropriate.

If Harry was in my family tree I don't think I could put Charles in as father is confident. I think a public DNA test would the only way to resolve the issue. He gets a lot of benefits with his position and he should be legitimate in order to receive it, just my opinion.

Firstly, it is well documented that both Charles and Diana had a lover at the same time, and during this time their marriage was on the rocks.

Secondly, Harry was conceived during this time and happens to look more like Diana's lover than Charles, I don't think you need to be conspiracyst to have reasonable doubt about his father.

Thirdly, in Harry's defence you said he looks like the Spencer's, well done, so he should, their his family and he looks like a combination of Diana's lover and the Spencer's, but he doesn't look a lot like William or Charles. William doesn't look like the Spencer's. Enough circumstantial evidence for me in order for further investigation, that's all I am saying.

Lastly, your loose use of adjectives implied I might be feeble minded, although you didn't outrightly say it. I could just as easily suggest that you have a romantic notion of the happily married Royal couple sailing off into the sunset with the two boy princes, and as such, Harry's legitimacy is in line with your preconceived prejudices. So to be civil, we will have to agree to disagree.
Dan, I agree with what you are saying. But for me, and it's just my opinion, the Queen may not have granted permission if Harry was a definite son of Charles. If I was to be speculative, I'd say a pragmatic approach has been taken by all parties involved in regards to Harry's legitimacy.

The lover now has a dna stake in the royal family. It serves him well to remain silent for his sons best outcome, even if he wasn't sure either way, this is still his best outcome.

Charles and the Queen are best served by legitimacy, any scandal like this is bad for business and undermines their bloodlines, and once again, even with uncertainty, this is their best outcome.

Harry and William are best served by legitimacy, for obvious reasons such as their mothers reputation, and once again, either way this is their best outcome.

And lastly, because Harry is no realistic chance of being King, then this pragmatic approach to the question of Harry's legitimacy doesn't affect the status quo of the royals what so ever, either way, this is the best outcome.

It's a nice ending for a bad day out.

These are not my reasons for doubting Harry's legitimacy, I've outlined those above. So at the risk of being accused of being a conspiracyst, I am simply providing a speculative summary of the suspected individual positions on it all.
Mark it is not a part of the definition of a conspiracy theory that you need to believe in all conspiracy theories. If you make up scenarios which can not be proven true or false, because within the story there is an assertion of cover-ups, then you are making up a conspiracy story.

This habit of mind is an addiction which can spread and confuse and eventually break down trust in the ability of people to know anything (which is why corrupt politicians, biblical literalists, lobbyists, etc, encourage them when they want a smoke screen). They are one of the greatest problems facing western civilization right now, and they were important causes of wars and carnage in the past.

Please accept that decent communities which have an interest in truth can and should be very opposed to this type of thing.
Conversations about living persons are explicitly forbidden on Wikitree and this one seems particularly egregious. At best, it's speculation and at worst, malicious gossip. And there are a number of people who could be hurt by it. This thread should be deleted.

Well Monica I suppose it makes a difference that it is a notable person.

My concern is more about the attitude people should have on this wiki towards carefully but really building up an understanding of the truth. Like I said, there are mental habits that can develop and then spread. I feel that the current "alternative facts" culture coming out of America's amazing internal problems is effecting many international fields of discourse. The idea that everything is just a story so you might as well make more and believe which ever ones your "guts" like was one Putin was using before he won the American election. 

It is a virus. Reality does exist. Absolute certainty never did.

In any case, whatever the bigger issues, this is a genealogy research community and as anyone who follows me here knows I strongly believe in a systematically skeptical approach, similar to what the people we trust most have to use: doctors, people who design airplanes, and the very best genealogists! :)

And on a genealogical note I descend from several close relatives of Francis Bacon, who of course had no children himself. I have not looked into David Hume's family.

I agree about living persons, but unfortunately all of this is already very much in the public arena, they are public property and as such different rules apply to them. It comes with the territory. But if I have to, then I have to .. sorry for talking about the living, but I will add that the Windsors can sue me or a lot of people anytime they want to for liable but proving loss of income here in Australia might be a little to disclosing for their comfort levels, a court is also a good level playing field where DNA testing awaits them .. I think I am safe. Ok I'm done .

Mark as mentioned I agree with you at least that this is not a privacy issue. Much bigger than that. :) As a good Aussie, I am not particularly anti or pro royal, but very much anti B.S. You can prove your intelligence by showing how you handle real evidence, not by whining about the evidence you don't have. Good luck, and let me know if I can help.

Related questions

+8 votes
2 answers
566 views asked May 3, 2017 in Genealogy Help by anonymous G2G Crew (370 points)
+5 votes
2 answers
+6 votes
2 answers
+2 votes
3 answers
+2 votes
0 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright