One more question . You mentioned the Hanoverian Kings . Was William IV the last English Monarch to father illegitimate offspring ? With his reputation , I was wondering if Edward VII made the list ?

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 4:30:14 PM UTC-5, Riley S wrote:
> One more question . You mentioned the Hanoverian Kings . Was William IV the last English Monarch to father illegitimate offspring ? With his reputation , I was wondering if Edward VII made the list ?

Edward VII was well known for sleeping around frequently and as often as he could. He acknowledged no children as a result of these affairs; and there is no way to know if there were any children, but it is definitely possible.

-_Joe C

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:30:14 PM UTC-8, Riley S wrote:
> One more question . You mentioned the Hanoverian Kings . Was William IV the last English Monarch to father illegitimate offspring ? With his reputation , I was wondering if Edward VII made the list ?

It would very much surprise me if William was the last. To quote Mel Brooks, 'It's good to be the King!' That said, it is just not politically tenable to flaunt it before a modern democratic public that pays you a nifty sum of money to be the nation's paragon. At least in the current climate, it seems a lot more likely to have such a child thrust themselves (or be thrust by the tabloids) into the public eye, just as has happened in Spain and Belgium within the past few years, than for a good old fashioned unprompted voluntary royal recognition.

taf

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 6:17:13 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:30:14 PM UTC-8, Riley S wrote:
> > One more question . You mentioned the Hanoverian Kings . Was William IV the last English Monarch to father illegitimate offspring ? With his reputation , I was wondering if Edward VII made the list ?
> It would very much surprise me if William was the last. To quote Mel Brooks, 'It's good to be the King!' That said, it is just not politically tenable to flaunt it before a modern democratic public that pays you a nifty sum of money to be the nation's paragon. At least in the current climate, it seems a lot more likely to have such a child thrust themselves (or be thrust by the tabloids) into the public eye, just as has happened in Spain and Belgium within the past few years, than for a good old fashioned unprompted voluntary royal recognition.
>
> taf

Queen Camilla is rumored to be descended from one of Edward VII's byeblows, I think. It's pretty lucky she and Charles only got married after her childbearing years had passed -- think how inbred their children would be!

Actually there is someone out there who claims to be the child of Charles and Camilla before either was married (a hushed up teenage birth).

There is also some Australian man who claims to be Princess Margaret's child before marriage.

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 7:53:03 AM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 6:17:13 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:30:14 PM UTC-8, Riley S wrote:
> > > One more question . You mentioned the Hanoverian Kings . Was William IV the last English Monarch to father illegitimate offspring ? With his reputation , I was wondering if Edward VII made the list ?
> > It would very much surprise me if William was the last. To quote Mel Brooks, 'It's good to be the King!' That said, it is just not politically tenable to flaunt it before a modern democratic public that pays you a nifty sum of money to be the nation's paragon. At least in the current climate, it seems a lot more likely to have such a child thrust themselves (or be thrust by the tabloids) into the public eye, just as has happened in Spain and Belgium within the past few years, than for a good old fashioned unprompted voluntary royal recognition.
> >
> > taf
> Queen Camilla is rumored to be descended from one of Edward VII's byeblows, I think. It's pretty lucky she and Charles only got married after her childbearing years had passed -- think how inbred their children would be!
>
> Actually there is someone out there who claims to be the child of Charles and Camilla before either was married (a hushed up teenage birth).
>
> There is also some Australian man who claims to be Princess Margaret's child before marriage.

Charles and Camilla's 55-year-old "son" is the actual Australian.

P. Margaret's secret "son" is British (?), but born in Kenya, ... or as he says "adopted" in Kenya. WINK.

I would not be so bold as to say there is *no* way to find children, the products of newer shenanigans.
DNA was made great strides forward in the last decade.
It seems quite likely that a test could be proven to match to known cousins of royals and then triangulated to show that it's only possible to come from a recent Windsor

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:22:38 -0800 (PST), Will Johnson
<wjhonson.2014@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>I would not be so bold as to say there is *no* way to find children, the products of newer shenanigans.
>DNA was made great strides forward in the last decade.
>It seems quite likely that a test could be proven to match to known cousins of royals and then triangulated to show that it's only possible to come from a recent Windsor

You must have a recent Windsor to compare with !

That said, the Y DNA of Louis XIII is known because 3 male descendants
accepted to be tested. So you may eventually find the same for some
Windsor but not sure if it would be with a "popular" lab like we do !

Denis

--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-8, Denis Beauregard wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:22:38 -0800 (PST), Will Johnson
> <wjhons...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
> >I would not be so bold as to say there is *no* way to find children, the products of newer shenanigans.
> >DNA was made great strides forward in the last decade.
> >It seems quite likely that a test could be proven to match to known cousins of royals and then triangulated to show that it's only possible to come from a recent Windsor
> You must have a recent Windsor to compare with !
>
> That said, the Y DNA of Louis XIII is known because 3 male descendants
> accepted to be tested. So you may eventually find the same for some
> Windsor but not sure if it would be with a "popular" lab like we do !
>
>
> Denis
>
> --
> Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
> Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
> French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
> Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

I'm not referring to Y-DNA however
I am stating that you can triangulate Autosomal DNA now, back in some cases three hundred years
As the tools get better and millions more get tested, that will probably become even more

> > Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
> > Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
> > French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
> > Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
> I'm not referring to Y-DNA however
> I am stating that you can triangulate Autosomal DNA now, back in some cases three hundred years
> As the tools get better and millions more get tested, that will probably become even more

Having verified my paper lines back 4-7 generations on all sides via DNA at this point, the one thing I am rather confident in, is that I personally am not a descendant of King Edward VIII or any other recent English monarch illegitamately.
--Joe C

Yes. The *least* triangulated of my 32 lines, has 35 DNA kits triangulating that line

No surprises for me either.