Jump to content

Talk:Lady Barbara FitzRoy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

paternity and other issues

[edit]

The article in its current state asserts without attribution the claim that Charles II, who accepted that he was the father of Barbara FitzRoy, was in error. Surely better citations are needed for this; her true biological paternity is no more knowable than that of the child of any trollop appearing on the Maury Povich show.

But the uncertainty of her biological father's identity doesn't alter the identity of her legal parent, the king, and that legal parentage is what shaped her life. I don't believe it's appropriate to remove her ancestry on that basis; it certainly isn't appropriate to remove her maternal ancestors on the basis of uncertainty about her paternal ancestors. - Nunh-huh 03:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely her legal father was her mother's husband Roger Palmer, 1st Earl of Castlemaine? Opera hat (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "legal" is the wrong word (but perhaps not; I think being the king's acknowledged bastard rather precludes having another father; I suspect it would depend on whether Palmer disavowed her). In any case, being believed to have been the king's bastard daughter is what dictated the course of her life, not the possibility of being the daughter of the Earl of Castlemaine or the Duke of Marlborough. She figures in the ancestry of many who are called descendants of King Charles, so if her parentage were ever to be accurately determined (which at this point would only be via DNA), it might be an interesting re-write of history. - Nunh-huh 15:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does she really figure in many people's ancestry charts? She is alleged to have had an illegitimate son by the Earl of Arran and then lived the rest of her life in a convent. Opera hat (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her maternal ancestry alone would look like that below, if it is decided to remove the paternal:

Ancestors

[edit]

disgrace

[edit]

the disgrace and the monastery section is a jumble to read. it's as if whoever wrote it went off on a tangent, you go into her son's life then go back to her as if continuing the topic before the mention of the son. then just say arran and considering both James Hamilton and Charles Hamilton at some point carried the title of Arran, albeit different forms of the title, that makes things confusing for the average reader. 2601:580:C000:4EE0:6145:637:5787:3D31 (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]