There seems to be quite a bit of evidence for Henry VIII's paternity of Catherine and Henry Carey. Should they be re-identified as the King's children on geni?
@Catherine Carey,Chief Lady of the Bedchamber is my 7th cousin 12 times removed Judy Rice=Arthur Rice my father=Israel Tekarihoken Rice his father=Pierre Atawenrate Rice his father=Ignace Awennaietha Deer Rice his father=Marie Madeleine Kiatawinon Deer Rice his mother=Thomas aka Atonwa Aronhiowonen her father=Silas Rice his father=Edmund Rice his father=Samuel Rice his father=Thomasine Rice(Frost) his mother=Thomasine Frost(Belgrave) her mother=Joanna Belgrave her mother=Catherine/Johanna Strutt her mother=Anne Pympe her mother=Elizabeth de Pympe her mother=Sir John Pashley her father=John Pashley his father=Sir Robert Pashley his father=Anne Pashley his mother=Sir Robert Howard her brother=Sir John Howard,Sheriff of Essex his son=Sir Robert of Stoke Neyland his son=John Howard,1st duke of Norfolk his son=Thomas Howard.2nd Duke of Norfolk his son=Elizabeth Boleyn Countess of Wiltshire his daughter=Mary Boleyn,Mistress King Henry V111 her daughter=Catherine Carey,Chief Lady of the Bedchamber her daughter this is my lineage Judy Rice
Emily, thanks for opening this discussion - which is pretty challenging indeed. My thoughts...
First of all, from a genealogical perspective, Mary Boleyn shouldn't be connected to Henry VIII if there is no formal marriage or if there isn't any offspring. The way it currently stands, it should be disconnected, because I don't think we should account for every possible amorous relationship in the world :-)
But, that is not your question, of course. In a general way, there seems to be too much doubt about the paternity and, in all fairness, can we deny William Carey's paternity on the basis of (even strong) rumours?It seems that our problem is the lack of sufficient contemporary sources.
Having said that...
In the link you give us, I'm particularly interested in the reference to John Hale, vicar of Isleworth. Perhaps we should look for the document that has the full statement he made. Depending on the context and on how this statement is worded, we may perhaps judge how genuine and sincere his statement is. Perhaps he was the only contemporary person who dared to speak out and say what everyone know - but no one else would ever want to record. The fact that the vicar was executed two weeks later may then not be a surprise.
All the other facts in that link may just be circumstantial - not enough to make this judgement on paternity, I think.
So, any chance we can dig for the vicar's statement?
OK, I found a more complete reference tp the statement (to be checked for accuracy). You find it here... http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=75531.
Th vicar states: "Moreover, Mr. Skydmore dyd show to me yongge Master Care, saying that he was our suffren Lord the Kynge's son by our suffren Lady the Qwyen's syster, whom the Qwyen's grace myght not suffer to be yn the Cowrte."
Obviously, the vicar's statement is indirect. A Mr. Skydmore told him that this Care(y) was the King's son. I guess we now need to learn more about Mr. Skydmore :-)
Justin, I understand, but I think those facts rather deserve coverage in the person's profile. From the genealogy perspective, I think the link on Geni doesn't make sense (and, after all, the connection is still there with Mary being Anne's sister). In a general way, my opinion is that only formal marriage and offspring are the rules for genealogy. But, I also know that this feels utterly unfair towards people that may share the lives of others without a formal relationship. For better clarity on Geni, in those cases, I rather recommend to user the "ex-partner" status - as the dotted line conveys this better than a solid line.
Catherine Carey, Chief Lady of the Bedchamber
I don't believe that there is any room on Geni for anything other than absolute proof. This has been searched for many times and not yet found. Unless this proof is found and accepted by historians, it is better to leave the prospect as a tantalising possibility.
Lorraine, I agree. There are many cases on Geni where ancestry can be extended for a generation or based on the best possible evidence but short of full proof. We can debate those. But this is a case where there are two possible fathers, and no way to decide between them. Better to stick with the legal descent until someone comes up with proof that Henry VIII was their real father. Until then, I like the way you say it -- Henry VIII is "a tantalising possibility".