![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Let's try to make this factual:
Pertinent portions of Brooks-Baker's Telegraph obit:
"Harold Brooks-Baker, who died on Saturday aged 71, was a self-appointed authority on all matters royal: his great advantage for journalists was that he was always available to make an arresting comment; his disadvantage was that he was often wrong.
"He and some associates acquired the rights to a series of spin-off books published by Burke's, Debrett's rival, but not its famous Peerage. Never the less a photograph of him holding a volume was often published. This venture, too, went into liquidation, and he next went in for marketing Scottish feudal baronies. Despite his carefully burnished image, he wrote little, apart from a few book reviews, and edited no books."
"If the tabloids and television continued to quote him, serious newspapers were careful to refer to him as head of Burke's Marketing Limited."
I'd be interested to know if the more royal candidate is more likely to win, which can be established with high-school statistics and a lot of research. Has anyone reputable looked into this? - Miles Gould, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"Jackson has no known royal descent (in fact, has no known ancestry beyond his great-grandparents!)" This family tree at Rootsweb.com would seem to contradict that statement. If you go further back by clicking on John Vance, then Joanna Montgomery, and then Alexander, it seems that Jackson not only has more known ancestry than three generations back, but that he in fact does have royal ancestry. Does anyone have a more authoritative source like one of Gary Boyd Roberts' books? -- Michael White T· C 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thomas Jackson | |||||||||||||||
Hugh Jackson | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
Andrew Jackson, Sr. | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
Andrew Jackson | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
---- Hutchinson | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
Elizabeth Hutchinson | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
said to be ---- Leslie | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
No known ancestors beyond Kekule #8. And the ancestors given differ from those in the tree you cite, and do not include any Vances. - Nunh-huh 01:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
NEVER trust a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.115.229 ( talk) 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a Quora question that display the research of a 12 years old demonstrating that all, save one, of USA presidents are related to John "Lackland", King of England. The comments there do demonstrate that it's not such a big deal. Ronbarak ( talk) 16:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of completely rewriting this page, to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's rules on NPOV and 'fringe' articles. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to prove or disprove a theory, and it's not the place for original research. I've kept the article brief, because there's not a lot to say. Personally, I'm not sure this theory warrants an article at all, but it looks like that discussion's already taken place (albeit years ago). DoctorKubla ( talk) 21:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that is our policy. Granted, I'm new at this, but if you look at other articles such as the moon landing conspiracy theory, the articles never states that the theory is untrue, only that most people believe it to be untrue for various comprehensively-cited reasons. The problem with the most royal candidate thing is that it just isn't notable enough to find reliable sources. The only notable proponents are Harold Brooks-Baker, whose claims are only documented on unreliable websites, and David Icke, who also believes that we are ruled by reptilian alien overlords. Furthermore, I can't find anyone who has even gone to the effort of debunking the theory, since anyone with any common sense can see that it's nonsense. The article is technically still original research, which is still in violation of policy, but it's the best I can do. Unless you can find some better sources yourself, the whole thing will most likely be marked for deletion. DoctorKubla ( talk) 09:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This article reads to state that Brooks-Baker's predictions were incorrect only once after long consecutive period of accuracy.
99.231.6.129 ( talk) 07:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The current topic sentence here is just plain false. The "most royal candidate theory" is not the theory stated in the lede; it's the theory that the candidate with the most royal descent wins. Somehow this accurate statement of what the theory contends has been edited out of the article and replaced by some other theory. Also gone: all the references and citations to Brook-Baker, the main proponent of the theory until his death. - Nunh-huh 19:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
https://www.geni.com/path/Martin-Van-Buren-8th-President-of-the-USA+is+related+to+Edward-I-Longshanks-King-of-England?from=353493399110004524&to=6000000000614910056 Here's a link showing that indeed, Martin Van Buren is a descendant of King John. This line goes to Edward I, who through his father Henry III, is the grandson of King John. His is also descended from him through a couple other lines as well. 67.118.201.15 ( talk) 21:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Just because on a slow news day a newspaper happened to report some random teenager12-year-old's personal opinion does not make it noteworthy or relevant. To demand that genealogical scholars refute some teenager12-year-old is really putting the burden of proof entirely on the wrong side.
Agricolae (
talk)
07:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I did some digging and found a post on Wikitree about this meme [3] which lead to a page [4] that uses their database to calculate the relationships between the Presidents and King John. Unsurprisingly, in addition to Martin Van Buren; James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, William McKinley Jr., Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan showed as having no direct relationships to John; and some like Abraham Lincoln being connected to John through his father Henry II. -- Auric talk 20:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Should this article be [s]merged to Harold Brooks-Baker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Guy ( help!) 17:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
User Agricolae keeps insisting that this theory exists only in the past, repeatedly revising the lead to say that it "was" rather than "is" a theory, proposition, or whatever he wants to call it. An idea remains an idea no matter whether its most vocal proponent is alive or dead or has disavowed it, and therefore needs to be referred to in the present tense, not the past. Insisting that it is no longer a theory now that what's-his-name is dead is not only factually wrong, but it takes a position on whether the theory is valid, which IMO violates WP:NPOV. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating the theory; I think it's ridiculous, except to the extent that people with more privileged backgrounds are likely to have some advantage over those with less privileged backgrounds, and that there could be some tenuous, indirect—and likely unproveable—connection between having a lot of ancestors who were part of the medieval aristocracy, and coming from a modern background of wealth and privilege. But absurd or not, the description in Wikipedia needs to state facts, not take sides; implying that the theory is dead and buried along with its most famous proponent is not neutral. P Aculeius ( talk) 20:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I came across the following 1988 article from The New York Times, which could provide information for this article:
"Bush, They Say, Is Indeed a Connecticut Yankee From King Henry's Court"
|
---|
Vice President Bush may be narrowly trailing Gov. Michael S. Dukakis in the opinion polls, but he is far ahead according to another indicator of Presidential prospects: the royalty factor. Going by the statistics of the past, Mr. Bush will be the next President of the United States, said Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage Ltd., the 162-year-old directory of British nobility. Burke's Peerage today released a report tracing the Vice President's family tree to the 1400's. The study by Burke's senior genealogist, Roger Powell, and an American colleague, William Ward, found that Mr. Bush has more connections to British and European royalty than any President of the United States. Queen's 13th Cousin For example, Mr. Bush is a 13th cousin of Queen Elizabeth II and is related to all members of the British royal family, according to Burke's genealogists. Moreover, he is related to all those who have married into the British royal family, like the Queen Mother, the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of York. Mr. Bush is also related to all current European monarchs on or off the throne, including the King of Albania. To the unenlightened, this lofty lineage may seem worlds apart from the back-slapping, baby-kissing spectacle of American Presidential races. But the royalty factor cannot be easily disregarded, if the past is any guide, Burke's officials say. Of the 40 American Presidents, 13 have had a direct connection to European royalty. The frequency with which royal blood has found its way into the White House is much higher than the share of the American population with links to British or European monarchs, which is estimated at less than 5 percent. In short, American Presidents have been at least six times more likely to have royal blood than the people who elected them. The royalty factor, Mr. Brooks-Baker suggests, is a genetic phenomenon. The genes or chromosomes for leaders come forward whether it's kings or presidents, he said. You cannot hold back the genes. In the case of the Vice President's genes, Burke's Peerage traced the Bush family tree to the 1400's. Mr. Bush is a direct descendant of King Henry VII, of one of Charles II's mistresses and of Henry VIII's younger sister, Mary, who married King Louis XII of France. Charles II's mistress Barbara Villiers lived from 1641 to 1706 and was a sixth cousin of the Vice President's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother, Elizabeth Wellington Fay, Mr. Brooks-Baker said. Miss Villiers's liaison with the King lasted 12 years and she had seven children, of whom only five were publicy acknowledged as his. Mr. Bush's American roots were planted by Dr. Richard Palgrave, his grandfather seven times removed, who came to America in 1630, Mr. Brooks-Baker said. According to Burke's, which has traced the genealogy of American Presidential families for years, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were all related to Edward I. In the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt were descended from Dutch nobility. Jimmy Carter has kinship ties to noble Scottish and English families, while President Reagan is a direct descendant of the 11th-century High King of Ireland, Brian Boru. If elected, Mr. Bush would be the most royal of any American president. For now, that distinction belongs to George Washington. 'Typical Yankee Family' In the past, Burke's has published its genealogical reports on American politicians after they are elected President. But, Mr. Brooks-Baker said, the Vice President comes from a typical old Yankee family, which promised several royal links, so the interest of the Burke's genealogists was piqued and they went ahead before the election. Burke's has not yet done a genealogical study of the Dukakis family tree. However, Mr. Brooks-Baker is dubious about finding anything to rival the Bush wealth of royal connections. The son of a Greek immigrant - the chance of getting very far with him is remote, he said. Poor George, said Kevin Phillips, a Republican political analyst. For an American politician trying to increase his popularity with the American public, it can't be too helpful to have the issue of royal lineage raised. |
Cheers. Drdpw ( talk) 18:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Let's try to make this factual:
Pertinent portions of Brooks-Baker's Telegraph obit:
"Harold Brooks-Baker, who died on Saturday aged 71, was a self-appointed authority on all matters royal: his great advantage for journalists was that he was always available to make an arresting comment; his disadvantage was that he was often wrong.
"He and some associates acquired the rights to a series of spin-off books published by Burke's, Debrett's rival, but not its famous Peerage. Never the less a photograph of him holding a volume was often published. This venture, too, went into liquidation, and he next went in for marketing Scottish feudal baronies. Despite his carefully burnished image, he wrote little, apart from a few book reviews, and edited no books."
"If the tabloids and television continued to quote him, serious newspapers were careful to refer to him as head of Burke's Marketing Limited."
I'd be interested to know if the more royal candidate is more likely to win, which can be established with high-school statistics and a lot of research. Has anyone reputable looked into this? - Miles Gould, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"Jackson has no known royal descent (in fact, has no known ancestry beyond his great-grandparents!)" This family tree at Rootsweb.com would seem to contradict that statement. If you go further back by clicking on John Vance, then Joanna Montgomery, and then Alexander, it seems that Jackson not only has more known ancestry than three generations back, but that he in fact does have royal ancestry. Does anyone have a more authoritative source like one of Gary Boyd Roberts' books? -- Michael White T· C 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thomas Jackson | |||||||||||||||
Hugh Jackson | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
Andrew Jackson, Sr. | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
Andrew Jackson | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
---- Hutchinson | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
Elizabeth Hutchinson | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
said to be ---- Leslie | |||||||||||||||
? | |||||||||||||||
No known ancestors beyond Kekule #8. And the ancestors given differ from those in the tree you cite, and do not include any Vances. - Nunh-huh 01:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
NEVER trust a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.115.229 ( talk) 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a Quora question that display the research of a 12 years old demonstrating that all, save one, of USA presidents are related to John "Lackland", King of England. The comments there do demonstrate that it's not such a big deal. Ronbarak ( talk) 16:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of completely rewriting this page, to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's rules on NPOV and 'fringe' articles. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to prove or disprove a theory, and it's not the place for original research. I've kept the article brief, because there's not a lot to say. Personally, I'm not sure this theory warrants an article at all, but it looks like that discussion's already taken place (albeit years ago). DoctorKubla ( talk) 21:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that is our policy. Granted, I'm new at this, but if you look at other articles such as the moon landing conspiracy theory, the articles never states that the theory is untrue, only that most people believe it to be untrue for various comprehensively-cited reasons. The problem with the most royal candidate thing is that it just isn't notable enough to find reliable sources. The only notable proponents are Harold Brooks-Baker, whose claims are only documented on unreliable websites, and David Icke, who also believes that we are ruled by reptilian alien overlords. Furthermore, I can't find anyone who has even gone to the effort of debunking the theory, since anyone with any common sense can see that it's nonsense. The article is technically still original research, which is still in violation of policy, but it's the best I can do. Unless you can find some better sources yourself, the whole thing will most likely be marked for deletion. DoctorKubla ( talk) 09:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This article reads to state that Brooks-Baker's predictions were incorrect only once after long consecutive period of accuracy.
99.231.6.129 ( talk) 07:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The current topic sentence here is just plain false. The "most royal candidate theory" is not the theory stated in the lede; it's the theory that the candidate with the most royal descent wins. Somehow this accurate statement of what the theory contends has been edited out of the article and replaced by some other theory. Also gone: all the references and citations to Brook-Baker, the main proponent of the theory until his death. - Nunh-huh 19:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
https://www.geni.com/path/Martin-Van-Buren-8th-President-of-the-USA+is+related+to+Edward-I-Longshanks-King-of-England?from=353493399110004524&to=6000000000614910056 Here's a link showing that indeed, Martin Van Buren is a descendant of King John. This line goes to Edward I, who through his father Henry III, is the grandson of King John. His is also descended from him through a couple other lines as well. 67.118.201.15 ( talk) 21:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Just because on a slow news day a newspaper happened to report some random teenager12-year-old's personal opinion does not make it noteworthy or relevant. To demand that genealogical scholars refute some teenager12-year-old is really putting the burden of proof entirely on the wrong side.
Agricolae (
talk)
07:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I did some digging and found a post on Wikitree about this meme [3] which lead to a page [4] that uses their database to calculate the relationships between the Presidents and King John. Unsurprisingly, in addition to Martin Van Buren; James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, William McKinley Jr., Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan showed as having no direct relationships to John; and some like Abraham Lincoln being connected to John through his father Henry II. -- Auric talk 20:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Should this article be [s]merged to Harold Brooks-Baker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Guy ( help!) 17:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
User Agricolae keeps insisting that this theory exists only in the past, repeatedly revising the lead to say that it "was" rather than "is" a theory, proposition, or whatever he wants to call it. An idea remains an idea no matter whether its most vocal proponent is alive or dead or has disavowed it, and therefore needs to be referred to in the present tense, not the past. Insisting that it is no longer a theory now that what's-his-name is dead is not only factually wrong, but it takes a position on whether the theory is valid, which IMO violates WP:NPOV. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating the theory; I think it's ridiculous, except to the extent that people with more privileged backgrounds are likely to have some advantage over those with less privileged backgrounds, and that there could be some tenuous, indirect—and likely unproveable—connection between having a lot of ancestors who were part of the medieval aristocracy, and coming from a modern background of wealth and privilege. But absurd or not, the description in Wikipedia needs to state facts, not take sides; implying that the theory is dead and buried along with its most famous proponent is not neutral. P Aculeius ( talk) 20:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I came across the following 1988 article from The New York Times, which could provide information for this article:
"Bush, They Say, Is Indeed a Connecticut Yankee From King Henry's Court"
|
---|
Vice President Bush may be narrowly trailing Gov. Michael S. Dukakis in the opinion polls, but he is far ahead according to another indicator of Presidential prospects: the royalty factor. Going by the statistics of the past, Mr. Bush will be the next President of the United States, said Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage Ltd., the 162-year-old directory of British nobility. Burke's Peerage today released a report tracing the Vice President's family tree to the 1400's. The study by Burke's senior genealogist, Roger Powell, and an American colleague, William Ward, found that Mr. Bush has more connections to British and European royalty than any President of the United States. Queen's 13th Cousin For example, Mr. Bush is a 13th cousin of Queen Elizabeth II and is related to all members of the British royal family, according to Burke's genealogists. Moreover, he is related to all those who have married into the British royal family, like the Queen Mother, the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of York. Mr. Bush is also related to all current European monarchs on or off the throne, including the King of Albania. To the unenlightened, this lofty lineage may seem worlds apart from the back-slapping, baby-kissing spectacle of American Presidential races. But the royalty factor cannot be easily disregarded, if the past is any guide, Burke's officials say. Of the 40 American Presidents, 13 have had a direct connection to European royalty. The frequency with which royal blood has found its way into the White House is much higher than the share of the American population with links to British or European monarchs, which is estimated at less than 5 percent. In short, American Presidents have been at least six times more likely to have royal blood than the people who elected them. The royalty factor, Mr. Brooks-Baker suggests, is a genetic phenomenon. The genes or chromosomes for leaders come forward whether it's kings or presidents, he said. You cannot hold back the genes. In the case of the Vice President's genes, Burke's Peerage traced the Bush family tree to the 1400's. Mr. Bush is a direct descendant of King Henry VII, of one of Charles II's mistresses and of Henry VIII's younger sister, Mary, who married King Louis XII of France. Charles II's mistress Barbara Villiers lived from 1641 to 1706 and was a sixth cousin of the Vice President's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother, Elizabeth Wellington Fay, Mr. Brooks-Baker said. Miss Villiers's liaison with the King lasted 12 years and she had seven children, of whom only five were publicy acknowledged as his. Mr. Bush's American roots were planted by Dr. Richard Palgrave, his grandfather seven times removed, who came to America in 1630, Mr. Brooks-Baker said. According to Burke's, which has traced the genealogy of American Presidential families for years, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were all related to Edward I. In the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt were descended from Dutch nobility. Jimmy Carter has kinship ties to noble Scottish and English families, while President Reagan is a direct descendant of the 11th-century High King of Ireland, Brian Boru. If elected, Mr. Bush would be the most royal of any American president. For now, that distinction belongs to George Washington. 'Typical Yankee Family' In the past, Burke's has published its genealogical reports on American politicians after they are elected President. But, Mr. Brooks-Baker said, the Vice President comes from a typical old Yankee family, which promised several royal links, so the interest of the Burke's genealogists was piqued and they went ahead before the election. Burke's has not yet done a genealogical study of the Dukakis family tree. However, Mr. Brooks-Baker is dubious about finding anything to rival the Bush wealth of royal connections. The son of a Greek immigrant - the chance of getting very far with him is remote, he said. Poor George, said Kevin Phillips, a Republican political analyst. For an American politician trying to increase his popularity with the American public, it can't be too helpful to have the issue of royal lineage raised. |
Cheers. Drdpw ( talk) 18:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)