On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:02:53 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn wrote: > >>Not unique, but uncommon for Western Europe. > > Yes but "uniquely" in the sense that none of Richard's supposed male line > descendants, Richard had no known male line descendants beyond the first generation. > or any other known male line Plantagenet descendants for that matter, All of which represent a single line, so this is a fancy way of saying that Richard doesn't match the 18th century Beauforts, which doesn't make either more 'unique' than the other. > share this Y haplogroup, regardless of how common or uncommon it may be > in Western Europe. Obviously there must be a disconnect somewhere. Which would be the case either it was G or R or E or whatever. Everyone recognizes that the fact that Richard is different than the Beauforts means there must be a problem somewhere, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Richard being (specifically) G. > Why do genealogists insist upon arguing in favor of a theory based upon > marital infidelity when it has no basis in fact. In law we call this a > fishing expedition. Because the false-paternity had to happen somewhere, and the vast majority of the intervening generations involve marriages, so all things being equal, which they are not, the odds would favor the false-paternity being in one of the marriage links rather than one of the non-marriage links. (And no, that is not what in law is called a fishing expedition.) As to the theory having no basis in fact, this is rich coming from someone inventing distant connections to ancient tribes. The fact is that somewhere there was an infidelity, whether marital or within the context of a recognized extra-marital relationship. There is no basis at all for where that was, and hence there is no basis on which to assign a haplotype to the Plantagenet root. > The other alternative, which btw I am not ruling out, is that the particular > type G Y-DNA passed on to the early Plantagenets pre-existed in Gaul before > the Roman occupation of Gaul. This is of course a possibility. This is of course a non-sequitur. Where Richard's G haplotype was in the pre-Roman era is not 'the other alternative', but rather a completely independent question from whether there was a marital infidelity between Edward III and Richard III. Whether John Holand got his leg over really doesn't affect one way or the other whether Richard's G haplotype came from the Alans. taf