Below is the text posted by Ben P who poses some very good questions in regards to Mormonism being “the quintessential American religion” that puts importance on our British ancestors. This is relevant with my discovery that the Preston and Breckenridge family have close ties with the House of Stewart via the marriage of Hon. Mary Stewart of Montjoy, and Phineas Preston. Surely the Preston and Breckenridge family did not IGNORE their illustrious ancestors who ruled England and Scotland, especially John Breckenridge who was the Vice President of the United States and leader of the Confederate forces who opposed Lincoln’s abolition of Slavery with treasonous acts of violence. The Confederacy aksed Britian to take up their cause. John fled to Britain which makes me wonder if British Royalty knew of his lineage to the Royal Stewarts.
The Mormons opposed slavery that Britain abolished in 1833. That a Mormon Genealogist is poised to defeat a black man in the coming Presidential race -due to American Racism – gives rise from the old problems that have plagued this Democracy. Many whites in America believe the black race will not be included in the coming Kingdom of God where Jesus is king – and then some.
Charles Town was founded by King Charles Stewart who is the ancestor of Princess Diana, and thus her two sons William and Harry who one day – God willing – will be King of England. Will the Windsors recognize the Preston-Breckenridge line in America as America’s Royal House of Stewart? Will there arise an American Royalty – in title only – that will contend with the American Mormon Royalty that may one day soon render its lineage – less celestial – especially when Mitt Romney becomes – their President! What, and who going is to stop the Mormons from authoring more – FANTASY? Will Romeny put an end to our Democracy and bring out a Mormon Royal Line who will rule over us in a benevolent manner?
Jon Presco
Americans were still obsessed with British approval even as they denounced its culture. At the same moment that many American religions that had ties across the Atlantic Ocean were more keen in emphasizing their parochial presence and downplaying their international attachments–I’m thinking specifically of the Quakers, though to a lesser extent the Methodists–Smith desired to increase ties with the forbidden mother country.
Second, I wonder how the Quorum of the 12′s mission to the British Isles a few years later changed the apostle’s view of Britishness and perhaps shaped Utah Mormon perceptions of Great Britain for the rest of the century. Most of the apostles—John Taylor being the most pronounced exception—were raised in patriotic American families during a time of vast Anglophobia, and they must have held perceptions that were challenged with their experience with British culture.
It’s almost considered a common trope nowadays to describe Mormonism as “the quintessential American religion”–or something in those regards. Harold Bloom may be most famous for recently making such a claim, but the sentiment has been around a long time. An American-born prophet, an American-located Garden of Eden, a canonized revelation extolling the American Constitution, an American-centered headquarters–you get the idea. The question of how Mormons in the nineteenth century understood their relationship with the United States has received a lot of attention in recent decades, with good reason. It is a fascinating story of how Mormons both rejected America—by becoming fed up with persecution and mobocracy and moving West—while still holding the pure “ideal” of America and merely equating their contemporary nation as experiencing an apostasy akin to modern-day Christianity. Mormon scriptures both placed America the location at the center of future divine events while also prophesying the downfall of America the government as a necessary apocalyptic sign paving the way for the millennium. The paradoxical positioning of both rejecting and embracing the American image was at the center of the Mormon sense of self during the late-Nauvoo and early-Utah periods.
http://www.theroyalhouseofstewart.com/
On Sunday the fourteenth of August, I discovered that the Preston family married into the House of Stewart, and thus my family are kin to this royal family that includes Princess Diana and her two sons, William and Harry Windsor. Now I know why the Queen stayed at Blair House, and why John Breckenridge fled to England after he lost the Civil War – that the House of Stewart may have backed! This is huge!
She was the daughter of William Stewart, 1st Viscount Mountjoy and Hon. Mary Coote.1,2 From 1692, her married name became Preston.2 From 1709, her married name became Forbes. As a result of her marriage, Hon. Mary Stewart was styled as Countess of Granard on 24 August 1734.
Children of Hon. Mary Stewart and Phineas Preston
Jane Preston+2 b. c 1690, d. a 12 Nov 1746
Mary Preston2 b. 1696, d. 1749
Colonel John Preston+2 b. 1699, d. 1747
Jane Breckenridge (Preston) (c.1690 – 1747)
Are you related to Jane Breckenridge (Preston)? Join 1 other person working on this profile to help us correct and complete this part of the world family tree!
Join Us!
View family tree
View Genealogy Records
Breckenridge Surname
Share
Birthdate:
circa 1690
Birthplace:
Derry, County Cavan, Ulster, Ireland
Death:
Died November 12, 1747 in Fishersville, Augusta County, Province of Virginia
Occupation:
Housewife
Managed by:
Gary Kirk
Last Updated:
December 21, 2011
Alexander Breckenridge
husband
George Breckenridge
son
Sarah McClanahan
daughter
Col. Robert Preston Breckenridge
son
Adam Breckenridge
son
Archibald Preston
father
Hon. Mary Forbes (Stewart), Countess of Granard
mother
Mary Barger (Preston)
sister
Phineas Preston
brother
John Preston
brother
Elizabeth Poage (Preston)
sister
James Preston
brother
“Mary Stewart of Montjoy”
Birthdate:
circa 1677
Birthplace:
Mountjoy, County Tyrone, Ulster, Ireland
Death:
Died October 4, 1765 in Ireland
Managed by:
John Winning, Jr.
Last Updated:
April 2, 2012
view all 14
Immediate Family
Vice Admiral George Forbes, 3rd Earl of Granard
husband
Lt. Gen. George Forbes, 4th Earl of Granard
son
Mary Irvine
daughter
Admiral Hon. John Forbes
son
Archibald Preston
husband
Jane Breckenridge
daughter
Mary Barger (Preston)
daughter
Phineas Preston
son
John Preston
son
Elizabeth Poage (Preston)
daughter
James Preston
son
William Stewart, 1st Viscount Montjoy
father
William Stewart (1653 – 1692)
Are you related to William Stewart? Join 3 other people working on this profile to help us correct and complete this part of the world family tree!
Join Us!
View family tree
View Genealogy Records
Stewart Surname
Share
Birthdate:
December 23, 1653
Birthplace:
Newtownstewart, County Tyrone, Ulster, Ireland
Death:
Died August 3, 1692 in Steenkerque, Baillage d’Enghien, Comté de Hainaut, Spanish Netherlands (Present Belgium)
Cause of death:
Killed in the Battle of Steenkerque, fighting against the French.
Occupation:
1st Viscount Montjoy of County Tyrone, 3rd Baronet and 1st Baron Stewart of Ramalton in County Donegal
Managed by:
Donna Howse
Last Updated:
October 26, 2011
view all
Immediate Family
Hon. Mary Stewart (Coote)
wife
Hon. Mary Forbes (Stewart), Countess of Granard
daughter
Alexander Stewart
son
Catherine Forbes (Newcomen), Countess of Granard
mother
Sir Alexander Stewart, 2nd Baronet Stewart of Ramalton
father
Arthur Forbes, 1st Earl of Granard
stepfather
Arthur Forbes, 2nd Earl of Granard
half brother
John Cabell Breckinridge (January 16, 1821 – May 17, 1875) was an American lawyer and politician. He served as a U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator from Kentucky and was the 14th Vice President of the United States (1857–1861), to date the youngest vice president in U.S. history, elected at age 35 and inaugurated at age 36.
In the 1860 presidential election, he ran as one of two candidates of the fractured Democratic Party, representing Southern Democrats. Breckinridge came in third place in the popular vote, behind winner Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, and Stephen Douglas, a Northern Democrat, but finished second in the Electoral College vote.
Following the outbreak of the American Civil War, he served in the Confederate States Army as a general and commander of Confederate forces prior to the 1863 Siege of Port Hudson, Louisiana, and of the young Virginia Military Institute cadets, at the 1864 Battle of New Market in New Market, Virginia. He also served as the fifth and final Confederate Secretary of War.
Breckinridge feared that he would be put on trial for treason by the United States government. He fled to Florida, May 15, 1865,[6] and resolved to flee the country. He and a small band sailed from Florida in a tiny boat to reach safety in Cuba, June 11, 1865.[6] On June 17, 1865, he continued to the United Kingdom,[6] Canada, and the United Kingdom again on August 21, 1865.[6] He returned to Lexington, Kentucky, on March 9, 1869[6] after being granted amnesty, and resumed the practice of law. While turning down suggestions that he become active in politics again, he spoke out strongly against the Ku Klux Klan
For thousands of years, emperors and rules ranging from the Western Zhou dynasty (c. 1000 B.C.) in China to Jimmu Tenno of Japan (perhaps c. 600 B.C.) to Alexander the Great (c. 360 BC) have assumed titles that reflect a filial relationship with deities.[1][7][8][9]
Around the time of Jesus, the title divi filius (son of the divine one) was specially, but not exclusively, associated with Emperor Augustus (as adopted son of Julius Caesar). Later, it was also used to refer to Domitian (as son of Vespasian).[2][10] Augustus used the title “Divi filius”, not “Dei filius”, and respected the distinction.[11]
In the Book of Exodus Israel as a people is called “God’s son”, using the singular form.[12] Both the terms sons of God and “son of God” appear in Jewish literature predating the New Testament. In Jewish literature, the leaders of the people, kings and princes were called “sons of God” based on the view of the king as the lieutenant of God.[3] However, the Messiah, the Anointed One, was uniquely called the Son of God, as in Psalm 2:7: The “Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee”.[3] This psalm can obviously be seen as referring to a particular king of Judah, but has also been understood of the awaited Messiah.[13]
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, usually referred to as Mormons, place great emphasis on genealogical research. This is because their Church doctrine states that “saving ordinances” (including baptism, confirmation, endowment, and sealing-marriage) must be made available to every individual who has ever lived. To make these ordinances available to people who did not have the opportunity while living, Mormons identify their ancestors and arrange for baptism and other ordinances to be performed for them by proxy—that is, with a living person standing in for the deceased person—in a temple. Often referred to as temple work, this search for ancestors is an important part of the Mormon faith.
By: Ben P – January 04, 2011
[As a heads-up, this post does not attempt to make any claims or arguments. It’s just a few half-baked thoughts concerning early Mormon notions of the Kingdom of God and how it related to Americanism, specifically during the 1840s. I hope it generates some discussion–or, at least–encourages some thought on what I think may be an under-utilized approach to early Mormon history.]
It’s almost considered a common trope nowadays to describe Mormonism as “the quintessential American religion”–or something in those regards. Harold Bloom may be most famous for recently making such a claim, but the sentiment has been around a long time. An American-born prophet, an American-located Garden of Eden, a canonized revelation extolling the American Constitution, an American-centered headquarters–you get the idea. The question of how Mormons in the nineteenth century understood their relationship with the United States has received a lot of attention in recent decades, with good reason. It is a fascinating story of how Mormons both rejected America—by becoming fed up with persecution and mobocracy and moving West—while still holding the pure “ideal” of America and merely equating their contemporary nation as experiencing an apostasy akin to modern-day Christianity. Mormon scriptures both placed America the location at the center of future divine events while also prophesying the downfall of America the government as a necessary apocalyptic sign paving the way for the millennium. The paradoxical positioning of both rejecting and embracing the American image was at the center of the Mormon sense of self during the late-Nauvoo and early-Utah periods.
Fair enough. But I wonder about another possible element that should be taken into account. This idea was thrust on me while reading through Sam Haynes’s recent Unfinished Revolution: The Early American Republic in a British World (Virginia UP, 2010). Haynes demonstrates how America reached an apex of patriotism in the wake of the War of 1812–the very period that many of Mormonism’s first generation was raised–which resulted in a vehement Anglophobe vibe that permeated American culture. Whether in religion, politics, literature, theater, or even material culture, Americans formulated their own national character as, above all else, anti-British. England served as the necessary “Other” in order for Americans to finally understand their “self.” Association with Britain was not only taboo, but un-patriotic.
This concept should help reconsider three key and related moments in early Mormonism. The first is Joseph Smith’s decision in 1836 (1837?) to send missionaries to Great Britain. This came at a moment of great internal and external strife in Kirtland, as the collapse of the Kirtland Anti-Banking Society introduced discord, dissent, and eventually migration. In the middle of what was really a national economic crisis, Smith determines to send some of his closest followers outside national borders–but why England? A shared language is an obvious answer—though an increased presence in Canada might have been a more feasible option, both due to distance and a better working relationship with America—as is the fact that several of Mormonism’s newest converts had family in England. Plus, as Haynes outlines in his book, Americans were still obsessed with British approval even as they denounced its culture. At the same moment that many American religions that had ties across the Atlantic Ocean were more keen in emphasizing their parochial presence and downplaying their international attachments–I’m thinking specifically of the Quakers, though to a lesser extent the Methodists–Smith desired to increase ties with the forbidden mother country.
Second, I wonder how the Quorum of the 12′s mission to the British Isles a few years later changed the apostle’s view of Britishness and perhaps shaped Utah Mormon perceptions of Great Britain for the rest of the century. Most of the apostles—John Taylor being the most pronounced exception—were raised in patriotic American families during a time of vast Anglophobia, and they must have held perceptions that were challenged with their experience with British culture. While there has been quite a bit of work on the Twelve’s mission to England, I have not yet seen much in-depth work on how this mission challenged, altered, or reaffirmed their idea of Americanness. Did it make them consider a more cosmopolitan ideal for the Kingdom of God? Did experience with a monarchical republic help shape how Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, Parley Pratt, etc., understand God’s divine government? The answers to these questions could be of immense importance due to the fact that the participants of this mission were to a large extent responsible for shaping the Mormon church for the rest of the century.
Third, I wonder how the fruits of these labors affected the Mormon sense of self, and this is especially the biggest question I have today: just as America was reaching its apex of exceptionalism and Anglophobia (the early 1840s), leagues of British converts are streaming into Mormon Nauvoo. This has the potential to effect two key issues: first, how did this challenge how American inhabitants of the Mormon city understand the United State’s centerness in the Gospel? And second, how did this go over with the growing number of anti-Mormon neighbors surrounding Nauvoo? Could a growing sense of Britishness have played a role in Mormon opposition? Scholarship has noted how Mormons took on a “foreign” feel in anti-Mormon propaganda during the Utah period–but could the growing amount of Britishness during a period of anti-Britishness have made Mormons appear un-American even before the trek west?
Finally, and this is both explicit and implicitly implied in the previous paragraphs, but how did this Britishness effect the developing Mormon theology of the “Kingdom of God”? Comparing the kingdom rhetoric of John Taylor, born in England, and Parley Pratt, born in New York, easily demonstrates that national background colors how one speaks of a divine kingdom. Did it give a more cosmopolitan feel than our general “Americanized” framework for early American thought?
As you can tell by the plethora of question marks here, I honestly don’t know. Just a few half-baked ideas. Discuss.
When the Prophet realized that none of the leading candidates for the presidency would pledge to support redress for the Saints, he held a historic meeting in the mayor’s office at Nauvoo on January 29, 1844, with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and others. It was unanimously decided that Joseph Smith would run for president of the United States on an independent platform. 9 Thus began one of the most fascinating third-party presidential campaigns in American history.
Joseph Smith’s Platform
Joseph wasted little time in preparing a platform for his campaign. He met with William W. Phelps and dictated to him the headings for a political pamphlet titled General Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States, 10 the foundation document for his presidential platform. The platform didn’t specifically mention the Latter-day Saints’ persecution in Missouri; instead, it offered solutions for many of the nation’s most pressing problems.
The most important plank in Joseph’s platform concerned the powers of the president. Joseph wanted to give the chief magistrate “full power to send an army to suppress mobs … [without requiring] the governor of a state to make the demand.” 11
Eliminating slavery was another important part of his platform. He wrote in General Smith’s Views: “The Declaration of Independence ‘holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin.” 12 Instead of simply calling for the abolition of slavery, Joseph Smith’s platform would have Congress “pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from members of Congress.” 13
The platform also proposed changes to Congress. Joseph wanted to reduce congressional pay from eight dollars to two dollars per day. He wanted to have only two members of the House of Representatives for every one million people. 14
In addition, Joseph favored extensive prison reform, forming a national bank, and annexing Oregon and Texas. 15 He favored extending the United States “from the east to the west sea,” but only if Native Americans gave their consent. 16
The Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade formed in 1787 was formed by a group of Evangelical English Protestants allied with Quakers to unite in their shared opposition to slavery and the slave trade. The Quakers had long viewed slavery as immoral, a blight upon humanity. By 1807 the abolitionist groups had a very sizable faction of like-minded members in the British Parliament. At their height they controlled 35–40 seats. Known as the “Saints”, the alliance was led by the best known of the anti-slave trade campaigners, William Wilberforce, who had taken on the cause of abolition in 1787 after having read the evidence that Thomas Clarkson had amassed against the trade.[1] These dedicated Parliamentarians had access to the legal draughtsmanship of James Stephen, Wilberforce’s brother-in-law. They often saw their personal battle against slavery as a divinely ordained crusade. On Sunday 28 October 1787, Wilberforce wrote in his diary: “God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.”[2
The Slave Trade Act (citation 47 Geo III Sess. 1 c. 36) was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on 25 March 1807, with the long title “An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade”. The original act is in the Parliamentary Archives. The act abolished the slave trade in the British Empire, but not slavery itself; slavery on English soil was unsupported in English law and that position was confirmed in Somersett’s Case in 1772, but it remained legal in most of the British Empire until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
Other nations
Britain used its international strength to put pressure on other nations to end their own slave trade. The United States acted to abolish its Atlantic slave trade the same year (but not its internal slave trade). In 1805 a British Order-in-Council had restricted the importation of slaves into colonies that had been captured from France and the Netherlands.[4] Britain continued to press other nations to end their trade with a series of treaties: the 1810 Anglo-Portuguese treaty whereby Portugal agreed to restrict its trade into its colonies; the 1813 Anglo-Swedish treaty whereby Sweden outlawed its slave trade; the 1814 Treaty of Paris 1814 whereby France agreed with Britain that the slave trade was “repugnant to the principles of natural justice” and agreed to abolish the slave trade in five years; the 1814 Anglo-Dutch treaty whereby the Netherlands outlawed its slave trade; and the 1817 Anglo-Spanish treaty whereby Spain agreed to suppress its trade by 1820.[4]
[edit] Enforcement
The Royal Navy, which then controlled the world’s seas, established the West Africa Squadron in 1808 to patrol the coast of West Africa, and between 1808 and 1860 they seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard.[5] The Royal Navy declared that ships transporting slaves were the same as pirates. Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against “the usurping King of Lagos”, deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.[6]
In the 1860s, David Livingstone’s reports of atrocities within the Arab slave trade in Africa stirred up the interest of the British public, reviving the flagging abolitionist movement. The Royal Navy throughout the 1870s attempted to suppress “this abominable Eastern trade”, at Zanzibar in particular. In 1890 Britain handed control of the strategically important island of Heligoland in the North Sea to Germany in return for control of Zanzibar, in part to help enforce the ban on slave trading.[7][8]
British settlers arrived in Charleston in April of 1670. This group consisted of approximately three quarters indentured servants and one quarter free men and property owners. In September of that same year, the first black slaves identified by name arrived in Charleston from Bermuda. It is thought that there may have been one black slave on the ship which delivered this first batch of masters and indentures. Charleston, and the colony of Carolina was the only English settlement in North American to be peopled with slaves from almost the very beginning. Two years after settlement, the population of Charles Town had reached 396 men, women, and children.
South Carolina is about the same size as Sierra Leone and has a roughly similar geography and climate. There is the “Low Country” which consists of the Sea Islands, the swampy southern coastline, and a wide and fertile arc of coastal plain stretching up to a hundred miles in the interior. Beyond that is the “Upcountry,” a region of rolling hills rising gradually to mountains three thousand feet high in the far northwest. Much of the state is humid and semitropical with long, hot summers and mild winters and abundant rainfall reaching seventy inches in some areas. Three-fifths of the state is covered in forest, and a series of rivers flows down in parallel lines to the Atlantic coast.
The first English-speaking settlement in South Carolina was established on the coast in 1670. For the first thirty years the colonists had little success, but by about 1700 they discovered that rice, imported from Asia, grew well in the inland valley swamps of the Low Country. Throughout the 1700s the economy of South Carolina was based overwhelmingly on the cultivation of rice. This product brought consistently high prices in England, and the colony prospered and expanded. Rice agriculture has been called “the best opportunity for industrial profit which 18th century America afforded.” South Carolina became one of the richest of the North American Colonies; and Charlestown (now Charleston), its capital and principal port, one of the wealthiest and most fashionable cities in early America. Later, because of the extraordinary success in South Carolina, the rice plantation system was extended farther south into coastal Georgia, where it also prospered.
The South Carolina planters were, at first, completely ignorant of rice cultivation, and their early experiments with this specialized type of tropical agriculture were mostly failures. They soon recognized the advantage of importing slaves from the traditional rice-growing region of West Africa, and they generally showed far greater interest in the geographical origins of African slaves than did planters in other North American colonies. The South Carolina rice planters were willing to pay higher prices for slaves from the “Rice Coast,” the “Windward Coast,” the “Gambia,” and “Sierra-Leon”; and slave traders in Africa soon learned that South Carolina was an especially profitable market for slaves from those areas. When slave traders arrived in Charlestown with slaves from the rice-growing region, they were careful to advertise their origin on auction posters or in newspaper announcements, sometimes noting that the slaves were “accustomed to the planting of rice.” Traders who arrived in Charlestown with slaves from other parts of Africa where rice was not traditionally grown, such as Nigeria, often found that their slaves fetched lower prices. In some cases, they could sell no slaves at all and had to sail away to another port.
The South Carolina and Georgia colonists ultimately adopted a system of rice cultivation that drew heavily on the labor patterns and technical knowledge of their African slaves. During the growing season the slaves on the rice plantations moved through the fields in a line, hoeing rhythmically and singing work songs to keep in unison. At harvest time the women processed the rice by pounding it in large wooden mortars and pestles, virtually identical to those used in West Africa, and then “fanning” the rice in large round winnowing baskets to separate the grain and chaff. The slaves may also have contributed to the system of sluices, banks, and ditches used on the South Carolina and Georgia rice plantations. West African farmers traditionally cultivated local varieties of wet rice on the flood plains and dry rice on the hillsides. During the 1500s the Portuguese introduced superior types of paddy rice from Asia, and travellers in the 1700s noted that West African farmers—including the Temne of Sierra Leone—were constructing elaborate irrigation systems for rice cultivation. In South Carolina and Georgia the slaves simply continued with many of the methods of rice farming to which they were accustomed in Africa.
After Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland (1630–1685) was restored to the English throne following Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate, he granted the chartered Carolina territory to eight of his loyal friends, known as the Lords Proprietors, in 1663. It took seven years before the Lords could arrange for settlement, the first being that of Charles Town. The community was established by English settlers under William Sayle in 1670 on the west bank of the Ashley River, a few miles northwest of the present city. It was soon chosen by Anthony Ashley-Cooper, one of the Lords Proprietors, to become a “great port towne”, a destiny which the city fulfilled. By 1680, the settlement had grown, joined by others from England, Barbados, and Virginia, and relocated to its current peninsular location. The capital of the Carolina colony, Charles Town was the center for further expansion and the southernmost point of English settlement during the late 17th century.
The settlement was often subject to attack from sea and from land. Periodic assaults from Spain and France, who still contested England’s claims to the region, were combined with resistance from Native Americans, as well as pirate raids. While the earliest settlers primarily came from England, colonial Charleston was also home to a mixture of ethnic and religious groups. French, Scottish, Irish, and Germans migrated to the developing seacoast town, representing numerous Protestant denominations, as well as Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Sephardic Jews migrated to the city in such numbers that Charleston eventually was home to, by the beginning of the 19th century and until about 1830, the largest and wealthiest Jewish community in North America.[12] Africans were brought to Charleston on the Middle Passage, first as servants, then as slaves, especially Wolof, Yoruba, Fulani, Igbo, Malinke, and other peoples of the Windward Coast.[13] The port of Charleston was the main dropping point for Africans captured and transported to the United States for sale as slaves.
Diana, Princess of Wales, was descended from two of Charles’s illegitimate sons; Henry Fitzroy, 1st Duke of Grafton, and Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond. This means that her son, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, will become the first descendant of Charles II to occupy the British throne, if he succeeds as expected.
At King James II’s coronation Grafton was Lord High Constable. In the rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth he commanded the royal troops in Somerset; but later he acted with John Churchill, and joined William of Orange to overthrow the King in the Revolution of 1688.
He died of a wound received at the storming of Cork, while leading William’s forces. He was 27.
Robert II (early 1316 – 19 April 1390) became King of Scots in 1371 as the first monarch of the House of Stewart. He was the son of Walter Stewart, sixth hereditary High Steward of Scotland and of Marjorie Bruce, daughter of Robert I and of his first wife Isabella of Mar.
Edward Bruce, Robert I’s brother, was named heir ahead of Marjorie but he died without issue on 3 December 1318 in a battle near Dundalk in Ireland. Marjory by this time had died in a riding accident probably in 1317. Parliament decreed that her infant son, Robert Stewart, was to be heir presumptive but this lapsed on 5 March 1324 on the birth of a son, David, to King Robert. Robert Stewart inherited the title of High Steward of Scotland on his father’s death on 9 April 1326, and a Parliament held in July 1326 confirmed the young Steward as heir should Prince David die without a successor. In 1329 the king died and the six year-old David succeeded to the throne with Sir Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray appointed Guardian of Scotland.
The Stewarts greatly increased their holdings in the west, in Atholl and in the far north: the earldoms of Fife and Menteith went to Robert II’s second surviving son Robert, the earldoms of Buchan and Ross (along with the lordship of Badenoch) to his fourth son Alexander and the earldoms of Strathearn and Caithness to the eldest son of his second marriage, David.[40] Importantly, King Robert’s sons-in-law were John MacDonald, Lord of the Isles, John Dunbar, Earl of Moray and James who would become the 2nd Earl of Douglas.[40] Robert’s sons, John, Earl of Carrick, the king’s heir, and Robert, Earl of Fife, were made keepers of the castles of Edinburgh and Stirling respectively, while Alexander, Lord of Badenoch and Ross and afterwards Earl of Buchan, became the king’s Justiciar and lieutenant in the north of the Kingdom.[10] This build-up of the Stewart family power did not appear to cause resentment among the senior magnates—the king generally did not threaten their territories or local rule and where titles were transferred to his sons the individuals affected were usually very well rewarded.[10] This style of kingship was very different from his predecessor’s—David tried to dominate his nobles whereas Robert’s strategy was to delegate authority to his powerful sons and earls and this generally worked for the first decade of his reign.[40] Robert II was to have influence over eight of the fifteen earldoms either through his sons directly or by strategic marriages of his daughters to powerful lords.[40]
The House of Stewart (also spelt Stuart) is a European royal house. Founded by Robert II of Scotland, the Stewarts first became monarchs of the Kingdom of Scotland during the late 14th century, and subsequently held the position of the Kings of Great Britain and Ireland. Their patrilineal ancestors (from Brittany) had held the office of High Steward of Scotland since the 12th century, after arriving by way of Norman England. The dynasty inherited further territory by the 17th century which covered the entire British Isles, including the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Ireland, also upholding a claim to the Kingdom of France.
In total, nine Stewart monarchs ruled just Scotland from 1371 until 1603. After this there was a Union of the Crowns under James VI & I who had become the senior genealogical claimant to The Crown holdings of the extinct House of Tudor. Thus there were six Stewart monarchs who ruled both England and Scotland as well as Ireland (although the later Stuart era was interrupted by an interregnum lasting from 1649–1660, as a result of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms). Additionally, at the foundation of the Kingdom of Great Britain after the Acts of Union, which politically united England and Scotland, the first monarch was Anne of Great Britain. After her death, all the holdings passed to the House of Hanover, under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701.
In total, nine Stewart monarchs ruled just Scotland from 1371 until 1603. After this there was a Union of the Crowns under James VI & I who had become the senior genealogical claimant to The Crown holdings of the extinct House of Tudor. Thus there were six Stewart monarchs who ruled both England and Scotland as well as Ireland (although the later Stuart era was interrupted by an interregnum lasting from 1649–1660, as a result of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms). Additionally, at the foundation of the Kingdom of Great Britain after the Acts of Union, which politically united England and Scotland, the first monarch was Anne of Great Britain. After her death, all the holdings passed to the House of Hanover, under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701
Euphemia de Ross (died 1386) was the second wife and first Queen consort of Robert II of Scotland.
She was a daughter of Aodh, Earl of Ross and Margaret de Graham, Hugh’s 2nd wife and daughter of Sir David de Graham of Montrose. She first married John Randolph, 3rd Earl of Moray but the marriage was childless. Her husband died in 1346 and she remained a widow for nine years.
On May 2, 1355, Euphemia married Robert Stewart, sole son of Walter Stewart, 6th High Steward of Scotland and Marjorie Bruce. Marjorie was a daughter of Robert I of Scotland and his first wife Isabella of Mar.
It appears that there was an obstacle of affinty to this second marriage, and a papal dispensation by Pope Innocent VI was required for it to be recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. However there is some doubt about exactly what the affinity between them was.[1]
Euphemia and Robert were parents to five children:
David Stewart, 1st Earl of Caithness (d. bef. 1389)
Walter Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl (d. 1437)
Margaret Stewart
Elizabeth Stewart, married 1380 David Lindsay, 1st Earl of Crawford
Egidia Stewart, married 1387 Sir William Douglas of Nithsdale
Robert II succeeded his childless maternal uncle David II of Scotland in 1371. Euphemia became his Queen consort and served in this position for about fifteen years.
He was the son of James Stewart, 5th High Steward of Scotland by his spouse Gilles (or Egidia) de Burgh, daughter of Walter de Burgh, 1st Earl of Ulster.[3]
Walter fought on the Scottish side at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314[4] commanding, with Douglas, the left wing of the Scots’ Army.[2] According to another version of events, he was the nominal leader of one of the four Scottish schiltrons, but because of his youth and inexperience, its effective leader was his cousin James Douglas, Lord of Douglas.[5] This is, however, disputed, as some claim that there were only three Scottish schiltrons at Bannockburn.[6]
Clan Ross is a Highland Scottish clan first named as such by King Malcolm IV of Scotland in 1160. The first of the chiefs was Fearchar, Earl of Ross from the O’Beolain (Ó Beólláin, Boland, Bolan) family, also known as ‘Fearchar Mac-an-t-sagairt’ (meaning “son of the priest”) of Applecross.[1]
Ferquhard Ross helped King Alexander II of Scotland (1214–1249) crush a rebellion in Moray and Ross-shire. When King Alexander II ascended to the throne, a rebellion broke out in Moray and western Ross-shire, whose Celtic population were opposed to the laws and customs of the south. The King marched northwards with his army but was unable to crush the insurgents from Ross and Moray. However, Fearchar, Earl of Ross, with a large body of men from his own clan and his allies, appeared on the scene and soon wiped out all opposition to the King’s authority. Fearchar brought the King the heads of the rebel leaders and was knighted on 15 June 1215. He was created Earl of Ross in about 1234.[1]
Royal descent is now recognized as common among residents of the United States, as in other countries. At one time, publications on this matter stressed royal connections for only a few families. One example included James Pierpont and others.[7] Too, we see NEHGS articles on “tycoon” families and US Presidents of royal descent that emphasize the discriminating notion.[8] That is, those of royal descent excel (to wit, Roberts’ article on eminent descendants of Mrs. Alice Freeman Thompson Parke).[9]
However, with improved documenting schemes, it can be estimated that as many as 150 million Americans have traceable royal European descent.[10] According to American genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts, an expert on royal descent, most Americans with significant New England Yankee, Mid-Atlantic Quaker, or Southern planter ancestry are descended from medieval kings, especially those of England, Scotland, and France. Some Americans may have royal descents through German immigrants who had an illegitimate descent from German royalty.[11]
Due to primogeniture, many colonists of high social status were younger children of English aristocratic families who came to America looking for land because, given their birth order, they could not inherit. Many of these immigrants maintained high standing where they settled. They could often claim royal descent through a female line or illegitimate descent. Many Americans descend from these 17th-century British colonists who had royal descent. There were at least 650 colonists with traceable royal ancestry,[12][13] and 387 left descendants in America (almost always numbering many thousands, and some as many as one million).[12] These colonists with royal descent settled in every state, but a large majority lived in Massachusetts or Virginia.[12] Several families, who settled in those states, over the two hundred years or more since the colonial land grants, interwinded their branches to the point that almost everyone was somehow related to everyone else. One writer observed, “like a tangle of fish hooks”.[14]
Over time, opposing factors have affected the percentage of Americans who have provable royal descent. The passage of the generations has further intermingled the ancestry of the English colonists’ descendants, thus increasing the percentage who descend from one of the immigrants with royal ancestry. At the same time, however, waves of post-colonial immigrants from other countries decreased the percentage who have royal descent.l
Rosamond Press 
Leave a comment