Author Topic: The Stewarts are descended from the Tudors  (Read 7267 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mariel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
The Stewarts are descended from the Tudors
« on: November 19, 2011, 10:49:24 AM »
I have read a lot about the Stuart family of Scotland, because I have some of their genes from the Middle Ages and later, and I have porphyria like Mary Queen of Scots and James I of England/VI of Scotland.  This is my first post on Alexander Palace.

I see there is another thread that says the Stuarts are not related to the Romanovs.  If Tudors are related, so are Stuarts, at least in a genealogical

No one know when the Porphyria gene came into the Stuart clan and he royal families of Europe, including probably the Romanovs.  However,
one "entrance" of this gene onto the scene was through Katherine of Valois, who married Henry V of England and had one son before Henry died.
Henry VI probably had porphyria and was unable to rule, but Katherine married Owen Tudor, and from that marriage descended the Tudor rulers of England.

Mary Queen of Scots (Stuart) and her husband Lord Darnley were both descended from the Tudors.  So they are related to Romanovs if Tudors are related.  I'm new here and this is my first post, so pardon if I don't understand yet the Tudor connection to the Romanovs.

Why do I say Katherine of Valois had porphyria, or at least was a carrier?  Her father is known to have the characteristics of a very acute porphyria patient.  In addition to aches and pains, he periodically went "mad", like the famous George III of England.  Neither Charles VI of France (Katherine's father) nor George III of England was "always" nuts.  Only in periods when their disease was triggered.  George was said to have been a pleasant rational person most of the time, and an excellent husband. 

There are many triggers for porphyria, and they would vary due to the time period of the porphy person's life.  In George III's day, it is suspected
that the dusting powder in wigs contained arsenic.  Arsenic is not good for most people, but it is a high trigger for porphs.  (I think I invented the
word "porph" to refer to a person with Porphyria, but it's in common use now on Porphyria lists).   I do not know for sure what triggered Charles Vi of France.  He killed some of his favorite soldiers in a fit of complete madness, then recovered and was grieved.  He thought at one point that he was made of glass and could shatter, so had special garments made to protect his glass body. 

As in the case of all royal persons with Porphyria, and probably all Porphs in general, "inbreeding" was the main original cause of the gene proliferating, and Charles VI of France was the product of inbreeding, just as later were the Stuarts and the Hanovers, and we all know that
the Romanovs received genes from these lines.  (In case it is not realized here, Stuart blood flowed into Hanover blood, across the Channel.)

In my own case I know that my Scots ancestor, who assumed the name Pollock on arriving in Scotland with the Stuarts in the 12th century,
either began inbreeding at that time or probably had already started inbreeding when living in proximity to the Stuarts in Shropshire, England,
and before that following the Stuart lead in France, and before that ?????   Some other porph lines came into the "landowner class" of Scotland
during this period, including those of Vlad and Elizabeth of Hungary, because the Hungarian influence on the landowner class (from which emerged the Stuart kings) was strong.  Queen Margaret of Scotland, who was part English and part a descendant of the Holy Roman Empire,
brought an entourage of Hungarians with her to Scotland, and they began marrying heiresses, one of whom was my "aunt", the third Lady of

Well, there is more, but just a few words to introduce myself and my interest in royalty.  My interest only arose after I was diagnosed with Porphyria 14 years ago, and I knew NOTHING about these things prior to that. 

I found this site, Alexander Palace, when googling for Porphyria in Royals, and found a page from Alexander Palace there discussing Princess
Charlotte and Princess Feodora and their porphyria.  Charlotte was proven by DNA to have porphyria, even though some people claim no person
in the royal family of Britain had it after Victoria.  Also you were discussing there, I think, the present Queen's cousin, the Duke of Gloucester,
who was diagnosed with porphyria.  I have been particularly interested lately in the family of the present Duke of Gloucestor, who maintain apartments in Kensington Palace, a stone's throw from where Prince William and Catherine will live.  I read that William was named after the
Duke of Gloucester who had Porphyria and was killed in a plane accident before he had descendants, leaving the Dukedom to his brother Prince Richard, the present Duke of Gloucester. 

Probably William of Gloucestor had Porphyria on both sides, his mother being descended illegitimately from that same Charles II who fathered illegitimately the ancestor of Princess Diana, and fathered legitimately the ancestor of Prince Charles, the present Prince of Wales.  William of
Gloucestor, on his father's side, was the grandson of George V and Mary of Teck, and I need go no further on that.

So porphyria is still circulating in the royal family of Britain, at least was doing so relatively recently, and the bringing in of the excellent
health of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, can do nothing but good for them.

Oh yes, Camilla, wife of Prince Charles, is also descended illegitimately from Charles II.  Charles II had at least seven twelve illegitimate descendants, some of whom were created Dukes and Duchesses. 


Offline Mariel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: The Stewarts are descended from the Tudors
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2011, 10:56:01 AM »
PS I have some typos in my letter above, sorry.  I am having eye problems which impedes my typing accurately.
I should have said that Charles II of England had twelve illegitimate (known) children.  Princess Diana, Camilla,
Duchess of Cornwall, and Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester are all descended from illegitimate children of Charles II,
and Prince Charles, present Prince of Wales, is descended legitimately.  And that is all on a Stuart Porphyria line.

Offline darius

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: The Stewarts are descended from the Tudors
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2011, 01:56:42 PM »
Welcome Meriel! - Current Prince of Wales isnīt descended from Charles II legitimately - Charles II left no legitimate descent.  Yes, the Stuart descend from the Tudors through Henry VIIīs daughter who married a Stuart King.  Of course, most of the rest of the Royal families of Europe thus trace their descent back from Mary, Queen of Scots through the Queen of Bohemia, George III, Victoria etc...

Offline Mariel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: The Stewarts are descended from the Tudors
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2011, 02:49:26 PM »
I'm having a hard time using the mechanism here, Darius.  Finally figured out how to reply to you.
Yes, you are so right that Charles II had no legitimate descendants.  When dealing with genealogy
one can SO easily get lost.  He probably descended from Charles II's brother James, whose daughter
Mary married William of Orange, is that right?  And of course this brought in the Hanovers, right?
I just get the "outlines" of the descent because I am interested in the Porphyria descent more than

One Hanover who now has Porphyria is the husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco.  He is
said to be periodically "out of control" and no longer lives with her.  Ernst August, I think.
I can't imagine having a child in that family, knowing their genetic structure, but I guess the
concept of marrying "royal" trumps all other considerations.  Princess Grace wanted Caroline
to marry him first time around; was Grace so ignorant that she didn't know the family genetic
structure?  As I said, being royal trumps other considerations.

Offline Vecchiolarry

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Re: The Stewarts are descended from the Tudors
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2011, 09:31:00 PM »
Hi Mariel,

Very interesting information here - fascinating...

Prince Charles is not descended through either brother - Charles II nor James II - but through their aunt, Elizabeth, the Winter Queen of Bohemia;  and her daughter Sophia, the Electress of Hanover.  Through these two ladies came the Hanovarian Kings and down to today.
Mary, Queen of Scots was the grandmother of Elizabeth and great grandmother of Sophia.......

It is very interesting to learn about Charles VI and Queen Margaret and their histories...


Offline Mariel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: The Stewarts are descended from the Tudors
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2011, 07:23:26 PM »
Thank you, Vecchiolarry, for the information about the actual Hanover descent through the offspring of Mary Queen of Scots.  Mary was a genetic fulcrum, like Queen Victoria.  Even though she had but one child, and spent the rest of her days in prison, her descendants were many.  As you may have read, her twins by Bothwelll are reported to have died.  But there is a legend that the twins lived, and were spirited out of the country by one
of the Hungarian ladies in waiting, Lady Marr, who took them to be raised in France.  I talked to a person on a site devoted to Mary queen of Scots,
who claimed without reservation that he was descended from one of these twins.

Genetic material can get confused by idle things written.  A hematologist wrote down that I was descended from Mary Queen of Scots, and I corrected him, swing that she and I were descended (at a huge interval!) from common ancestors in the Middle Ages.  The doctor did not bother to correct the record he was dictating, and thus that erroneous information goes into my medical record, and someone might find it who was studying porphyria descent.  Also, I spotted an extreme error on the opening pages of the Pollock Clan website; this is the statement that Peter Pollock's daughter Mauricle married Sir Norman de Leslyn.  No, it was Mauricle's granddaughter who married Sir Norman, who was among the heiress-pursuant Leslies,
who were descended from Queen Margaret's equerry.  Mauricle de Pollock was the first Lady of Rothes, who inherited the castle at Rothes  because her father was too busy (probably) being a knight to sire a son; Mauricle's daughter Eva inherited the castle and married "a knight yclept Watson".
She too had no male heir, so their was a third Lady of Rothes, who is not recorded as having a name, as her fame was eclipsed by the Hungarian
knight, Sir Norman.  Other Leslies married other heiresses, and one even dragged a nun from her convent to marry her money.  Maxwellls did the same, with some records showing nothing but cousin marriages in many generations of Maxwells. 

There were still Ladies of Rothes up until the late 20th century, the last being Lady Georgiana Maxwell, a member of Parliament, but I think the title has been vacated. 

Offline Paul

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • born a century too late
    • View Profile
Re: The Stewarts are descended from the Tudors
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2011, 10:08:24 PM »
Here's a simplified connection between the Romanovs & Mary, Queen of Scots:

Mary I, Queen of Scots (1544-1587) = Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley (1545-1567)

James VI & I (1566-1625) = Anna of Denmark (1574-1619)

Elisabeth of Scotland (1596-1662) = Frederick V, Elector Palatine (1596-1632)

Sophia of the Palatinate (1630-1714) = Ernst Augustus, Elector of Hanover (1629-1698)

King George I of Great Britain (1660-1727) = Sophia Dorothea of Celle (1666-1726)

Sophia Dorothea of Hanover (1687-1757) = King Frederick William I of Prussia (1688-1740)
Note: Charlotte of Prussia, wife of Czar Nicholas I, also descends from this marriage

Sophia Dorothea of Prussia (1719-1765) = Frederick Wilhelm, Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt (1700-1771)

Sophia Dorothea of Brandenburg-Schwedt (1736-1798) = Duke Frederick Eugene II of Wurttemberg (1732-1797)

Sophia Dorothea of Wurttemberg (1759-1828) = Czar Paul of Russia (1754-1801)

The Romanovs

« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 10:09:58 PM by Paul »
The only real possession you'll ever have is your character.
Tom Wolfe
US author & journalist (1931 - )