Richard III's "descendants"!!

[observer]

Why do newspaper reports claim that King Richard III's "descendants" are disputing his burial place?

His only known legitimate issue, his son Edward of Middleham, died young, at or around the age of 10. Obviously, without any descendants of his own.

Richard is reputed to have had three illegitimate offspring.

His bastard son, known as John of Gloucester, had no known descendants.

His bastard daughter, Katherine (wife of William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon), seems to have had no children either, because the Earl’s heir was his daughter by his first wife, Mary Woodville (sister of Edward IV's wife, Elizabeth Woodville).

The third bastard attributed to Richard III was Richard of Eastwell, called Richard Plantagenet, but he is known only from a gravestone of 1550 and information first published in 1735, so he may not be in fact one of Richard III's by-blows. In any event, there is no record of his fathering children.

Richard III's bones were identified through a comparison of his mitochondrial DNA with that of two matrilineal descendants of his eldest sister, Anne of York because he had no descendants of his body.

Descendants of Anne of York are not those of Richard III but of Anne's daughter, also Anne (who married Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset), by her husband, Henry Holland, 3rd Duke of Exeter.

[Cinderella]

I agree that it can give the wrong impression because it seems to imply a direct descendant, but apparently it is not incorrect. I found a discussion on this English Language & Usage message board that talks about the different types of descendants: english.stackexchange.com/questions/61559/meaning-of-direct-descendant-as-opposed-to-indirect-descendant

Added: According to the Wikipedia link on that board, the Richard III "descendants" today would legally be collateral descendants.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineal_descendant

[observer]

Aug 17, 2013 19:16:33 GMT Cinderella said:

I agree that it can give the wrong impression because it seems to imply a direct descendant, but apparently it is not incorrect. I found a discussion on this English Language & Usage message board that talks about the different types of descendants: english.stackexchange.com/questions/61559/meaning-of-direct-descendant-as-opposed-to-indirect-descendant

Added: According to the Wikipedia link on that board, the Richard III "descendants" today would legally be collateral descendants.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineal_descendant

Thank you, Cinderella, for your response.

It is my understanding, however, that in both legal and genealogical terms, "collateral descendant" is used to refer to "a relative descended from a brother or sister of an ancestor, and thus a cousin, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle." This is similar to the Wikipedia definition from the Law Dictionary.

The key word surely, however, is "ancestor," whom the OED defines as "a person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended:"

In this case, however, none of the "relatives" descends from Richard III, who would be the "ancestor."

Anne of York is the ancestor, from whom they are lineal descendants. It is the descendants of Richard III who would be the collateral descendants, surely.

I think the newspapers have the relationship back-to-front, though I can accept that there is a collateral descent from Richard and Anne's father, Richard, 3rd Duke of York.

Collateral descent is indirect; i.e., "up" to one ancestor, and then "down" again, such as from brother to brother, cousin to cousin, uncle to nephew, etc. As the common ancestor of the "descendant's" line and any from Richard III is Richard III's father, the relationship to these so-called "descendants" actually is, in genealogical terms, that of a "collateral relative," whom Family Magazine online defines as "... any blood relative who is not your ancestor. So your ancestors are your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., and your collateral relatives are cousins, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, siblings, etc. " www.familytreemagazine.com/article/collateralrelative

[Cinderella]

Hmm! Thank you for the explanation. In that case, the newspapers should refer to Richard's relatives, not descendants, which I certainly would prefer because it is much clearer!

[Cinderella]

And I am annoyed with myself for misreading that Wikipedia entry... bad Cinderella.

[paulchen]

I do so agree Observer. It annoys me as well. But this happens all the time as I have read of people claiming to be the "descendants" of Anne Boleyn, Queen Mary II and Queen Anne! Collateral descendants or relations, maybe, but no descendants to this day and age.

[Cinderella]

A relevant discussion from the BBC about the number of living relatives of Richard III: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-23757868

[observer]

Aug 21, 2013 21:27:56 GMT Cinderella said:

A relevant discussion from the BBC about the number of living relatives of Richard III: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-23757868

Cinderella, thanks for posting this linik - I had missed the broadcast.

Interesting that it does refer to "relatives" and not to "descendants." Interesting, too, the possible number of English people who might fall into that category.