...but could ruling mean Utah Mormon is our king?
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 (14521485) – 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.