'Direct Descendant' of Richard III found in Australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-25/brisbane-descendant-richard-iii-john-somerset-on-way-to-reburial/6348190

I haven't seen anything about this in the British press, and I had thought the only descendants at the ceremony were Michael Ibsen and Wendy Duldig.
However, I am wondering what this means. I thought a 'direct descendant' was someone descended from the actual person, not aunts, uncles and cousins. Surely, they can't be suggesting he is descended from John of Gloucester or Katherine. John may have had children, but we don't know who they are, and it seems certain that Katherine had none.
Perhaps they mean he is another Cecily descendant, but if so from whom? However, since John's Somerset's grandfather was called Henry Plantagenet-Somerset, then I suspect it is a y-dna thing. I thought the Somersets were the Beaufort line, but if he matches Richard, he wouldn't match them.

I wish they had gone into more detail. Does anyone else know anything about this?
Nico

Update on the above post:
Like the other descendants in the University of Leicester study, John Somerset of Brisbane also descends from Henry Somerset, 5th Duke of Beaufort in the direct male line.

However, they do not appear to share the same y-dna code. Therefore, the false paternity event must have occurred sometime between the 5th Duke of Beaufort and the present day descendants whose dna codes do not match.
Also, if John Somerset and Richard III have the same dna code, then G-P287 must be the actual Plantagenet dna code inherited from Edward III, their nearest common ancestor. In that case, that would put to rest some other myths, such as:
- John of Gaunt was a changeling;- Edmund of Langley was illegitimate (Queen Phillippa being unfaithful);- Richard of Conisburgh was illegitimate (Isabella and the Duke of Exeter.
Nico








On Monday, 30 March 2015, 16:22, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-25/brisbane-descendant-richard-iii-john-somerset-on-way-to-reburial/6348190

I haven't seen anything about this in the British press, and I had thought the only descendants at the ceremony were Michael Ibsen and Wendy Duldig.
However, I am wondering what this means. I thought a 'direct descendant' was someone descended from the actual person, not aunts, uncles and cousins. Surely, they can't be suggesting he is descended from John of Gloucester or Katherine. John may have had children, but we don't know who they are, and it seems certain that Katherine had none.
Perhaps they mean he is another Cecily descendant, but if so from whom? However, since John's Somerset's grandfather was called Henry Plantagenet-Somerset, then I suspect it is a y-dna thing. I thought the Somersets were the Beaufort line, but if he matches Richard, he wouldn't match them.

I wish they had gone into more detail. Does anyone else know anything about this?
Nico

How can anyone be a direct descendant of Richard lll? None of his kids had any children and his own legitimate son died aged ten predeceasing Richard. All descendants are collateral descendants, from his brothers and sisters or nephews, nieces and cousins. At the ceremony there were descendants of the noble families on both sides of the wars of the roses, and Bosworth, some of these people were related to Richard, so their descendants must be as well in the 15th to 17th generation.

Thanks Poohlandeva, collateral descendants is the word. The Beaufort line would be cousins and the other two nephews and nieces.

It is an interesting discovery though, and I'm surprised that it wasn't reported in the UK, as it finally settles the question of the Plantagenet y-dna code (at least from Edward III). He must be a recent discovery, because when the dna results were released a few months ago, there were two separate lines, and either one or possibly neither could be from the main Plantagenet line.
Surely now, Michael Hicks would agree that the bones do indeed belong to Richard. Even if the location, age, female dna line and all the rest wasn't enough for him, then surely he would have to concede now with a correct y-dna match.
Nico





On Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 5:54, poohlandeva <[email protected]> wrote:


How can anyone be a direct descendant of Richard lll? None of his kids had any children and his own legitimate son died aged ten predeceasing Richard. All descendants are collateral descendants, from his brothers and sisters or nephews, nieces and cousins. At the ceremony there were descendants of the noble families on both sides of the wars of the roses, and Bosworth, some of these people were related to Richard, so their descendants must be as well in the 15th to 17th generation.

Thanks Nico. You are correct, another interesting find about the lines that come down from Richard III and his sisters, brothers, cousins, will look out for more details.