According to a recent claim on ownership of Taj Mahal in Agra, it is claimed in Lucknow 1. Bahadur Shah Zafar ( deposed Indian Emperor in 1858) had 49 children and all died except three. 2. One of the three - Mirza Qaish- along with his wife - Ashraf Mahal- moved to Aurangabad. 3.Their only son, Prince Mirza Abdullah, settled in Hyderabad. 4. His son, Mirza Gaffar (alias Mirza Pyare ) and his wife, Habeeba Begum, had one son ( Mirza Yousuf Ali Baig ) and two daughters (Husan Jahanara Begum and Laila Ummani). 5. Laila Ummani had three daughters and four sons. 6. Her second son was Yakub Ariffuddin Tucy. 7. His son, Prince Yaqub Habeebuddin Tucy , is now claiming ownership of the Taj Mahal. with best wishes, P.K.Saha --------------------------------- How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos

At 10:17 AM 25/06/05 +0100, you wrote: >According to a recent claim on ownership of Taj Mahal in Agra, it is claimed in Lucknow > >1. Bahadur Shah Zafar ( deposed Indian Emperor in 1858) had 49 children and all died except three. >2. One of the three - Mirza Qaish- along with his wife - Ashraf Mahal- moved to Aurangabad. >3.Their only son, Prince Mirza Abdullah, settled in Hyderabad. >4. His son, Mirza Gaffar (alias Mirza Pyare ) and his wife, Habeeba Begum, had one son ( Mirza Yousuf Ali Baig ) and two daughters (Husan Jahanara Begum and Laila Ummani). >5. Laila Ummani had three daughters and four sons. >6. Her second son was Yakub Ariffuddin Tucy. >7. His son, Prince Yaqub Habeebuddin Tucy , is now claiming ownership of the Taj Mahal. >with best wishes, >P.K.Saha > > Hello Pabitra, Thanks for this. I had seen this gentlemans claim before, though the online article did not give his line of descent from the last Padshah. There's a couple of problems here as I see, firstly I find it difficult to believe that 46 children were somehow done away with, without history making some sort of record of it. I know that Hodgson apparently muredered some 11 close members of the family, but there's no hint of such a wide scale crime. Many members were exiled or fled to Nepal, which possibly may account for the apparent loss. Secondly, 'Prince' Yakub's father was a maternal grandson of Mirza Gaffar, so that doesn't entitle him to anything at all. Though, if memory serves me correctly, the article suggested that 'Prince' Yakub was of Mughal descent on both sides of his family. If so, why wasn't his paternal descent mentioned? I'll make a note of it, but with a generous pinch of salt. Interesting nonetheless. Cheers, Henry