Giving legal effect to DNA inheritance: "The peerage authorities were called upon to decide if the genetic material could be used to determine who should inherit the Pringle of Stichill baronetcy, and it was up to the Queen herself to order that a powerful but little-known court of top judges should make the ruling. If the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agrees that DNA evidence can be admitted in the case, it can then be used in any future claim to the peerage. This could have huge implications for the whole of the British aristocracy – and possibly even the Royal Family itself – if it means ‘pretenders’ emerge with genetic evidence to prove their right of succession." Rachel Treichler Who's the real aristocrat? Queen demands DNA to be tested in court to settle dispute over 330-year-old baronet title (...but could ruling mean a Utah Mormon is our king?) By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor For The Mail On Sunday Daily Mail, 10 October 2015 | Updated: 18:31 EST, 10 October 2015 ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-court- settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.html Her Majesty: The Queen has commanded Britain's most senior judges to decide if DNA evidence can be used for the first time to settle a lineage row The Queen has commanded Britain’s most senior judges to decide if DNA evidence can be used for the first time to settle a dispute over a hereditary title, in a move that could have far-reaching consequences for the aristocracy. Her Majesty personally ordered Lord Neuberger, Britain’s most senior judge, and six other justices of the Supreme Court to rule on a bitter family dispute over who is the rightful heir to an ancient baronetcy. The feud was unexpectedly sparked by an innocent family tree project involving a distinguished lineage dating back to the 13th Century. Scientific analysis dramatically revealed that the last baronet came from a different bloodline to his relatives, suggesting there may have been an illegitimate child in a previous generation. The two rival branches of the family have now spent thousands of pounds on a legal battle over which is the true lineage. The peerage authorities were called upon to decide if the genetic material could be used to determine who should inherit the Pringle of Stichill baronetcy, and it was up to the Queen herself to order that a powerful but little-known court of top judges should make the ruling. If the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agrees that DNA evidence can be admitted in the case, it can then be used in any future claim to the peerage. This could have huge implications for the whole of the British aristocracy – and possibly even the Royal Family itself – if it means ‘pretenders’ emerge with genetic evidence to prove their right of succession. Experts say the case will be difficult for the judges to decide, as it will be pitting the modern science of genetics against hundreds of years of tradition. One peer warned it would open a ‘can of worms’ but Charles Kidd, editor of Debrett’s Peerage and Baronetage, said: ‘I think it’s inevitable that DNA will become a factor in these sorts of disputes.’ The Pringle of Stichill baronetcy dates back to 1683 and distinguished members of the family included a physician to George III. The most recent baronet, Sir Steuart Pringle, was the Commandant General of the Royal Marines during the Falklands War, having survived an IRA car bomb. When he died two years ago, it was expected his eldest son Simon – a 56-year-old insurer from Sussex – would become the 11th baronet. However, Murray Pringle, a 74-year-old accountant from High Wycombe, believes he is the true heir. There is no land or property associated with the title, and he would not have any claim on the £1.5 million estate left by the last baronet. DNA evidence now suggests that the 8th Pringle of Stichill baronet was not in fact the father of the 9th baronet, and so the title should have passed to his second son Ronald and then to his elder son Norman Murray, rather than his cousin and most recent baronet, Falklands commander Sir Steuart His claim is based on DNA samples provided for a Clan Pringle DNA project that unexpectedly indicated that the 10th baronet was not genetically related to his cousins and the extended Pringle family, but that Murray is descended from a legitimate branch of the family. The 8th baronet, Army officer Sir Norman Robert Pringle, married a Florence Madge Vaughan at the turn of the 20th Century and had three sons. The eldest, Sir Norman Hamilton Pringle, became the 9th baronet. Sir Norman’s only son, Sir Steuart, succeeded him as the 10th baronet. However recent scientific analysis of the DNA project results revealed he was unrelated to the clan. Experts say the title should have gone to the 9th baronet’s younger – legitimate – brother Ronald and then to his eldest son Murray. Simon registered his claim to the Baronetcy with the Crown Office in June 2013 and Murray did the same in September that year, together with the DNA evidence. Last year it was decided that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council must give its opinion ‘as to which of the applicant or respondent should be entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage’. The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the Queen herself had to sign the letter requesting that the committee consider the matter, under the little-used Judicial Committee Act 1833. The last case dealt with by a baronetcy committee of the Privy Council was in 1927. The case will be heard in November. Because Simon Pringle does not dispute the DNA evidence, if the judges rule that it can be used in the case then the baronetcy will pass to the other side of the family and Murray Pringle would replace Sir Steuart as the 10th baronet. The Crown Office has confirmed that DNA evidence has never been used to settle any claim to a hereditary title before, but that if the case is successful, genetic material could be used in future cases. Neither Murray nor Simon Pringle wished to comment on the case last night. Ruling could spark bizarre claims on the British throne Of all the noble titles that have been fought over across the centuries, none has been more prized than the Royal succession – and the possibility of DNA evidence being used in such disputes could generate yet more claims on the throne. One such possibility involves the secret marriage between the future King George IV and his mistress Maria Fitzherbert. Although that 1785 union was not technically valid, George considered Catholic Maria his ‘true wife’, despite later marrying Princess Caroline of Brunswick. The marriage to Maria is thought to have produced three children, and already one possible descendant, a Mormon lawyer in Utah, is saying he will have a DNA test ‘out of curiosity’ to see if he has Royal blood. Last night James Ord, 39, from Salt Lake City, joked that if DNA was introduced in such cases he may be able to make a claim to the throne. Mr Ord, a distant cousin of an American seaman rumoured to be one of George’s children, said the story was ‘family lore’. ‘I want to know my history because it fascinates me,’ said Mr Ord. ‘But of course I won’t have any legal claim on Buckingham Palace!’ The chances of any of the Royal Family submitting to genetic tests is unlikely. The only monarch from whom DNA has been extracted is Richard III (1452-1485) – whose skeleton was found under a Leicester car park in 2012 – and that raised doubts over Royal lineage. An analysis matching the genes of Richard with those of his descendants showed that at some point an adulterous affair had broken the blood line. Academics have speculated that if, as has been rumoured, Edward III (1312-1377) was cuckolded, his son John of Gaunt might not, in fact, be his child. This could call into question the claim of Henry VII (1457-1509), who seized the throne from Richard III, to have Royal blood, claiming legitimacy through John of Gaunt. Intriguingly, the Queen claims her ancestry back to Henry VII. Read more: [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-co urt-settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.h tml References 1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-court-settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.html

I don't know if you subscribe to rootsweb or not. Is this news likely to unnerve Lord Kenyon? Is this likely to make some fearful of DNA testing while making others more eager to be tested?Dick > Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:51:43 -0400 > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DNA] Will DNA Be Used to Settle Inheritance Dispute? > From: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > > Giving legal effect to DNA inheritance: "The peerage authorities were called > upon to decide if the genetic material could be used to determine who should > inherit the Pringle of Stichill baronetcy, and it was up to the Queen > herself to order that a powerful but little-known court of top judges should > make the ruling. If the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agrees that > DNA evidence can be admitted in the case, it can then be used in any future > claim to the peerage. This could have huge implications for the whole of the > British aristocracy – and possibly even the Royal Family itself – if it > means ‘pretenders’ emerge with genetic evidence to prove their right of > succession." > Rachel Treichler > Who's the real aristocrat? Queen demands DNA to be tested in court to settle > dispute over 330-year-old baronet title > (...but could ruling mean a Utah Mormon is our king?) > By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor For The Mail On Sunday > Daily Mail, 10 October 2015 | Updated: 18:31 EST, 10 October 2015 > ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-court- > settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.html > Her Majesty: The Queen has commanded Britain's most senior judges to decide > if DNA evidence can be used for the first time to settle a lineage row > The Queen has commanded Britain’s most senior judges to decide if DNA > evidence can be used for the first time to settle a dispute over a > hereditary title, in a move that could have far-reaching consequences for > the aristocracy. > Her Majesty personally ordered Lord Neuberger, Britain’s most senior judge, > and six other justices of the Supreme Court to rule on a bitter family > dispute over who is the rightful heir to an ancient baronetcy. > The feud was unexpectedly sparked by an innocent family tree project > involving a distinguished lineage dating back to the 13th Century. > Scientific analysis dramatically revealed that the last baronet came from a > different bloodline to his relatives, suggesting there may have been an > illegitimate child in a previous generation. > The two rival branches of the family have now spent thousands of pounds on a > legal battle over which is the true lineage. > The peerage authorities were called upon to decide if the genetic material > could be used to determine who should inherit the Pringle of Stichill > baronetcy, and it was up to the Queen herself to order that a powerful but > little-known court of top judges should make the ruling. > If the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agrees that DNA evidence can > be admitted in the case, it can then be used in any future claim to the > peerage. > This could have huge implications for the whole of the British aristocracy > – and possibly even the Royal Family itself – if it means ‘pretenders’ > emerge with genetic evidence to prove their right of succession. > Experts say the case will be difficult for the judges to decide, as it will > be pitting the modern science of genetics against hundreds of years of > tradition. > One peer warned it would open a ‘can of worms’ but Charles Kidd, editor of > Debrett’s Peerage and Baronetage, said: ‘I think it’s inevitable that DNA > will become a factor in these sorts of disputes.’ > The Pringle of Stichill baronetcy dates back to 1683 and distinguished > members of the family included a physician to George III. > The most recent baronet, Sir Steuart Pringle, was the Commandant General of > the Royal Marines during the Falklands War, having survived an IRA car bomb. > When he died two years ago, it was expected his eldest son Simon – a > 56-year-old insurer from Sussex – would become the 11th baronet. However, > Murray Pringle, a 74-year-old accountant from High Wycombe, believes he is > the true heir. > There is no land or property associated with the title, and he would not > have any claim on the £1.5 million estate left by the last baronet. > DNA evidence now suggests that the 8th Pringle of Stichill baronet was not > in fact the father of the 9th baronet, and so the title should have passed > to his second son Ronald and then to his elder son Norman Murray, rather > than his cousin and most recent baronet, Falklands commander Sir Steuart > His claim is based on DNA samples provided for a Clan Pringle DNA project > that unexpectedly indicated that the 10th baronet was not genetically > related to his cousins and the extended Pringle family, but that Murray is > descended from a legitimate branch of the family. > The 8th baronet, Army officer Sir Norman Robert Pringle, married a Florence > Madge Vaughan at the turn of the 20th Century and had three sons. The > eldest, Sir Norman Hamilton Pringle, became the 9th baronet. Sir Norman’s > only son, Sir Steuart, succeeded him as the 10th baronet. > However recent scientific analysis of the DNA project results revealed he > was unrelated to the clan. > Experts say the title should have gone to the 9th baronet’s younger – > legitimate – brother Ronald and then to his eldest son Murray. > Simon registered his claim to the Baronetcy with the Crown Office in June > 2013 and Murray did the same in September that year, together with the DNA > evidence. > Last year it was decided that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council > must give its opinion ‘as to which of the applicant or respondent should be > entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage’. > The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the Queen herself had to sign the letter > requesting that the committee consider the matter, under the little-used > Judicial Committee Act 1833. > The last case dealt with by a baronetcy committee of the Privy Council was > in 1927. The case will be heard in November. > Because Simon Pringle does not dispute the DNA evidence, if the judges rule > that it can be used in the case then the baronetcy will pass to the other > side of the family and Murray Pringle would replace Sir Steuart as the 10th > baronet. > The Crown Office has confirmed that DNA evidence has never been used to > settle any claim to a hereditary title before, but that if the case is > successful, genetic material could be used in future cases. > Neither Murray nor Simon Pringle wished to comment on the case last night. > Ruling could spark bizarre claims on the British throne > Of all the noble titles that have been fought over across the centuries, > none has been more prized than the Royal succession – and the possibility of > DNA evidence being used in such disputes could generate yet more claims on > the throne. > One such possibility involves the secret marriage between the future King > George IV and his mistress Maria Fitzherbert. > Although that 1785 union was not technically valid, George considered > Catholic Maria his ‘true wife’, despite later marrying Princess Caroline of > Brunswick. > The marriage to Maria is thought to have produced three children, and > already one possible descendant, a Mormon lawyer in Utah, is saying he will > have a DNA test ‘out of curiosity’ to see if he has Royal blood. > Last night James Ord, 39, from Salt Lake City, joked that if DNA was > introduced in such cases he may be able to make a claim to the throne. > Mr Ord, a distant cousin of an American seaman rumoured to be one of > George’s children, said the story was ‘family lore’. ‘I want to know my > history because it fascinates me,’ said Mr Ord. ‘But of course I won’t have > any legal claim on Buckingham Palace!’ > The chances of any of the Royal Family submitting to genetic tests is > unlikely. The only monarch from whom DNA has been extracted is Richard III > (1452-1485) – whose skeleton was found under a Leicester car park in 2012 > – and that raised doubts over Royal lineage. > An analysis matching the genes of Richard with those of his descendants > showed that at some point an adulterous affair had broken the blood line. > Academics have speculated that if, as has been rumoured, Edward III > (1312-1377) was cuckolded, his son John of Gaunt might not, in fact, be his > child. > This could call into question the claim of Henry VII (1457-1509), who seized > the throne from Richard III, to have Royal blood, claiming legitimacy > through John of Gaunt. Intriguingly, the Queen claims her ancestry back to > Henry VII. > Read more: > [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-co > urt-settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.h > tml > > References > > 1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-court-settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message