World Families Forums - Last British Kings were R1b-U106

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 28, 2014, 03:29:07 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Last British Kings were R1b-U106
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Last British Kings were R1b-U106  (Read 5503 times)
wing_genealogist
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 81


WWW
« on: July 15, 2012, 05:01:54 PM »

There has been quite a bit of recent discussion regarding this topic on the U106/S21 Yahoo Groups.  An author has claimed his grandfather was the eldest son of King George V. He was able to convince a direct male-line descendant of Prince Albert (and Queen Victoria) to undergo DNA testing and he matches the family 66/67.

In addition, Deep-clade testing has shown where they are R1b-U106 and negative for all the sub-clades in FT-DNAs current R1b Deep-Clade testing. They have joined the U106 Y-DNA Project and are testing for the Z series SNPs below U106.

More discussion on this can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752
Logged

Y-DNA - R1b M157.2 (a private/family subclade of Z6/Z352) 111 markers tested

mt-DNA - J1c2g with the following private mutations: 315.1C 522.1A 522.2C C9974T C16256T (FMS tested and submitted to GenBank)

Autosomal - shows as a typical English ancestry. Tested with 23andMe, FTDNA
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2012, 05:57:09 PM »

Since Prince Albert was a German, that is hardly surprising.

The Stewarts/Stuarts are supposed to be R-L21, but I haven't followed that claim closely.
Logged

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2012, 06:17:21 PM »

Why of course it is an established 'fact' that R U106 is Germanic so by extension the Saxe-Coburg line of Monarchs would therefore have to be from that Haplogroup, right?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2012, 06:24:57 PM »

Come on, give me a break.

I said it isn't surprising that a line of kings who descend from Prince Albert are R-U106, since Prince Albert was a German.

It isn't my fault that Prince Albert was a German and that he was apparently R-U106. I would make him O3, if I could. That would be much more fun.

It is common knowledge that R-U106 is very frequent in Germany.



« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 06:26:27 PM by rms2 » Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2012, 09:31:42 PM »

Since Prince Albert was a German, that is hardly surprising.

The Stewarts/Stuarts are supposed to be R-L21, but I haven't followed that claim closely.

and they were of course Normans, the male line of the Gaelic Scottish kings (the Cenel nGabrain or Canmore line as it was later known) having died out in the 13th century.   
Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2012, 12:14:38 AM »

I gather that the Stewarts were of Breton stock. From memory, I think many of the Stewarts who have tested tend to be R1b.........4. Stuart was the French version of Stewart.
If of Breton stock, then potentially the Stewart kings would probably be of Brythonic Celt stock - IF the old theory of Brythonic Celts colonising Brittany is accurate.
I haven't read the King George V thread, but would be surprised if a direct member of our royal family had agreed to an open DNA test. If true, then that would be useful!
Cheers,
Bob
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 02:08:11 AM by Castlebob » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2012, 05:28:09 AM »

It is the implied assertion, as incontrovertible fact, that trumpets R U106 is Germanic, which any possessed of a more open and inquiring mind find difficult to regard as credible. It may well be that currently the Haplogroup appears in significant frequencies in some parts of Europe long associated with Germanic peoples. Of itself though that cannot in any logical or convincing fashion be considered as demonstrable evidence that all R U106 in NW Europe is therefore  'Germanic'. The early movements and settlements of peoples, in all likely-hood a mixture of Haplogroups no doubt established themselves in various regions of Europe long before the emergence of Germanic culture, it seems illogical to exclude R U106 from such a model. Tangentially I read with interest a piece by Tom Gull, written a couple of years back, in which he looked at the frequencies of R U106 in Austria and some parts of Switzerland and wondered if such data suggested that far from indicating the accepted view of Germanic movement from the Netherlands area down the Rhine, it may have been the reverse, with the different perspective that the Haplogroup may have been linked with Hallstatt culture. Again we are in the arena of opinion and speculation, however better to be open-minded and willing to embrace various opinions, than simply repeat the jaded mantra that insists all R U106 is Germanic. Who knows maybe (indication there that the following point is merely speculative) the Saxe-Coburgs and their lineage leading to the English throne (although apparently of that Haplogroup) could belong not to a Saxon origin, but that of the Halstatt Celts :)

PS: thanks for the pretty map, a triumph of statistical art over conclusive proof
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 05:33:37 AM by whoknows » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2012, 06:26:09 AM »

I gather that the Stewarts were of Breton stock. From memory, I think many of the Stewarts who have tested tend to be R1b.........4. Stuart was the French version of Stewart.
If of Breton stock, then potentially the Stewart kings would probably be of Brythonic Celt stock - IF the old theory of Brythonic Celts colonising Brittany is accurate.
I haven't read the King George V thread, but would be surprised if a direct member of our royal family had agreed to an open DNA test. If true, then that would be useful!
Cheers,
Bob

Yes, the Stewart royal line is originally of Breton stock. They supposedly descend from Alan fitz Flaad, a Breton knight.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2012, 07:24:49 AM »

I gather that the Stewarts were of Breton stock. From memory, I think many of the Stewarts who have tested tend to be R1b.........4. Stuart was the French version of Stewart.
If of Breton stock, then potentially the Stewart kings would probably be of Brythonic Celt stock - IF the old theory of Brythonic Celts colonising Brittany is accurate.
I haven't read the King George V thread, but would be surprised if a direct member of our royal family had agreed to an open DNA test. If true, then that would be useful!
Cheers,
Bob

Yes, the Stewart royal line is originally of Breton stock. They supposedly descend from Alan fitz Flaad, a Breton knight.

Here is something interesting from the Stewart Stuart DNA Project:

Quote
17 Apr 2012: ScotlandsDNA announced that "The DNA of the Duke of Buccleuch was found to be an exact match of a descendant of Charles Stewart of Ardshiel, who fought at Culloden, both men descended from Alan, the Seneschal of Dol, a Breton aristocrat. His family came to Britain in 1066 with William the Conqueror and then made its way to Scotland to found the Stewart line." The Duke of Buccleuch had been SNP tested and found to be positive for L744 (=S388) and L745 (=S463).

L744 and L745 are both downstream of L21. I guess that is confirmation that the royal Stewart line was/is R-L21.

One of my gg-grandmothers was a Stewart, and I have Family Finder matches to several of the Stewarts who are L744+ L745+. Can't confirm the connection yet, but their Scottish immigrant ancestor went to South Carolina, and my most distant known Stewart ancestor was born in South Carolina in 1801.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 07:33:16 AM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2012, 08:54:26 AM »

Since Prince Albert was a German, that is hardly surprising. ...

whoknows, please don't insert the controversy over U106's association or non-association with German speakers into every thread that U106 or Germany comes up in.

...  It may well be that currently the Haplogroup appears in significant frequencies in some parts of Europe long associated with Germanic peoples.

Right, I think that is all RMS is speaking of in this particular topic. U106 has higher frequencies in Germanic speaking groups today.

...Of itself though that cannot in any logical or convincing fashion be considered as demonstrable evidence that all R U106 in NW Europe is therefore  'Germanic'. 

I agree with you, particularly since you used the word "all" and before that "of itself" in reference to the current hg frequenices. However, this is off topic. Please start another thread if you want to discuss this.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2012, 10:01:07 AM »

I thought that Henry had no sons and he was eligitimate himself.


There has been quite a bit of recent discussion regarding this topic on the U106/S21 Yahoo Groups.  An author has claimed his grandfather was the eldest son of King George V. He was able to convince a direct male-line descendant of Prince Albert (and Queen Victoria) to undergo DNA testing and he matches the family 66/67.

In addition, Deep-clade testing has shown where they are R1b-U106 and negative for all the sub-clades in FT-DNAs current R1b Deep-Clade testing. They have joined the U106 Y-DNA Project and are testing for the Z series SNPs below U106.

More discussion on this can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752
Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2012, 10:09:02 AM »

I thought that Henry had no sons and he was eligitimate himself.

Where did you read that ?
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2012, 11:38:34 AM »

Mike your comments are well noted :)
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2012, 12:23:01 PM »

I thought that Henry had no sons and he was illegitimate himself.

Henry? Which Henry? Henry VIII of England had one legitimate son - Edward VI, who died in childhood, so the claim to the English throne descended in the female line. One of those lines led to Mary, Queen of Scots, whose son James (Stuart) I of England and VI of Scotland became king of both countries. It is his male line that is under discussion as of Breton stock.

Charles II James II was the last of the Stuart kings, since he died without a legitimate son. The throne went to his daughter Mary, married to William of Orange, and then to Mary's sister Ann, married to Prince George of Denmark. Their son William did not survive childhood. So then we leap to the House of Hanover, since Parliament was dead against any Catholic head of State, which ruled out the rest of the Stuart line.

George I (1714-1727) descended from Elizabeth, daughter of James I of England and VI of Scotland. Her daughter Sophia had married Ernest Augustus, who later became Elector of Hanover. So the Y-DNA of George I comes from  Ernest Augustus.  
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 01:33:04 PM by Jean M » Logged
sernam
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2012, 12:51:33 PM »

I thought that Henry had no sons and he was illegitimate himself.

Henry? Which Henry? Henry VIII of England had one legitimate son - Edward VI, who died in childhood, so the claim to the English throne descended in the female line. One of those lines led to Mary, Queen of Scots, whose son James (Stuart) I of England and VI of Scotland became king of both countries. It is his male line that is under discussion as of Breton stock.



Charles II was the last of the Stuart kings, since he died without a legitimate son. The throne went to his daughter Mary, married to William of Orange, and then to Mary's sister Ann, married to Prince George of Denmark. Their son William did not survive childhood. So then we leap to the House of Hanover, since Parliament was dead against any Catholic head of State, which ruled out the rest of the Stuart line.

George I (1714-1727) descended from Elizabeth, daughter of James I of England and VI of Scotland. Her daughter Sophia had married Ernest Augustus, who later became Elector of Hanover. So the Y-DNA of George I comes from  Ernest Augustus. 


 
You left out Jimmy Stuart, Coronated in 1685. Also  MaryII & Anne were Jimmy's daughters.
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2012, 01:13:30 PM »

I watched a Time Team program about the legitimate heir to the throne and it was about  Henry VIII being an illegitimate line.



I thought that Henry had no sons and he was illegitimate himself.

Henry? Which Henry? Henry VIII of England had one legitimate son - Edward VI, who died in childhood, so the claim to the English throne descended in the female line. One of those lines led to Mary, Queen of Scots, whose son James (Stuart) I of England and VI of Scotland became king of both countries. It is his male line that is under discussion as of Breton stock.

Charles II was the last of the Stuart kings, since he died without a legitimate son. The throne went to his daughter Mary, married to William of Orange, and then to Mary's sister Ann, married to Prince George of Denmark. Their son William did not survive childhood. So then we leap to the House of Hanover, since Parliament was dead against any Catholic head of State, which ruled out the rest of the Stuart line.

George I (1714-1727) descended from Elizabeth, daughter of James I of England and VI of Scotland. Her daughter Sophia had married Ernest Augustus, who later became Elector of Hanover. So the Y-DNA of George I comes from  Ernest Augustus. 
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2012, 01:31:53 PM »

I watched a Time Team program about the legitimate heir to the throne and it was about  Henry VIII being an illegitimate line.

I saw that. It was Tony Robinson ferreting around in Australia after the "true line". To be honest I didn't buy it. But it doesn't make any difference anyway for the present discussion. The Y-DNA haplogroup passes from father to son. So Henry VIII's haplogroup doesn't matter. The Stuart Y-DNA does not come from him. Nor does the Hanoverian.

By the way the "true line" tends to be the one that gets its backside on the throne and manages to keep it there. It is a romantic idea that blood tells, but what people really needed in a monarch was brawn, charisma and enough brain for tactics in the days when they led from the front and organised the defense of their people. That might get inherited. It might not. So chiefs tended to be picked for suitability from among the ruling family, or just win by battle, in early historic times. The idea of the eldest son having a right to the throne appears in the Middle Ages, and has the benefit of ensuring a smooth succession if everyone agrees to play along with it. Otherwise it is a bit of a lottery. People could end up with a king who was incompetent or mad as a hatter.

« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 01:37:18 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2012, 01:34:02 PM »

You left out Jimmy Stuart, Coronated in 1685. Also  MaryII & Anne were Jimmy's daughters.

Sorry, sorry. More haste, less speed. Erring post has been corrected.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2012, 07:02:19 AM »

Regarding my original post in this thread, I would have said the same thing about Prince Albert being a German if he had turned out to have been R-U152 or I-M253, or any other y haplogroup that is common in Germany.

It would have gone something like this: "Oh, Prince Albert was R-U152? Not surprising: he was a German, you know."

But Prince Albert was apparently R-U106, which is also very common in Germany and far less common in some other places.

« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 07:54:20 AM by rms2 » Logged

df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2012, 06:15:06 AM »

There has been quite a bit of recent discussion regarding this topic on the U106/S21 Yahoo Groups.  An author has claimed his grandfather was the eldest son of King George V. He was able to convince a direct male-line descendant of Prince Albert (and Queen Victoria) to undergo DNA testing and he matches the family 66/67.

In addition, Deep-clade testing has shown where they are R1b-U106 and negative for all the sub-clades in FT-DNAs current R1b Deep-Clade testing. They have joined the U106 Y-DNA Project and are testing for the Z series SNPs below U106.

More discussion on this can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752

This is off a just a bit. Although the author was shooting to establish a connection with the Royals, he in fact proved that his R-L21 grandfather was not the son of the R-U106 King George V. I think the Y-STR match you are alluding to is likely the 36/37 match between the descendent of Prince Albert the author found and had tested, and the serendipitous test results the author found afterwards for someone who is descended from Albert's uncle.

--david
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2012, 08:07:31 AM »

There has been quite a bit of recent discussion regarding this topic on the U106/S21 Yahoo Groups.  An author has claimed his grandfather was the eldest son of King George V. He was able to convince a direct male-line descendant of Prince Albert (and Queen Victoria) to undergo DNA testing and he matches the family 66/67.

In addition, Deep-clade testing has shown where they are R1b-U106 and negative for all the sub-clades in FT-DNAs current R1b Deep-Clade testing. They have joined the U106 Y-DNA Project and are testing for the Z series SNPs below U106.

More discussion on this can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752

This is off a just a bit. Although the author was shooting to establish a connection with the Royals, he in fact proved that his R-L21 grandfather was not the son of the R-U106 King George V. I think the Y-STR match you are alluding to is likely the 36/37 match between the descendent of Prince Albert the author found and had tested, and the serendipitous test results the author found afterwards for someone who is descended from Albert's uncle.

--david

David, great to see you here my friend!
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
df.reynolds
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2012, 06:32:44 PM »

David, great to see you here my friend!
Thanks, Richard. After returning to the online community, it has taken me a bit to adjust to the post dna-forums world, and find all the "new" watering holes. :)

--david
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2012, 07:32:29 AM »

In 1603, two dynasties fell. Elizabeth I died childless,the Tudors lost the Crown and Hugh O'Neill surrendered to the English . Over a thousand years of Gaelic monarchy ended.O'Neill died in 1616 but history did not abandon him.
His daughter Sorcha O'Neill married an Irish astrocrat, a Magennis form Iveagh.
Ten generations later one of her descendants became Lady Glamis. She had a daughter Elizabeth Lyon the mother of Elizabeth Windsor who became Queen of England......
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2012, 02:45:20 PM »

I wanted to let ye all know about the M222 link to the Royal family
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2012, 07:09:41 PM »

In 1603, two dynasties fell. Elizabeth I died childless,the Tudors lost the Crown and Hugh O'Neill surrendered to the English . Over a thousand years of Gaelic monarchy ended.O'Neill died in 1616 but history did not abandon him.
His daughter Sorcha O'Neill married an Irish astrocrat, a Magennis form Iveagh.
Ten generations later one of her descendants became Lady Glamis. She had a daughter Elizabeth Lyon the mother of Elizabeth Windsor who became Queen of England......

The Tudor male lineage I believe was Celtic, but would have been P Celtic or Welsh, not really Gaelic. Of course, over in Ireland,  the O'Neill lineage must have been truly Gaelic

I thought the Normans with Richard Strongbow, Chief Justicar of Ireland, ended Gaellic control there ???
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 09:56:15 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.137 seconds with 19 queries.