Discussion:
Is Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. a Plantagenet descendant ?
Add Reply
Olivier
2020-03-06 14:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Good morning, sir.

I heard that all US presidents have the blood of English kings.

I'd like to know if the candidates for 2020 have that particularity.

Yours sincerely,

Olivier
j***@gmail.com
2020-03-06 16:13:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Olivier
Good morning, sir.
I heard that all US presidents have the blood of English kings.
I'd like to know if the candidates for 2020 have that particularity.
People in this group will dispute it, but it is extraordinarily likely that everyone who was president is descended from at least one person who was King of England at some point. But no more likely for a president to be so than anyone else of western european stock.

However, it is equally certain that many many presidents do not have anything close to a traceable line to royalty. I don't believe the evidence supports one even for the current orange White House occupant.

I have also not seen one for Joe Biden. William Addams Reitwiesner had this:
http://www.wargs.com/political/biden.html

and I haven't seen Gary Boyd Roberts say anything about Joe Biden yet. (he may have, I just haven't seen it)

--Joe C
Vance Mead
2020-03-06 16:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
From a very cursory search, most of his family comes from Ireland. The Biden surname might come from Hampshire/Wiltshire. They appear to be yeomen/husbandmen in the 17th century.

This is from ten minutes' googling. Not for publication.
taf
2020-03-06 18:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Olivier
Good morning, sir.
I heard that all US presidents have the blood of English kings.
This is statistically likely, but not genealogically accurate. Periodically this kind of claim gets reported in the popular media, but the actual historical record does not bear it out. The pedigree of Andrew Jackson, for example, can't be traced beyond a great-grandparent, and there are others who have pretty obscure backgrounds that can't be traced before the 16th century. The people making the claim are basing it on sloppy genealogy.

There are variants of this claim that have been broadly reported. One was by an amateur American genealogist who purchased the publishing rights to one of the British Peerage trademarks and then portrayed himself as an expert on all things genealogical. Every four years for about two decades, he would send out a press release to the media claiming that in every American election, the candidate with the most/best royal ancestry won, and this inviolable rule could be used to pick the winner of the next election. It would be reported in the nature of the stories about the octopus who picked the winner of the World cup, or more traditionally, the groundhog who predicted then spring would arrive, but some people took it as serious reporting. Even if he picked it wrong, he would be back again the next election cycle claiming to have discovered a 'better' royal descent for the actual winning candidate than he knew about before the previous election, and thereby confirming his principle. He never provided any details on the pedigrees involved, and there is every reason to believe he was simply a charlatan, making it all up to get media attention. (In his obituary in a British newspaper, it was said that his upside was that he was always available to the press with a pithy fact they could publish, the downside being that it was usually incorrect.)

As an aside, his claim would be picked up by David Icke, a conspiracy theorist who believes that the Illuminati who have been secretly controlling the world since prehistoric times and from whom all of the royal houses are drawn, and because of this work, all of the presidents as well, are actually the descendants of alien reptilian humanoids.

The other version was by a 12-year-old who simply went on line to the crowdsourced pedigrees on FamilySearch and 'discovered' that every American president descended from king John. The media reported it as a 'look what the precocious girl has done' story, without fact-checking the original claim. Well, the FamilySearch trees are of similar quality to other crowdsourced genealogy collections that are online - a few carefully done, using appropriate scholarship with primary records, but most are the work of simple name-collectors, compiling their trees from other trees they in turn found online, without any understanding of the sources, caveats or anything else, and thus combining every jumped conclusion, fanciful assumption, etc. Again, there are a number of American presidents for whom no such authentic line has been traced.
Post by Olivier
I'd like to know if the candidates for 2020 have that particularity.
I don't think Trump has such a documented line (if he did, I am sure NEHGS would have issued a press release by now, reporting "Trump is a cousin of Obama"). I seriously doubt Bernie Sanders does (his background is continental Jewish), and I am completely unfamiliar with Biden's roots.

taf
taf
2020-03-07 02:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Olivier
I'd like to know if the candidates for 2020 have that particularity.
I don't think Trump has such a documented line (if he did, I am sure NEHGS would have issued a press release by now, reporting "Trump is a cousin of Obama"). I seriously doubt Bernie Sanders does (his background is continental Jewish), and I am completely unfamiliar with Biden's roots.
Oops, I left out one candidate, Tulsi Gabbard. Her family were Anglo-Americans living on Samoa, but I am unaware of any attempt to trace her deeper ancestry.

taf
b***@yahoo.com
2020-06-13 19:15:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty-even Trump his 10th Great grandmother was Lady Jane Stewart the granddaughter of King James V of Scotland. This is also my line, $.80 from Lady Jane’s son David Leslie born 1600 and I descend from their daughter lady Margaret Leslie born 1593 in Scotland. Biden needs to have his family tree done by a professional I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.
taf
2020-06-13 20:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com
Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty-
This may well be true, and Van Buren too, but in terms of proven royal ancestry the claim that they all have such descents is not well-founded. If one sets aside the wishful thinking and unfounded names-the-same assumptions, there are a lot more than just Van Buren who lack such a proven royal descent.
Post by b***@yahoo.com
even Trump his 10th Great grandmother was Lady Jane Stewart the
granddaughter of King James V of Scotland.
Perhaps you could present the precise line for evaluation.

taf
Enno Borgsteede
2020-06-13 20:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com
Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty-even Trump his 10th Great grandmother was Lady Jane Stewart the granddaughter of King James V of Scotland.
I don't think so. According to Geni, King James V of Scotland is my 6th cousin 13 times removed, but there is no relation with the current president, which would be there if the president were a descendant.

For more information, please check:

https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-a-descendant-of-King-John-of-England

The article mentions Geni as an offender, and it had a connection earlier, but that was corrected later.

Regards,

Enno
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-13 20:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This passed unnoticed by the newsgroup, at the time, but, back in 2016, a genealogist said that both Hillary Clinton and François Hollande were descended from Louis X of France, read https://www.thelocal.fr/20161106/hollande-distantly-related-to-hillary-clinton-claims-book/.
John Higgins
2020-06-13 22:18:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
This passed unnoticed by the newsgroup, at the time, but, back in 2016, a genealogist said that both Hillary Clinton and François Hollande were descended from Louis X of France, read https://www.thelocal.fr/20161106/hollande-distantly-related-to-hillary-clinton-claims-book/.
You misread this. It didn't say that Clinton or Hollande was "descended" from Louis X. It said that Clinton was "a relative" of Louis X, and that Hollande was "distantly related to" Pjhilip V, brother of Louis X. There's a difference...

The article deservedly "passed unnoticed" by the newsgroup in 2016. It was trash, and still is.

The supposed Roddham royal descent has been discussed - and dismissed - several times here. Check the archives....
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-13 22:42:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
This passed unnoticed by the newsgroup, at the time, but, back in 2016, a genealogist said that both Hillary Clinton and François Hollande were descended from Louis X of France, read https://www.thelocal.fr/20161106/hollande-distantly-related-to-hillary-clinton-claims-book/.
You misread this. It didn't say that Clinton or Hollande was "descended" from Louis X. It said that Clinton was "a relative" of Louis X, and that Hollande was "distantly related to" Pjhilip V, brother of Louis X. There's a difference...
The article deservedly "passed unnoticed" by the newsgroup in 2016. It was trash, and still is.
The supposed Roddham royal descent has been discussed - and dismissed - several times here. Check the archives....
On your first point, oops, sorry, you're right, I got confused.
On your second point, this royal descent is not through the Roddhams of Durham. It's through Hillary's French-Canadian ancestry through her mattrilineal greatgrandmother.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-13 22:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I've just sent a message to said French genealogist asking him if he could clarify us regarding his research.
John Higgins
2020-06-14 21:40:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
This passed unnoticed by the newsgroup, at the time, but, back in 2016, a genealogist said that both Hillary Clinton and François Hollande were descended from Louis X of France, read https://www.thelocal.fr/20161106/hollande-distantly-related-to-hillary-clinton-claims-book/.
You misread this. It didn't say that Clinton or Hollande was "descended" from Louis X. It said that Clinton was "a relative" of Louis X, and that Hollande was "distantly related to" Pjhilip V, brother of Louis X. There's a difference...
The article deservedly "passed unnoticed" by the newsgroup in 2016. It was trash, and still is.
The supposed Roddham royal descent has been discussed - and dismissed - several times here. Check the archives....
On your first point, oops, sorry, you're right, I got confused.
On your second point, this royal descent is not through the Roddhams of Durham. It's through Hillary's French-Canadian ancestry through her mattrilineal greatgrandmother.
I overlooked that the article said that Hillary's relationship to Louis was via her maternal ancestry, not through her Rodham ancestry (which I misspelled as "Roddham").

The beginnings of Hillary's French ancestry can be seen here (scroll down to "Les émigrants percherons ancêtres de Hillary Rodham Clinton"):
http://www.perche-quebec.com/files/hillary-clinton/individus/hillary-clinton.htm#percherons
Most if not all of this can be seen in Genealogics - although with no linkage to to French monarchs, at least that I can see).
m***@gmail.com
2020-07-21 23:40:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I believe that is because she is a descendant (like myself) of one of the “King’s Daughters”... girls and women selected to be sent to New France. The King financially sponsored between 600 and 1000 girls/women - they were of no familial relation to the king himself.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-22 01:31:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I believe that is because she is a descendant (like myself) of one of the “King’s Daughters”... girls and women selected to be sent to New France. The King financially sponsored between 600 and 1000 girls/women - they were of no familial relation to the king himself.
No. The article's wording makes it fairly clear that he meant Hillary was related to Louis X, who ruled centuries before the colonization of New France.
Denis Beauregard
2020-07-24 15:45:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:31:20 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I believe that is because she is a descendant (like myself) of one of the “King’s Daughters”... girls and women selected to be sent to New France. The King financially sponsored between 600 and 1000 girls/women - they were of no familial relation to the king himself.
No. The article's wording makes it fairly clear that he meant Hillary was related to Louis X, who ruled centuries before the colonization of New France.
You clearly just don't know what is a “King’s Daughters”.

During 1663-1673, France sent to New France about 800 women to
be married, now known as “King’s Daughters” because the king
was paying for their travel. Some of them were found to have
some Royal ancestry, many many generations back as expected.

Now refering to the chart at
http://www.perche-quebec.com/files/hillary-clinton/individus/hillary-clinton-arbre.htm

it focusses on Perche, which is an area of France, partly in Normandy.
None of her ancestors in that page are royal.

So I verified all her Quebec ancestry based on that page, that is from

- Simon Campeau and Véronique Bourdeau (GFAN 27267)
- Joseph Godet and Jeanne Pilette (GFAN 112544)

I put my family sheet numbers for reference. But none is royal anyway.

None of the ancestors of Hillary is "royal" according to the various
researches made about Quebec early families.

But there are some “King’s Daughters” (Filles du roi) who have a
documented trail to some king.

- Catherine de Baillon
http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec-genealogy/001/001079.php
- Judith Catherine de Belleau (no living descendant)
http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec-genealogy/004/004276.php
- Marie Martin
http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec-genealogy/001/001446.php


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
taf
2020-07-24 16:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Denis Beauregard
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:31:20 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
No. The article's wording makes it fairly clear that he meant Hillary
was related to Louis X, who ruled centuries before the colonization of
New France.
You clearly just don't know what is a “King’s Daughters”.
The article indicates that "French geneologist (sic) Jean-Louis Beaucarnot" claim of her ancestry that, "Most notably, back 23 generations, she counts as a relative King Louis X le Hutin, known as 'Louis the Stubborn' in English." Who knows what it means by 'she counts as a relative' but one can not attribute this to a misunderstanding by Paulo over King's Daughters.

taf
Denis Beauregard
2020-07-24 16:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Denis Beauregard
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:31:20 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
No. The article's wording makes it fairly clear that he meant Hillary
was related to Louis X, who ruled centuries before the colonization of
New France.
You clearly just don't know what is a “King’s Daughters”.
The article indicates that "French geneologist (sic) Jean-Louis Beaucarnot" claim of her ancestry that, "Most notably, back 23 generations, she counts as a relative King Louis X le Hutin, known as 'Louis the Stubborn' in English." Who knows what it means by 'she counts as a relative' but one can not attribute this to a
misunderstanding by Paulo over King's Daughters.

There is no lineage that far from her New France ancestry.

From

2 Joseph GODET
* married 1775-02-19 Pointe-Montréal (Ontario) [GFNA 112544]
3 Jeanne PILETTE

She descends from:

(by Louis Hébert and Marie Rolet, early pioneers)

954 Simon PAJOT
master tallow-chandler
dead before inventory 1563-11-09 (France)
* married about 1530 Paris (Paris : 75056) [GFNA 45456]
955 Jeanne GUERINEAU
born (France)
dead between will 1572-10-03 and inventory 1572-10-16 Paris
(Paris), buried Paris (Saint-Gervais) (Paris)

(by Jean Valiquette, enrolled in 1653)

814 Mathurin FOUREAU
dead after 1582-07-02 (France)
* married about 1550 Le Lude ? (Sarthe) [GFNA 127727]
815 Thenneline FAUCHART
dead after 1578-10-12 (France)


Her 2 farer ancestors are not from king's daughters. And none is close
to Louis X.

As for the claim "relative of Louis X", this is not from her Quebec
ancestry. And there are 3 king's daughters with royal ancestry. Also,
it is obvious she had many ancestors living in France at the same
time as Louis X, but also any French king until they left for New
France in the 1600s !


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
taf
2020-07-24 17:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:01:18 -0700 (PDT), taf
There is no lineage that far from her New France ancestry.
. . . . that you know of.

taf
Denis Beauregard
2020-07-24 21:06:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:01:18 -0700 (PDT), taf
There is no lineage that far from her New France ancestry.
. . . . that you know of.
If I don't know in 2020, you can sure Mr Beaucarnot didn't know
in 2016... It is not common to publish a new deep ancestral tree
for New France !


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
taf
2020-07-24 21:57:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:06:42 -0700 (PDT), taf
Post by taf
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:01:18 -0700 (PDT), taf
There is no lineage that far from her New France ancestry.
. . . . that you know of.
If I don't know in 2020, you can sure Mr Beaucarnot didn't know
in 2016... It is not common to publish a new deep ancestral tree
for New France !
If Mr. Beaucarnot has found something new, but has yet to formally publish it, then you wouldn't know about it, would you?

In general, I find arguments along the lines of 'if I don't know about it, then it can't possibly exist' very unpersuasive.

taf
Denis Beauregard
2020-07-24 23:18:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:06:42 -0700 (PDT), taf
Post by taf
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:01:18 -0700 (PDT), taf
There is no lineage that far from her New France ancestry.
. . . . that you know of.
If I don't know in 2020, you can sure Mr Beaucarnot didn't know
in 2016... It is not common to publish a new deep ancestral tree
for New France !
If Mr. Beaucarnot has found something new, but has yet to formally publish it, then you wouldn't know about it, would you?
He made a book and said that in his book. If he has found something,
you can be sure someone at least reacted to it or verified it.

But as I said, he is not an expert of New France. So, if he found
something, it would be from the "non Quebec" French ancestry, which
is very limited.


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
taf
2020-07-24 23:51:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Denis Beauregard
But as I said, he is not an expert of New France. So, if he found
something, it would be from the "non Quebec" French ancestry, which
is very limited.
And like I said, this is not a logically sound argument, that someone has to be an expert in New France genealogy to find a royal line for a French family. I prefer to actually see what a claim is before I decide it has to be wrong, but to each his own.

If anyone is curious enough, the book is available on Amazon.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-25 00:30:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is a relevant quote from Google Books preview, which does not inspire much confidence: "une aieule descendante d'un bâtard de Bourbon la fait cousiner avect toutes les anciennes families royales de la vielle Europe. Comme Barack Obama, elle descend de notre roi Jean II le Bon et, comme lui, comme George Bush et comme son adversaire Donald Trump, elle compte parmi ses ancêtres la reine Isabelle d'Anglaterre, dite << la louve de France >>, fille de Philippe le Bel.

Problems:
1. Obama has no documented descent from Edward III of England or Jean II of France.
2. Trump has no documented descent from Edward III, either.

Denis Beauregard
2020-07-24 16:05:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 13:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
This passed unnoticed by the newsgroup, at the time, but, back in 2016, a genealogist said that both Hillary Clinton and François Hollande were descended from Louis X of France, read https://www.thelocal.fr/20161106/hollande-distantly-related-to-hillary-clinton-claims-book/.
I would not trust the author of the said genealogy as a source
for royal ancestry of Hillary. He is not an expert of New France.

But the article, as reported by another poster, said "relative".

If there is no royal lineage for her on the Internet, it means
that in 2016, there were none too !


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
taf
2020-07-24 16:34:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Denis Beauregard
I would not trust the author of the said genealogy as a source
for royal ancestry of Hillary. He is not an expert of New France.
It is perfectly possible for a French genealogist to be competent in tracing a French family to royalty without having expertise in a distinct region where a member of the family happened to emigrate.

taf
j***@albion.edu
2020-06-13 23:40:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”

Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.

Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
JBrand
2020-06-14 02:27:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@albion.edu
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”
Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.
Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
I thought John Adams had both Coytemore/Tynge and Mrs. Margaret Estouteville Sheppard ...
Don Stone
2020-06-14 03:36:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JBrand
Post by j***@albion.edu
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”
Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.
Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
I thought John Adams had both Coytemore/Tynge and Mrs. Margaret Estouteville Sheppard ...
I believe you are thinking of John Quincy Adams.

-- Don Stone
JBrand
2020-06-14 16:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Don Stone
Post by JBrand
Post by j***@albion.edu
“Every US President except Van Buren descended from Royalty” .....
“I’ve been doing this for almost 2 decades and I have sources which means I have proof for everything in my tree.”
Well, I sure would love to see that. Many of us, especially the professional Gary Boyd Roberts, have done the presidential trees over the years. I want to be clear: there is NO PROOF of several of these supposed royal ancestries. And by “proof,” I mean contemporary documents. Unfortunately, I can find *sources* for anything I want, but *sources* are not *proof* unless they are contemporary and trustworthy. Example: as far as I know, not a single person has been able to find proof of any of President Andrew Jackson’s great-grandparents. That doesn’t stop multiple modern-day “sources” from claiming otherwise, making guesses based on flimsy ideas. As for Trump, his maternal Scottish ancestry is likely to contain some gentry, but there are conflicting claims about the line that have never been resolved. Other Presidents that have not been proven to have royal descent are: John Adams, Monroe, Tyler, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton. Some of these had First Ladies who have proven royal descent. And Buchanan and Polk *may* have Scottish royal descent, but it hasn’t been proven fully.
Certainly many of the US Presidents do have proven royal ancestry. About half of them. “All but Van Buren”? No.
J+
I thought John Adams had both Coytemore/Tynge and Mrs. Margaret Estouteville Sheppard ...
I believe you are thinking of John Quincy Adams.
-- Don Stone
Okay, so those lines are through Abigail Smith, wife of President John Adams.
Loading...