This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Worcestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Worcestershire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WorcestershireWikipedia:WikiProject WorcestershireTemplate:WikiProject WorcestershireWorcestershire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Hi! The Worcester Park page refers to the "apppointment" of "the Earl of Worcester" in 1660 as the origin of the name. There is a reference to support this, but I don't understand how this fits into the dates given here. Can someone who knows more about the issue shed some light on the matter?
This may not be the place to raise this, but it has been advanced that the Dukes of Beaufort, who purport descnt in the male-line from John of Gaunt (son of Edward III), might not actually be so due to possible infidelity somewhere in their line, as their DNA did not match that of Richard III. Richard III is also supposed to be descended from Edward III in male-line, via his son Edmund of Langley. However, it was long-rumored that Edmund of Langley's second son Richard of Conisburgh was illegitimate (his real father possibly being John Holland), which would make the entire Yorkist line not actually Plantagenet (though, of note, that would not affect their claim to the throne, which derives through a senior female line via Edward III's second son Lionel of Antwerp, who's great-granddaughter and heiress married the aforementioned Richard of Conisburgh). Thus, it would not match up with any male-line descendants of John of Gaunt, who are actually blood Plantagenets. Am I wrong and just fatally ignorant of how DNA works? Or am I the only one seeing this? CardinalBonaparte (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the discrepancy between the Beaufort and Richard III Y chromosomes indicates "nonpaternity" somewhere in one of the two lineages. It is at present not possible to say which one (and of course nonpaternity could affect both lineages!), but since the Beaufort lineage is much longer, there have been more chances than in the few generations between Edward III and Richard III. A clearer picture would require more sequencing of old and modern DNA specimens, and the example of the Richard III/Dukes of Beaufort discrepancy illustrates the potential for embarrassment were this to be done. I have seen no enthusiasm among the British royal family for DNA sequencing of the many available specimens - it would run the risk of showing the cuckoos in their nest (or on the throne). Davidiank (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
