
Given-Wilson, Chris; Curteis, Alice. (1995). The Royal Bastards Of Medieval England. New York: Barnes & Noble Books. [Given-Wilson and Curteis are noted medieval scholars.]
Henry of Huntingdon; Greenway, Diana, trans. (2002). The History of the English People 1000–1154. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford World’s Classics Oxford University Press.
Richardson, Douglas; Everingham, Kimball G., ed. (2004). Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In Colonial And Medieval Families. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc.
Roberts, Gary Boyd. (2008). The Royal Descents Of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States Who Were Themselves Notable or Left Descendants Notable in American History With a 2008 Addendum, Coda and Final Addition. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc.
Weir, Alison. (2002). Britain’s Royal Families The Complete Genealogy. London: Pimlico Random House. [A popular treatment, but contains a comprehensive list of alleged royal bastards.]
_____________________________
“… it is quite impossible for a modern historian to be completely sure of any supposed royal bastard’s paternity.” (Given-Wilson and Curteis, p. 57)
Why? Because people in the Middle Ages lacked the technology to perform even a rudimentary paternity blood test—the sort of test routinely administered to rule out paternity, commonly perfomed years before the advent of DNA . Acceptance of an illegitimate child by anyone, pauper or king, was subjective, and subjective factors aren’t reliable indicators of paternity.
If your royal line passes through a medieval illegitimate generation, you don’t have a royal line. There’s no proof acceptable to the modern mind of the paternity of these children. In 2009, from a genealogical perspective, medieval royal bastards are historical curiosities, and nothing more.
Even in the celebrated cases of Herleve of Falaise (mother of William the Conqueror) and Katherine (de Roet) Swynford (eventual 3rd wife of John of Gaunt and mother of the Beauforts), we must admit it’s possible Robert of Normandy wasn’t the father of William the Conqueror, and not all of the Beauforts attributed to John of Gaunt were his.
The issue is whether the mother was monogamous. Even when a mother is identified, we don’t know that. The father may have accepted a child because it resembled himself or a family member, out of affection toward the mother, or perhaps the mother was tossed into a pond to see if she would float.
Authentic “evidence” may exist indicating a relationship, such as a charter or remark by a contemporary chronicler. A child may have been raised at court. It may have had a surname like “FitzRoy.” This “evidence” isn’t conclusive proof of paternity. It’s evidence that the alleged paternity of the child was generally accepted. Acceptance by a ”father” in the Middle Ages doesn’t equal genetic paternity.
Many Americans claim royal descent through Robert of Caen, Earl of Gloucester (d. 1147), allegedly an illegitimate son of King Henry I. What do we really know of the circumstances of Robert of Caen’s birth? Virtually nothing.
There are a number of sources which relate that Robert of Caen was the son of King Henry I. The chronicler Henry of Huntingdon tells us that in 1138:
“Earl Robert, the bastard son of King Henry, held against him [King Stephen] the very strong castle which is called Bristol, and another which is called Leeds.”
This is “evidence,” but it isn’t proof of paternity. We have different standards today for proving paternity of an illegitimate child.
I did a study of Gary Boyd Roberts’ RD600/2008 and found:
Pages 483-510 deal with lines from Henry I through Robert of Caen, comprising 13 lines. Of those 13, 6 have an additional illegitimate generation through which the line passes. Nearly half of these lines pass through an illegitimate grandchild or great-grandchild of Robert of Caen, himself illegitimate.
Pages 64-87 list descents from James IV of Scotland, all through illegitimate children (although an identifiable mother is claimed), and sometimes through more than one illegitimate child of that monarch—in the same line. There are several from Jane/Joan Beaufort, alleged illegitimate daughter of Cardinal Henry Beaufort, whom he never acknowledged as his daughter (though Roberts opines Cardinal Beaufort might be one of his own ancestors). Even Douglas Richardson terms Jane/Joan as “alleged.” Pages 387-415 treat the illegitimate children of King John, immediately followed by 23 pages of lines from William the Lion of Scotland’s bastards (don’t miss the addendum which has a few more King John and William the Lion lines). Bastards of Edward IV and James V of Scotland get some ink as well.
In all, from pp. 1–571, which comprises the main body of RD600/2008, there are about 302 lines, of which 110 lines contain one or more illegitimate generations. That doesn’t include the Beaufort lines (unless there’s a subsequent illegitimate generation), lines noted with a caveat, and lines known to be false (such as the p. 418 assertion that Mary Waller, daughter of John Waller and Mary Pomfrett, m. Edward Herndon).
Pp. 259–371 comprise lines from Edward I. Of those lines, only 2 contain illegitimate generations, and those are in later generations, because Edward I had no alleged illegitimate children (despite periodic attempts to link him to John Botetourte).
Thus, more than 33% of RD600/2008 is comprised of lines containing illegitimate generations. When you add in lines that are defective otherwise, such as colonists for whom the claimed parentage is wrong, or actually merely probable or possible, one might suspect 50% of the book isn’t adequately supported.
It’s the landfill of genealogical reference works.
Roberts says illegitimate offspring of more recent monarchs have a “better” descent than the legitimate offspring of earlier rulers, even though illegitimate offfspring were rarely eligible for the succession. This is an absurd notion, with no practical meaning, and points to the key to RD600/2008: it’s a mug book for snobs.
Douglas Richardson, who claims a “royal line” (which passes through two bastard generations), is also a major player in concocting royal descents through bastard lines.
His Plantagenet Ancestry (2004) features a host of illegitimate luminaries: Hamelin Plantagenet (alleged half-brother of Henry II), William Longspee, Joan of England (alleged bastard daughter of King John), and Richard FitzRoy account for most of the lines, although some connect to legitimate lines from Plantagenet monarchs further down the pedigree. Let’s not forget Antigone and Arthur Plantagenet, alleged illegitimate children of Humphrey of Gloucester. The inclusion of Joan, illegitimate daughter of King John, whom he married off to a Welsh prince is interesting, because there is no agreement among scholars as to which of Llywelyn’s children were actually by her. But many Americans claim descent from her, thanks to writers like Roberts and Richardson. So not only is her paternity uncertain, but the maternity of Llywelyn’s children is also uncertain.
In the medieval era, when the majority of people lived in abject poverty, fobbing a handsome or clever child off on a monarch or magnate was, if successful, an escape from desperation—the motivation, one might imagine, not much different than confronting a modern celebrity with the “fruit of their loins.” In these days, the paternity test has ruled out many such claims.
A historian can state: “Robert of Caen was an acknowledged illegitimate son of King Henry I.” They’re dealing with this individual as a political figure. That his paternity was attributed to Henry I is important in understanding his position and actions during the turbulent reign of King Stephen.
That differs significantly from saying: “Robert of Caen was the illegitimate son of King Henry I.” This is a leap from statement of fact to an assertion of a genealogical proposition we cannot now verify. We don’t know why King Henry I accepted Robert of Caen as his son.
The works of Roberts and Richardson represent acts of irresponsibility unparalleled in contemporary American genelaogy. But they’re just giving people what they want. Ultimately, the blame rests squarely with Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. of Baltimore. There are no standards evident in these books. GPC can sell them, but they can’t defend them. They’re written by people whose own royal lines are insufficiently supported.
The economics are simple: the more lines you include in a book, the more people find their “ancestors” in them, and the more books you sell. If you lop off all of the Joan of England lines, you also lop off some of your csutomers.
Roberts and Richardson aren’t alone. The lineage society the Descendants of the Illegitimate Sons and Daughters of the Kings of Britain, or ”The Royal Bastards,” authenticate lineages through the alleged bastards of monarchs. The current president is Anthony Glenn Hoskins, once a librarian at the Newberry Library in Chicago, frequent contributor to “soc.genealogy.medieval,” and a member of no certifying organizations for professional genealogists.
Here’s how they describe themselves:
“The Society’s primary means of fostering high standards in genealogy is by granting membership to individuals who meet such standards. Admission to the “Royal Bastards” is considered an achievement of great merit by amateur and professional genealogists alike.”
“Membership is open to individuals … who prove descent from an illegitimate son or daughter of a king, an illegitimate son or daughter of the child of a king, or an illegitimate son or daughter of the grandchild of a king of England, Scotland, Wales, Great Britain or the United Kingdom”
“Validity of an applicant’s lineage is determined by the Society’s Herald, who must be convinced of its correctness before the applicant may be admitted.”
“Descent is proved by documenting each generation and each connection between generations from the king to the applicant with valid, conclusive primary or contemporary evidence.”
Conclusive? What might that evidence specifically be in the case of Robert of Caen? The Herald (approving genealogist) is a Harvard educated lawyer, but whatever evidence he uses to link the generation from Robert of Caen to King Henry I cannot possibly be conclusive because it doesn’t exist—unless he’s consulting the Akashic Records.
I got a good laugh out of this:
“Please note that most lineages acceptable for admission to other hereditary organizations will not qualify for admission to this Society. This is not a matter of accuracy, but of accuracy and substantiation: only lineages supported by evidence that meets the standards of this society can qualify an applicant for admission.”
If you think this is doublespeak, you’re right. If you want to join any lineage society, you have to meet the standards of that society. But most won’t accept the evidence the Royal Bastards use to attach Robert of Caen to King Henry I. Why? Because a charter, remark by a chronicler, or Henry patting Robert on the head isn’t conclusive evidence of paternity. Robert of Caen was born out of wedlock, and that introduces a host of variables and questions that can’t be answered.
There were more witnesses to the Virgin Birth than to the conception of Robert of Caen, but here we have a lineage society which, if they accept your line, claims it substantiates paternity of bastard children of a king, and all for a mere $300.00.
The British have little use for bastard lines, as this story illustrates:
There is a decent genealogical library in Independence, MO. One day I was leafing through whatever caught my eye without any real aim in mind. I picked up a reputable genealogical journal published in the UK and learned that an Important Marriage was at hand. The background of the groom had been examined, and it was found (with evident horror) that he was descended from Joan Beaufort, wife of Ralph Neville.
That would never do.
The author was quick to substitute for this tainted descent a perfectly acceptable one from (I think) Edmund of Langley, and everyone could face the future with confidence.
The basic premise of The Royal Bastards is flawed: it’s unethical to pretend your approval of a bastard line means anything when the father could be anyone. The lure is exclusivity. Who are they kidding? YOU, if you send them $300.00. It just stokes Tony Hoskins’ ego trip.
Since it’s no secret people of the Middle Ages lacked even simple blood typing technology, it’s unconscionable for Roberts and Richardson to mislead readers into believing the reader has ”royal” ancestry when it’s no more than a footnote. These books can’t be corrected. They’re so permeated with bad scholarship that to remove bastard lines would eviscerate them.
And any professional genealogist who tells clients the client has valid “royal” ancestry when it contains a bastard generation is yanking their chain.
Let GPC know how you feel. It might have an impact.
Because this isn’t genealogy. It’s shameless exploitation.
