Monday, April 17, 2006

Question from Shannon - Another illegit. son of Henry VIII

I have come across information that an Agnes Bewitt Beupine married to William Edwardes had an illegitimate son,Richard, for Henry VIII and that is how the family recieved Edwards Hall in Wales. Henry never claimed him, as Agnes was already married. Does anyone know about this?


BritishNut56 said...

Would it be possible to share the information which you have found? I have never heard of Henry VIII's 'son' Richard, and would love to read the information you have.

Is it available via a web-site or book?

Anonymous said...

Yes, Henry VIII did have another illegitimate son named Richard Edwardes. His mother was Henry VIII's mistress was Agnes Blewitt.
Although Henry VIII never acknowledged Richard because he was illegitimate, Agnes specifically claimed that he was the father. She was already married so her husband raised Richard and Richard took his name out of shame. His descendants are the only direct descendants of Henry VIII since all of his legitimate offspring died childless.

Anonymous said...

I am a descendant of Richard, Henry and Agnes' son. Couldn't Henry have had other illegitimate offspring who would also have direct descendants?

Anonymous said...

There is also the claim that Mary Boleyn had 1, if not 2, children by Henry. The oldest, Catherine Carey, went on to marry Sir Francis Knollys (their daughter, Lettice Knollys, served Elizabeth 1 and married Robert Dudley). The other, Henry Carey, is slightly less enthusiastically tied to Henry VIII.

Lauren said...

I am also a direct descendant of Richard Edwardes, I have traced his paternal lineage through Henry VIII and William Edwardes, his foster-father. To my knowledge there is more proof that Richard was Henry's natural son than that he was Edwardes' son.

Kimberly L. Adkins said...

I am a direct decendant of this line. I have not heard of any other illegitimate children, but I imagine it is highly likely. I would find it hard to believe he just had the one mistress in his whole life; especially considering this is a man who was married 6 times and is known to have repeatedly tried to have a son. It seems to me it is only logical he would be trying to have a son with anyone he could have one with.

Anonymous said...

Is there any proof that Richard
Edwards is Henry Vlll's son?
I am interested in the Edwards
Family. I would Be a great great
Great Etc.

Edwards said...

I have a tree that goes from this Richard down to the Edwards associated with the so called Edwards Millions

Anonymous said...

I was reading a copy of a book by David Edwards yesterday. I was interested because I too am an Edwards and I live in North Petherton. (I am not of Richards line though) I looked on Ancestry and it has his burial in Somerset. I thought in the book it said he died in London?

Amy said...


I to am a descendant of Richard Edwards. I wonder why, if he really is an illegitmate son why it is not shown in any history books. Is this just a legend that was passed down from generation to generation. Hope someone can clear this up.

mary cordell-edwards said...

i believe richard was murdered by lord hunsdon,i researched this for years,i,d be interested in seeing these peoples trees that are on the line,there are so many people who say they are a direct descendant,i,m sorry i dont think so.

N Edwards said...

I have trees on Edwards and Donne
Go to search my blog as well

Anonymous said...

Hi N I am a bit confused how can I find you Blog on Edwards and Donnes?
I meant to say before I actually had a guided tour of Haswell House in North Petherton a few weeks ago, such a beautiful place. Parts are Elizabethan. Richards family must have been very well off to live there.

Anonymous said...

Help i'm really confused! I'm doing a history project that needs to be in by 2moz! what are the names of all henry's illegitimate children?


Lara said...

As far as I know, the only acknowledged bastard of Henry VIII was Henry Fitzroy. So all the rest rely on either the word of the mother, later claims or timing of a child's birth with a possible affair with Henry VIII.

Teri said...

I am a descendant of Richard Edwardes. I say let's exhume the body and put this to rest. DNA could settle this forever!

monica said...

I'd love them to exhume Richard's body, and Henry and Catherine Carey's.

Personally, I see no proof that Richard was descended from Henry, it was simply a rumour started centuries later by people who want to think they are the descendants of Henry VIII. There's no contemporary reference to it that I am aware of.

Angela C. said...

I am also descended from Richard Edwards, I'm an American with the last name of Lewis. I have a family tree showing the line going up to Henry VIII and Agnes Blewitt. I would also love to know if they really had a child. It would make sense, since the Lewises were granted a farm stretching from what is now Wall Street to Bleecker Street in Manhattan, and it was a specific land grant from the Crown. In other words, there was a favoritism shown there. [This was pre-Revolutionary War]

veronica said...

I'm throwing my hat in too...I can trace my family tree to Fesmire, to Edwards, to Henry Tudor....I'm going to do more research to make sure we haven't messed up somewhere but this is all so fascinating! I would love to find more info on Agnes or get any source recommendations from anyone.

Angela C. said...

I am inclined to believe that there is a reason that this has been swept under the rug -- after all, if we are the only direct descendants of Henry VIII, that makes us claimants to some important part of royal history [albeit not through wedlock]. And to be honest with you I think it is on purpose that there is so little mention of this in the "official" history. Even the website for the 500th anniversary of Henry [exhibit in a castle in England] does not mention it.

DianaD said...

This is a fascinating subject. I too am descended from the Edwards family that was granted land in what is now New York. If he was a descendent of Henry VIII, it would explain why he was rewarded so generously, and also, to 'get him out of the way' in the New World! I would love to hear from anyone who can share their research with me, and to say hi to other Edwards descendents (my relatives).

Rachael said...

Hi all...I too have traced my ancestry back to Richard Edwardes/Edwards, supposed son of Henry VIII. I live in the great state of Texas...I discovered this a few months ago and I find it soooooo fascinating. Just got through watching The Other Boleyn Girl...this got my curiousity churning again, so here I am....hello relatives.

Anonymous said...

Im a descendant of him too! i think its true. She was a mistress to him and it would fit king henry's personality to have a bunch of illegitimate children.

archaeologygrl said...

I am a decendant as well!!! Hello Relatives!!!!

I am curious though about what "mary cordell-edwards" said "i believe richard was murdered by lord hunsdon" What do you mean and I would love to help you research this as well if you wouldn't mind contacting me.

I was wondering if I could get some information on this property that our ancestor was said to be given?

I find all this fascinating for sure as all of you have. We should have a reunion, LOL!

Anonymous said...

My sister just found our direct connection to Richard Edwardes, which I'll probably be posting on my blog soon.

My Edwardses eventually wound up in South Carolina c. 1700s, with my grandmother moving to Ohio.

Anonymous said...

Agnes Blewitt (mother of our Richard Edwardes) is of royal and noble descent herself--using the Dowling Family Genealogy page on and some other sites (Yes, I do realize these are user-edited and prone to error), I was able to trace her directly to Henry I, Edward I, Charlemagne of the Holy Roman Empire, and many other kings plus tons of nobles--not surprising, since European royalty is just one big unhappy, incestuous family.

Anonymous said...

Love it when one paths leads to so many, ...

Anyway - just a shout out to all my Edwards family, ... I'm connected through ... the edwards,mayes,bransome,turner,cook line!

Hey - we all come from somewhere right?

Anonymous said...

Hi, I am also a desendant of Richard Edwards.. I have a letter that explains a little.. I have much more and I am so happy I found others!

Richard Edward(e)s, was born Oct of 1523-25 in North Petherton, Somerset, England. His parents of record are William Thomas Edwardes of North Petherton and Agnes Blewett of Holcombe Rogus, Devon.

Some researchers and Brit historians believe that Richard is an illegitimate son of Henry VIII (Tudor) and Agnes Blewitt, as Agnes was at court just prior to her pregnancy and Henry VIII provided a stipend for Richard's childhood support, and guaranteed and paid for his education at Oxford. Richard's mother, Agnes Blewitt, was allowed to add the Tudor roses to her personal crest.

Though educated at Oxford to be a lawyer, Richard Edwardes never practiced law, and instead became a cleric in the Anglican Church. He was a poet and playwright of some renoun, writing such rousing plays as Palemon and Arcite for the entertainment of (his supposed half sister) Queen Elizabeth. His passing was noted by a contemporary of the time as being a writer of the same class as Shakespeare.

Richard Edwards married Helene Griffith in about 1560. I have found as many as 6 children listed as being born to this marriage in the six years prior to his death in 1566.

Some feel that any researcher listing Henry VIII as the paternal line for Richard Edwardes is "Royalty Hunting". But if the William Thomas Edwards line is traced through to its early sources in Wales, it descends on a direct line through generations of Welsh kings to Coel Hen, the last Dux Brittorium, or King of All Britian, ca between 150 and 400 A. D.

Clearly there is no benefit to claiming royal lineage through Henry VIII, when William Edwardes lineage has a far longer and stronger royal bloodline.

Here is another letter i have..
There are many circumstances in Richard's life and the events there of that suggest that, he was the natural son of Henry VIII. The real truth may never be known, but many circumstance surrounding Richard and his life would certainly support such a conclusion. Agnes was not around the Court like the other two mistresses. She stayed at his hunting lodge. I quote: "It is indeed correct that Richard Edwardes was Henry's "natural son', his relationship to the King was a well guarded secret and was probably the result of the lady in question having resided near the royal hunting lodge of Huntworth in Somersetshire away from the observance of those at court. From the information that is available the lady's first name was Agnes and it is quite probable that she was a member of a family

of high and and long standing. No one will know jist why the secret of his birth was kept only to the Tudors and the family Richard was born into, but it may well have been out of respect for Richard Edwardes' mother and her family." Since the book was written, her last name was found. Agnes and her family were given land in Scotland and that was where Richard was raised as a young lad. Henry paid for Richard's education at Oxford.

-taken from "Descendants of Henry VIII Tudor"

Richard Edwards was born about 1523. His mother was Agnes Blewitt. Agnes had 3 sons. Two of her sons are claimed by her husband as his. The 3rd, Richard, is not. Agnes' husband, William Thomas Edwards, would not claim Richard as his. It was suspected Richard was the result of an affair Agnes had, but that Richard took the Edwards from his mother's husband's name to avoid shame. Though historically, the affair is undocumented, it is suspected that the affair, which is speculated to have produced Richard, was with King Henry VIII. It is somewhat documented that King Henry VIII was fond of this child, though never claiming him either as his son. So the real father of Richard Edwards remains unknown with absolute certainty, but evidence suggests that King Henry VIII is a possibility.

Wikipedia sights Richard as "the alleged illegitimate son of Henry VIII" in the title of his article

If anyone knows more please email me at

Anonymous said...

Found on A2A Somerset records

FILE - N.PETHERTON - ref. DD\S\WH/272 - date: 1554
[from Scope and Content] Evidence concerning the claim by Agnes Edwards, tenant of Lady Cary to 1/3 pt. of Rodeland, which had been taken by Jn.Billy of Woolavington, tenant of Alex.Popham and Nich.Halswell, owners of the other 2/3,some geneological detail of the Edwards family. Signed and sealed by those giving evidence.

patricia said...

Hi All,
The Somerset record office is open 2 days per week and I shall be able to visit each week as I live in North Petherton.
I can do any look ups, photos or copies as required for a minimal expense fee. I can send to you by post or email.
I shall post any documents details of interest as I find them in the same format of my previous posting above.
I cannot charge for the information I give you, just my time and charges for photo copies or camera charge that I have to pay the record office.
Should you wish my help please contact

D R Lawhead said...

I have also traced my lineage back to Henry Tudor and Agnes Blewitt. Through 8 generations of Edwards and 6 generations of Kraus/Crouse/Croufe (it changed twice). Now ofcourse there is no way to prove that Richard was King Henry's son. But it would make perfect sense that he would deny Richard. The last thing that he would want is a bastard son of a whore (excuse my language) to take the crown. But not just any body was born in the King's castle. So there was an importance.

Kate said...

I've read some posts suggesting that there were two Richard Edwards that were born and died around the same time in England. Of course, this could lead many amateur genealogists (like myself) to assume they are the same person. This has to do specifically with whether the Richard who was Agnes' son was married to Margaret Babb or Helen Griffith or both. My ancestry seems to be through whoever was married to Margaret, but unfortunately I have no real way of knowing if that Richard was Agnes' son. Does anyone know of any actual evidence or records to indicate whether Richard had one wife or two? I'm afraid this is a case where being confined to doing most of my research online (and not crossing the pond to do the actual legwork) will likely lead to false information. Obviously, the desire to link oneself to Henry VIII would be tempting to anyone, but a serious amount of skepticism is required when you’re dealing a genealogical connection to such an (in)famous person.

Belinda Pence said...

I also am a descendant of Henry VIII and Agnes Blewett. We live in NC.

Edwards granddaughter said...

I've found a link in my tree to Richard Edwardes, too. But between me and Richard is that messy family of Sir Thomas Nathaniel Edwards. Some sources say I descend from Thomas's son Joseph. Others say Joseph is Thomas's grandson. I'm convinced, if there really was a Joseph in that family, he was a the child of Thomas's son William Harrison Edwards. Or maybe Joseph is somebody's middle name. And there's a Polly/Dolly/Isabel/Isbel Chalmler/Chamber/Chermer/Creamer who was William's wife.

Joseph's descendants ended up in the US South. John Edwards (Joseph's grandson, I think) married Olive Exum, a documented descendant of the House of Plantagenet, and also of the controversial Ruffin/Ruthven line of the House of Stewart.

So when are they going to start calling me the Countess of Delaware?

Anonymous said...

I'm a descendant of Richard Edwardes. Richard Edwardes > Richard Edwardes Jr. > Joshua Edwards > William Edwards > Thomas Edwards > Robert Thomas Edwards > Sir Thomas Nathaniel Edwards > John Crawford Edwards > Samuel Edwards > James Drew Edwards > Eaton W. Edwards > George Henry Edwards > Roger George Edwards > Roger Garvin Edwards > Larry Lee Edwards > aaaaannnd ME!

No matter how diluted my "royal" blood may be, it's still a fascinating idea. I've always been told my facial structure spoke of British royal lineage. Haha!

My question is though -- wouldn't having an heir rank higher than preserving the sanctity of marriage? Why would King Henry Tutor VIII not claim a male heir, even illegitimate? (IF this is even true, there's no hard proof.)

Eh, one of those questions I'll ask when I meet my ancestors on the other side I guess. lol

Oh, I'm from the "Edwards of Northampton" line... mainly Southampton Co., VA and Northampton Co., NC. My family and I reside in Northampton.

Sarah said...

I am also a decendant, just to touch on what the last annynomas said about the facial structure. I look almost identical to our ancester's half sister, Mary I. It was really intresting when I cam across a painting of her when she was my age.

Janine said...

I too have direct lineage to Richard Edwards thru his son William who owned a piece of land in Jamestown, according to a copy of a 1600s map that I obtained from the "Old Williamsburg" archives in Virginia fifteen years ago.

My great, great, grandfather John Alonzo Edwards migrated to Texas in the 1860s from the Carolinas. He settled in Palo Pinto County and went into the cattle business and was a trail driver. He took cattle all the way to Oregon. He was famous for the JAL brand that was later sold to the Cowden cousins in Midland, Texas.
Does anyone have a connection here?

Anonymous said...

Wow, I've been on Ancestry dot com for about a month now tracing back my family and have discovered today that I too am related to this King through Edwards as well. If you want any information I have gathered you may e-mail me at

~Denisha Thibodeaux

Pam said...

I'm a descendant of Samuel Edwards, but until yesterday I had no idea of his lineage. I'm not sure about the Henry VIII thing through Richard Edwardes, but it would certainly explain my fascination with the Tudors. I just wish someone had DNA proof.

Anonymous said...

You can't touch royalty with a stick, let alone DNA testing. I should think if Henry was needing a son so badly, a bastard would have been better than nothing. He could have had his mistresses husband killed (in a freak accident), and then married her. But then, it would look messy, her having two children previously. Interesting that he should pay for the lads education, and give the woman some land, to keep things quiet. Perhaps he was hoping yet for a son through his wife(s). To be honest, I should think the royals would have had the boy killed, for wouldn't he have been a threat, being Henry's only son, and therefore rightful heir to the crown? Just a thought.

K8 said...

Offing his mistress's husband may have been trickier than you would think. Consider Elizabeth I and her rumored lover Robert Dudley: Dudley's wife Amy died after falling down a flight of stairs, and even though it's likely that it was indeed an accident, the fact that it would have been convenient for the Queen and Dudley to have Amy out of the picture looked bad. Because of the possibility of it having been a murder (although an official inquiry into the case determined that it wasn't), Amy's death effectively ruled out a marriage between Elizabeth and Dudley. Royals may have been at the mercy of public opinion less so than modern politicians, but had to deal with it none the less.

Additionally, royal bastards have in most cases been allowed to live as long as they don't cause trouble. In fact, they were regularly given excellent positions in either government and/or the church as long as it seemed that they had no aspirations to the crown. Plenty of kings had several bastards that lived normal(ish) lives and have descendants that are now living.

Anyway, my point is that finding examples of royal bastards that produced progeny is easy. Verifying who one's ancestors are, figuring out their parentage, and identifying false ties to famous people is the hard part. I wouldn't be surprised if most people with European heritage were related to royalty of some kind, whether it be through legitimate children or bastards.

Anonymous said...

Ok I'm about to add some real interesting information to this debate. I am myself a direct descendant of Agnes and Richard. Blewitt is a English spelling for Bloet. I discovered that looking into Agnes' genealogy. Bloet comes from Normandy, France and the family came to Wales around the time of the Norman conquest. Walter Bloet (Agnes' Great x 15 Grandfather) was granted Raglan Castle. It was held by the family to the 1400's. Largely the English nobility in positions of power were of Norman descent of course due to their conquest. This would of made Agnes Blewitt of nobility following her tree so she could not of been a commoner. Henry VII was raised at Raglan Castle, the father of Henry VIII was left in the custody of William Herbert whose father married into the Bloet's with his marriage to Blizbeth Bloet. So the families were fairly acquainted to each other through Henry VII. So the possibility Agnes was in the court of King Henry VIII is VERY POSSIBLE. Through his father it is easy to conclude that Henry VIII would of had a large impression and a lot of contact with Agnes' family. This may be how they knew each other if not just their families. It's highly possible they had contact with each other for years. This is just facts being use to support this claim. It also gives another very possible reason why Henry VIII did not claim Richard, he didn't want to bring shame upon the family who raised his father. That is just pure speculation, but it's the same thing detectives do trying to solve a mystery. The fact Henry gave an estate to the family (Edward Halls) in Wales and paying for him to attend Oxford is curiously odd to do for no reason. Richard became a fairly accomplished poet and playwright. He even wrote and directed "Damon and Pythias" at the renown Globe. The only time it was preformed there guess who happened to show up. Elizabeth I Queen of England, daughter of Henry VIII, Richard's possible half sister. Is this all just coincidence, mere fate, or is it a fact Richard is a illegitimate son of Henry VIII? This evidence is very astonishing. I conclude Richard is Henry VIII son, I am 98% sure of it. What do you all think?

My e-mail is

Anonymous said...

Very interesting point of view. I like it and think it is very plausible.I do believe that Richard was Henry's son. Personally, I would rather be a descendant of the Edwards family that the Tudors. Henry and all of the royals were a lousy bunch.

K8 said...

Unfortunately, I think you're making a lot of leaps there. Being an English history buff, no one would love it more than I would to find that Richard Edwardes (also my direct ancestor) is a son of Henry VIII, but here's why it's unlikely:

1. One of the main issues concerning Richard Edwardes is that there were two of them: one that may or may not be an illegitimate child of Henry VIII, one that was a poet (and did indeed perform for Elizabeth I) but had no Tudor connections whatsoever. The lives of these two people have been tangled almost hopelessly by amateur genealogists. The first step would be telling the two apart, which I believe would take a much closer examination of all the original records and is beyond online research (now if only my husband will agree to that trip to the UK…).

2. The issue you raise concerning Agnes’ last name deserves some closer examination. Firstly, the assumption that she had to have been high nobility based on her last name and connection to Raglan Castle isn’t necessarily a safe one. The English peerage then (and now) was big. Even a couple generations removing her from the direct line of Blewitts/Bloets who held Raglan Castle would be enough to diminish her nobility substantially. Furthermore, Henry was at odds with the Welsh for much of his reign. It’s a mistake to assume that she was of such high nobility that she and Henry HAD to have met at some point, although it’s a possibility.

3. Even if you take for granted that Agnes and Henry probably met (which while possible is already a leap), it’s an even greater leap to assume that they had a sexual relationship because they met. Henry had a track record for going after anything in a skirt, sure, but it would have been superhuman for him to have slept with EVERY female noble in his kingdom, or even most of them.

4. Finally, even if you take for granted that they met, had sex, and produced a child, there’s no reason at all why Henry wouldn’t have acknowledged the progeny. His mistress Bessie Blount gave birth to a son by Henry who the King would later make Duke of Richmond. Henry then attempted to pass a law allowing this son to be his heir and the eventual King of England. Considering Henry’s famous desire to have a son (and bearing in mind that at the time Richard was born he was still in desperate need of a male heir), he would have acknowledged him. If lopping of Anne Boleyn’s head was fair game to Henry in order to get a male heir, I think that any embarrassment that might have arisen from his impregnating a member of the family that raised his father would not have been enough to stop him. Maybe it wouldn’t even have been an embarrassment—if a female relative was sharing a bed with and possibly had the ear of the King, it was usually a good thing that demanded exploitation.

At any rate, there’s no way I would even give the probability of Richard’s father being Henry VIII a 12%, let alone a 98%. Some of the information on Agnes’s family’s origins might amount to circumstantial evidence, but I think even that is generous. I personally would need a lot more hard evidence before I add Henry VIII to my family tree.

Anonymous said...

I'm revisiting this post a little under a year after my original posting. I came across it again researching my Edwards grandfather to clarify and fill in some holes. I noticed the newest posts are recent, so the burning question is:

As an amateur genealogist, where should I go from Richard Edwardes? Should I list him as adopted by William Edwardes and biologically Henry's, then build upon both lines? Or should I simply ignore the Tutor connection, considering there is no way humanly possible to confirm Richard's connection to the Tutor family and his illegitimacy?

Amazing how far this simple question has gone.

K8 said...

I think the last post hits on an important issue that every genealogist has to address: how certain of someone's lineage do you have to be (or want to be) before you add someone to your tree? I myself like to have some pretty convincing proof. Genealogy stops being fun when you start making assumptions and are less and less certain that the people you are researching has anything to do with you and your bloodline.

As someone in the same position of deciding whether or not Henry VIII should be in my tree or not, I will give you the answer I came to: no. The main reason I came to that decision is the first point I made in my last post. There were at least two Richard Edward(e)s in England at the time whose lives have become tangled by online genealogists. They are so confused that I don't think it's possible to figure out who is who with online research alone. Bear in mind also that ANY instance of a famous person appearing in one's bloodline needs to be treated with the utmost suspicion. Sadly, there are a lot of bad genealogists that let their desire to be linked to notable people cloud their research. They are the people that make working on genealogy much harder for those who just want to know the truth, whether that truth involves royalty or not. I personally have stopped researching the Edwards line altogether because I can't be sure of any of the online information relating to him.

That said, there's no reason why you can't research Henry VIII's genealogy with the knowledge that there is only a very very slight chance that he is a direct ancestor and still enjoy it. I recommend checking out Alison Weir's work on the Tudors: she's devoted a lot of time to researching them and has a writing style that's makes the history fun to read. Henry VIII is an interesting person whether you're his long lost bastard descendant or not.

Momarch said...

I stumbled across this Q & A while searching for info on Agnes Bluwitt and Richard... I am also a descendent. When this popped up on my 1st response was they may be wrong ! HA. Now I read the prior Q&A....I think there could be a slight possbility, but more reseach before I add him.


Anonymous said...

For ethical reasons I must retract everything I've said in this thread thus far (as EdwardsGranddaughter or whatever name I used). I said a lot of Internetsy bullcrap that I naively thought was valid. Olive Exum is not a proven Plantagenet descendant; on top of that, I can't even prove that she was an Exum. Marmaduke Edwards was indeed the son of a woman named Olive but I can't prove that his father was named John, let alone that Marmaduke's grandfather was really Joseph Edwards of Halifax. But I'm certain thousands of people are quoting my junk around the Internet as fact. Yuck. Away with it.

In the meantime...please, anybody whose tree goes back to Thomas Nathaniel Edwards, Robert Hael Edwards, Elizabeth Hael, and all those other fantasy creatures...check your facts. Check them using nothing but real documents. Leave pseudo-genealogical compilations and amateur homepages alone. Our history has been hideously perverted and I've seen proof of this - chat with me about the actual origins of Joseph Edwards of Halifax, who has been flagrantly cut-n'-pasted as a son of Thomas Nathaniel Edwards and Isabel Downing...alternately as a son of William Edwards and one of the infinite number of wives this man apparently kept in his harem. In brief, his father was another Joseph and his grandfather yet another Joseph, who was a grown man in Maryland by the time Thomas Nathaniel Edwards was supposedly born in Wales (1690).

As for Richard Edwardes: does it not bother any of you that he was supposed to be "the other Shakespeare", and yet NONE of his works exist today? Does it not bother you that he was supposed to be a Renaissance celebrity and yet nobody, absolutely NOBODY in the modern world except his supposed descendants, has heard of him?

And does it not bother you that the only people claiming descent from Richard Edwardes are also claiming descent from the probably-fictitious Manhattan Island characters like Robert Haello Edwards and Thomas Nathaniel Edwards?

That we all have felt connected to royal blood since birth doesn't mean real, honest, painstakingly factual genealogy is below our league.

K8 said...

Thank heavens: another genealogist who isn't so wrapped up in royalty hunting that they are willing to accept any lie that backs up their fantastic ancestry. I'm also glad that I'm not the only one lamenting the rashes of woefully under-researched genealogy sites on the internet. I get that it's fun to discover that you're descended from someone famous, but seeking out "proof" while ignoring any facts that don't work with the fantasy is just plain stupid. Worse, it's muddled the issue for everyone. If you insist on having shoddy research practices, at least resist the urge to broadcast your findings.

Krystyn said...

My father's cousin made a book for my father and uncles a few years back that ranged from Richard Edwards as the first entry down to me and my 15th generation cousins. She put a lot of notes and random information among the entries, and I find it funny that something I thought was her including a random fact" about Thomas Edwards turns out to be a real controversy: Edwards Millions!
I would love it if anyone who might have genealogy books of their own could contact me and we could collaborate to figure out where our line goes:

Also: Hi fellow Edwards! I'm part of a clan in the NW United States.

Anonymous said...

A number of years ago, I found a couple of old books of Welsh genealogy at a used book store.My copies were printed in 1884. I have Vol.4 and 6. I see some of these books have been scanned and are for sale in paperback. They are
"The History of The Princes, The Lords Marcher, and the Ancient Nobility of Powys Fadog by Lloyd.
Vol.IV, Page 64 has a mention of a William Edwards connection with Henry VIII. His wife and children however do not match. The mention is as follows:
"William Edwards of Plas Newydd, Constable of Chirk Castle, Keeper of the Black Park, and one of the Bodyguard to King Henry VIII. The King granted him permission to have the Vizer of the Helmet over his Arms, open, so that the face might be seen, and granted him also this motto, "A fynno Duw derfydd," He made a vault in the Eglwys y Waun (Chirk Church), for himself and his family. He died in 1532. He married Catherine, daughter of John Hookes of Ledbroc (argent, a chevron inter three owls azure), and by her, who died in the same year as her husband, he had issue five surviving sons and four daughters: - 1. John Edwards; 2, William Edwards of Cefn y Wern; 3, Richard Wynn, who married Mabel, daughter of Richard ab Maredydd ab Howel; 4, Sir David Edwards, Vicar of Meifod; and 5, Edward Wynn, who married Janet, daughter of Gruffydd."
It goes on to give the history of the children.

Anonymous said...

I have a degree in English literature with a specialization in Rennaisance English lit. I can assure Annonymous that Richard Edwardes was, indeed, a well known and admired poet, playwright, composer and songwriter at the time of the reign of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. He was one of her closest friends and as such his name is found on the List of the Queen's Chamber and the List of the Royal Chapel. There is a painting of him standing with Elizabeth on the steps of St. Mary's Church. He was the Master of the Children's Choir under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. He wrote Philaemon and Arcyte, a play with music in 1566 and many songs, among them, When Gripping Griefs, and others which he composed for voice and lute. He, also, composed liturgical music. Much of this music is available today as sheet music and some on CD. While some of his works may be lost others survive and can be read on line or in the many books published today about him, his works and his influence on the literature and music of his time. Other plays are Misogomus, and Palamon and Arcite. His most famous poem is Amantium Irae Amoris Redintegratio Est or Going to My Naked Bed (also can be read on line) which was published along with 9 more of his poems in Paradyse of Daynte Devices. It was even reported in the contempoary news what he wore at both Queen Mary Tudor's funeral and Queen Elizabeth's Coronation. He doesn't sound like a nobody to me. Whether or not he is a son of Henry VIII he is my ancestor and I am very proud of him. I am a professional harpist and I believe I and many of the other musicians in my family inherited our talent from him.

Anonymous said...

all of the comments on Richard Edwards and King Henry are true, however he was not the one in queston here, Richard King Henry was known as the Black Knight, due to the clothes he wore he was inprisoned in the Tower and put to death/he was of the House of York Duke of Clarence I believe , the Manhattan Story is true, after 20 yrs of research, just abt. 6 months ago, I located and acquired copies of Original Land Grants, there are several. The very beginning of the Edwards name began with Robert 1190 Robert De Caen son of Henry 1. he was named by Henry as Earl of Gloschester, he married and had sons who married and from this line dec. the De Clare Planagent Line of the House of Stuart. and Heirs to the throne, Lady Moody of the Brooklyn NY Settlement also in the line.

Anonymous said...

My surnames starting with great great grandfather are Norris, Burk or Burke, King(3 generations), Edwards or Edwardes (7 generations) ending with Richard Edwards abt 1523 to 25-1566. From there, of course, no proof of who Richard's father was. Anyone else have this trail of surnames?

Mister Cheek said...

This is all very amusing and quite silly. As I understand it, genealogy without documentation is myth.

Anonymous said...

I have traced my family geneology back to Henry VIII. My family still carries the name Edwards, and I was wondering if there were any documentation that states Richard was the illegitimate son of Henry?

Anonymous said...

Wow everybody is on the bandwagon. IF it is on the internet, you need to look at the documentation! As far as William Edwards of Jamestowne, VA being a sone of Richard... WRONG! I am a direct descendant of this William Edwards with proven lineage (primary and secondary sources). William came to Jamestowne in 1648 with his wife Dorothy. William and Agnes Edwards you all speak of left a will probated May 1621 in Somerset county, UK I have a copy... Agnes Will was probated the same day as well. Edwards Hall never existed either! I have a document from Glagmorganshire, Wales in which they state. "If Edwards Hall ever existed, they do not know of it." This is why you cant take other peoples research without checking it with documention! All of you have been duped!

Edwards Family Researcher
Jamestowne Society Member #6456

Anonymous said...

Reading this has been a riot! It reminds me of all of the people who have been hypnotized and discovered they were Cleopatra in a previous life! Or, if you look at all of the reliquaries in Europe, John the Baptist must have had a couple thousand fingers and the true cross must've been the size of several giant sequoias!

Okay, that said... I have traced my ancestry from Richard and Margaret Babb Edwards, through Thomas Nathaniel and Isabelle Downing Edwards, Jacob and Effie Spiers Edwards, Captain John and Hannah Meeker Edwards, Timothy and Martha Miller Edwards, Thomas Jefferson and Clarissa Shotwell Edwards, George Musgrove and Sarah Elizabeth Hostetter Edwards, Samuel Finley and Eula Gertrude Edwards and - my dad and mom - George Henry and Marian Weiss Edwards. I don't really care if I have the inbred blood of European royals in me. I just think it's pretty cool to trace this stuff.

If anyone has anything that goes back before Agnes' husband, I would be most interested. Even if Richard was the bastard son of Henry VIII, the man who raised him was his true "father", imho.

Thank you all for the entertainment. ^_^

cyn said...

I have no desire to be a "royal". I found information (unverified) that Agnes was pregnant when she married William- with that one could leap that the child born -named Richard was a bastard heir. I am a direct ancestor of Jennetta Edwards which is bad enough, but toss in the Wooten and Randolph lines and I want to run screaming from the building. It is my deepest desire that I could get the lines straight. If there is anyone from this line (Edwards/Wooten/Randolph please contact me!

Anonymous said...

RICHARD EDWARDES, son of William, was born March 1525. Richard married
*MARGARET BABB in 1560 and they had a son, William, born 09 Nov 1561.
RICHARD remarried to Helen Griffith in 1663 and from their union came *RICHARD,
born 1581; John born 15 March 1565, died 06 Dec 1604, his wife was Ellenor Pursloe;
Elizabeth, born 1584; Thomas, born 1599; Abigail; Judith; Gwyn; Marie.

Anonymous said...

Here is another website with some info..

Anonymous said...

I wish I could upload a photo for whoever said Edwards hall does not exist.. It does not anymore but it did and I have a etching of it . If anyone wants a copy, email me at

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous, who said this,
I have a degree in English literature with a specialization in Renaissance English lit..
I have looked everywhere for the portrait you mentioned with Elizabeth on St,Mary's Steps with Richard Edwardes.. where can I find it? Please email me at

Gidian said...

Hi cousins my name is Gidian Edwards and like all of the great relatives am also related to none other than yup Richard Edwards and King Henry the eighth looking back we go back to Alfred the great 849 ad. don't stop looking as for the little branches in the linage. my email is

Anonymous said...

I have a direct family line from thomas the son of thomas nathaniel. Joseph was not on the family tree. My nan god rest her soul knew her great grandfather who was an henry edwards who told her of his grandfather thomas of 1723. The son of thomas nathaniel who was the son of robert thomas edwards. Thomas of 1723 and his brothers were left a will by their grandfather robert. 3 left for the states. I have linked ALL of the family and was lucky my side were all male coming down until my nan. I have other SOLID proof that this line is a GENUINE line.

n2relics said...

I too am a descendant of Richard Edwards. I consider myself to be a descendant of Henry Tudor and it is listed as such in my Family Tree. In researching this matter I believe kinship is evident and the "cherry on top" is the fact that the Tudor rose was added to Agnes Blewitt's family crest.

Francheska Henderson said...

Glad I found this. I too am another person with Anges/Richard Edwards blood! I am not royalty hunting. I have TONS of trees now going back to other kings of England and Scotland. For that matter kings and rulers in my tree go back to Cleopatra the 1st of all things after that other funny Cleopatra comment someone left.
It seems we may know the complete truth, but the odds look in favor of yes. I would prefer it not to be because who really wants to think of one of our great grandfathers being Henry VIII? If the real husband of Agnes was the father why would she claim it was the king? Her husband had a decent enough bloodline himself. Even though I don't care much for Henry the VIII it is typical people get on here and think we are in a fantasy world just looking for famous people to be related to. So what if you/ we are or are not. If they were famous it is certainly easier to learn about them! That is the nice part. God knows my name isn't going down in history books for being related to many kings. I just like to learn about my ancestors, family members who I never knew, yet lived and made me the person who I am today. Famous or not I feel a love for them. Just maybe not Henry the 8th! Lol. After the way I have been treated by men in life it doesn't shock me a bit he is most likely a great grandfather. ;)

Teri said...

I love reading all of this Henry the VIII stuff! Tudor is one of my family names, as is Edwardes. There is this DNA thing if we really want to know. Henry was a disgusting, brutal, egotistic, and downright terrible person....who in their right mind would WANT to be related to him?

Rebecca said...

I pooh-pooh genealogy sites that post Edwards Millions and Richard Edwardes information without a disclaimer, but I still acknowledge that the legend could be true. I have felt an intimate filial connection to Henry VIII since the first time I read about him as a child, disturbing though the man was. I personally give credence to "psychic genealogy" and let it guide my research whenever I get totally lost. But I would not post my unverified intuitive findings on the internet without a disclaimer bigger than the post itself. As of now, I cannot even prove that my Edwards line goes back to Richard, let alone that Richard was Henry's son, though I sense both points are true.

Rebecca said...

I pooh-pooh genealogy sites that post Edwards Millions and Richard Edwardes information without a disclaimer, but I still acknowledge that the legend could be true. I have felt an intimate filial connection to Henry VIII since the first time I read about him as a child, disturbing though the man was. I personally give credence to "psychic genealogy" and let it guide my research whenever I get totally lost. But I would not post my unverified intuitive findings on the internet without a disclaimer bigger than the post itself. As of now, I cannot even prove that my Edwards line goes back to Richard, let alone that Richard was Henry's son, though I sense both points are true.

Janis said...

If there is anything I hate worse is to follow the incorrect lineage by those that supplied their data to hopeful wishes.

By the records of my Johnson and Edward family tree on, it takes me to King Henry VIII.

I plan on bookmarking this forum and reading each and every comment along with the historians who are posting their information.

Thank you and best wishes to each of you.

Happy Hunting!

Anonymous said...

Hi edwards! according to my research on I'm and Edwards...decendant of Henry VIII as well...We should have a family reunion! :) Jill Marie Stillman Colonia, NJ

Jill Stillman said...

Sorry to those who are annoyed by all the Edwards decendants;'s yet one more! : :):):)
Logically,with the many years which have passed and the large size of families in past centuries; there are going to be many, many Tudor decendants. I say instead of arguing about it; we all join our forces and take our NYC land back! I am however, having a hard time figuring out how Richard Edwards (who I am a decendant of) is a relative of Rober Edwards who received the Land Grant of lower Manhattan by Queen Ann. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

And, sorry to bust your bubble those who wish to remain the exclusive decendants of Tudor blood; but, sites like now make it possible to have access to public records which allow users to trace their ancestor quickly and easily. This is another reaon that there seems to be a "boom" in decendants. It only makes sense with the many years that have passed and the large size of families in past centuries that their would be millions of decendants. No offense snooty non-believers; but, Duh....Don't embarass yourself by sounding so ignorant.

Patrice Barfield said...

I am supposed to be a relative as well. Who knows! If am and you are- hello family!

Patrice Barfield said...

I found out today that I'm supposed to be connected to Richard Edwardes. Who knows... if I am and you are hello family.

redqueen said...

redqueen...thats me. I had been dubbed redqueen many years ago for my card game. According to my geneology, Elizabeth I is my 13th Grandmother through Richard Edwards. I was astonished to learn the Red Queen playing card was a portrait of myself. Strange as it sounds, the Red Queen is always with me. I have enjoyed reading all of your comments. If you would like to contact me at

Anonymous said...

I too am a descendant through Elizabeth E. Edwards marrying James H. Brown, whose granddaughter, Sarah A. Brown married my great-great grandfather, William M. Thomas. Small world!

Derrick Edwards said...

According to I am a direct descendant of Richard Edwards. My line can be traced back through the patriarch all the way down to me. I would love for a credible historian to weigh in on this.

Anonymous said...

Hello I am also descended from Richard Edwards, he is my 13th GGF which makes Henry VIII my 14th..I've researched this subject and it says that Richard was mingled into the Royal Family and that he got special privileges that a regular person would not receive and when he was baptized he was not acknowledged as being William Edwards son..

Anonymous said...

I too am a decendant of Richard,,my lineage goes down to Peter Edwards married to Rhoda Clark my 4th great grandparents

Anonymous said...

Good heavens,,so much controversy over this,,Its my feeling that if Richard Edwards was not the illigitmate son of Henry VIII why would Agnes be given the Tudor Rose,and why would Richard be singled out to receive the highest education and be brought into the Royal household if he were not the son of Henry VIII legitimate or not,,over his siblings,Henry VIII didnt acknowledge every child he had,but he did make sure they were well cared for,,and as for historians poo pooing the idea,,it is very plausible and all findings are pointing to the fact that he IS the son of Henry VIII ,that doesnt nessicarly make him heir to the throne,and I myself dont even like this Royal King,,so being a direct decendant of Richard Edwards and Being a 14th great grand daughter of Henry VIII is NOT something i would proudly display on my tree,,Historians are ALWAYS saying people are looking for someone famous to put on their tree,,I dont need to do that as i have plenty of other Direct Documented lineages,,The Spencer Line for one,,the Hungerford line and the list goes on,,

Anonymous said...

and another thing,Royals didnt nessisarily go around picking up Commoner women off of the street ,most had mistresses that were blood related to keep the wealth and power in the family ,and MOST Royals and Nobles were a close knit bunch who kept to the same bloodline amongst themselves

Teri said...

I feel the same as anonymous....I am not proud of the fact that Richard may have been H8's son...he was a ruthless despicable human being. But, there is this thing called DNA that could prove this one way or the other! There are many DNA tests going on in many families right now....I am sure there is legitimate Tudor blood that could be tested with the Edwardes blood.

Anonymous said...

To D R LAWHEAD,That Woman who birthed the *bastard son* was NOT a WHORE!! she was married at the time and the King CHOSE her!! no where does that make her a cheap slut,and it doesnt make her son Richard Edwards,,Unworthy of the throne!! there is a REASON for so much secrecy LOOKS like they went to ALOT of trouble to hide the connection between Henry VIII and Richard Edwards if there is one,,its my opinion that there is something there that they wanted to keep hidden for all eternity,,there are no photos of him,,all his writings have been hidden or destroyed ,PLUS HENRY VIII wouldnt have taken Richard Edwards into the Royal household,,Payed for his Education and Gave the Tudor Rose to Agnes Blewett if she was......JUST A WHORE!!

Emmy J said...

I've just been reading some of this thread, as my tree (on ancestry) has somehow been linked to someone who must think they are descended from King Henry VIII. However, the link with my ancestors seems to be erroneous even though they have included my whole family! They have recorded my direct ancestor as a bigamist, having children by two different husbands at the same time; they have recorded a third marriage for her 19 years after her death. Sloppy research - anything goes, find a fact and put it in however impossible! The Tudor part of their tree is (probably unintentionally) hilarious in its ludicrousness! Dates, places and people's names are just plain wrong - all facts that are easily checked. So to all out there - please check, double-check and check again your sources before you put information out in the public domain for all to see.

Emmy J said...

Redqueen said:

redqueen...thats me. I had been dubbed redqueen many years ago for my card game. According to my geneology, Elizabeth I is my 13th Grandmother through Richard Edwards. I was astonished to learn the Red Queen playing card was a portrait of myself. Strange as it sounds, the Red Queen is always with me. I have enjoyed reading all of your comments. If you would like to contact me at

Emmy J's reply:
That's hilarious! (intentional or otherwise, and I am assuming it's tongue-in-cheek). I didn't know the Virgin Queen had any offspring so obviously she could not be anyone's 13x Grandmother. And I had a very amusing time last evening looking at various trees proclaiming that Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon got married in Connecticut, America in 1509 amongst other historical inaccuracies. (Did anyone tell the Pilgrim Fathers?)

Anonymous said...

I propose to locate at least one male desendant from each of Agnes Blewett' sons for a DNA match. I desend from Edmund Edwards of GA. Who desends from Rev. Richard Edwards. Edmund had three known brothers, Willian, Nathan, and John but no known sons. Agnes was mother to four sons, Henry, William, Christopher, and Rev. Richard Edwards. Surely they have a male line still living. I canbe contacted at

Anonymous said...

The only way to know for sure is DNA. Any direct decendent MALE can submit a DNA sample and if Henry the VIII is in fact the father, DNA will confirm that.

Anonymous said...

If my research is correct, I too am a descendant of King Henry VIII. I would be his 15th great-granddaugher through his son Richard Edwardes.

It's my understanding through the research I've done, from various historians that Agnes, who was a royal herself, was a lady in the court when she had an affair with Henry VIII.

When she became pregnant he married her off to William Edwardes. Agnes & Henry's son was born - Richard Edwards in 1525 in Cardiff, Glamorgan, Wales. He died in 1566 St. Faith Parish, London, England.

There is no way to truly prove this but there is ample evidence to suggest that Richard was indeed Henry's son.

One point: Henry allowed Agnes use of the Tudor Rose. This showed she was under the protection of the King. It was not given to just anyone, certainly not to just any of his mistresses.

Here is more information:

Illegitimate son of Henry VIII?
from website:

It is suggested in some documents including in the book Edwards' Legacy by David Dean Edwards (1992), that it was whispered among some Tudor researchers that Agnes was mistress to King Henry VIII of England and that the son RICHARD was fathered by King Henry and not by William. No solid proof has yet to be found if it ever will be, nor has solid proof been found that Richard was the son of William.

It will be up to the researcher as to which line to follow. I (website author) believe that the evidence leans more towards the fact that Richard was the "bastard" son of the King and Agnes and my documentation here will reveal that line. It is documented that Agnes did have a son named Richard, but only two sons, William and Henry are shown to be positively the sons of William.

Richard is said to have kept his Edwards last name out of shame for the indecency that his mother engaged in.

King Henry Tudor was born ca. 1491 and died ca. 1546.

He had a mistress named Agnes Blewitt who was born 1509 and she died ca.1575.

The one child of King Henry VIII Tudor and Agnes is Richard Edwards

It has also been suggested that Agnes was the wife of William Edwardes, born ca. 1500 in England and died ca. 1547.

The son Richard is the son that cannot be positively linked to William because records suggest that he was born from another man, King Henry VIII. He is known as the "bastard child" of Agnes. The two known children of William Edwardes and Agnes are William Edwards and Henry Edwards.

BOOK: The Royal Bastards of Medieval England, by Chris Given-Wilson, Alice Curteis

“Yet the inability of Katharine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn to produce healthy male children was not entirely Henry’s fault, for he fathered at least one, and probably two, illegitimate sons by other women.

The most famous of these was Henry FitzRoy. He was born in 1519, the product of a royal liaison with Elizabeth Blount, lady-in-waiting to Katharine of Aaragon.”

My comments cont:
Agnes Blewitt became pregnant while a mistress of Henry VIII around 1520. At that time Henry was married to his first wife, Katherine of Aragon.

Several historians say Henry was the father of Agnes's first son, Richard. Richard Edwardes (Edwards) took the name of his stepfather, William Edwardes.

I have searched diligently for the book "Edwards' Legacy" but cannot find it.
If anyone knows where I can find this book, please let me know.

I can be reached at

Anonymous said...

Years ago my mother casually mentioned that we were related to the Tudors. Edmund Tudor wasn't the only Tudor in Wales, after all, and way back, we are Welsh. Maybe we really are related to THE Tudors, but I'm not holding my breath. I won't be pulling up to Buckingham Palace to claim my throne anytime soon.

I have to agree that if Henry VIII knew he had another male child, he would have acknowledged him. This Edwards claim seems extremely unlikely. People commenting on this thread clearly are taking speculation as fact.


Jayne Hinds said...

Hello all Edwards family, I am also a descendant from Richard Edwards, Richard, Joshua, William,Thomas, Robert,Thomas, James,Edward,Thomas, James, Lees,John, Thomas,Austin,Stephen and me. if anyone is of that line i would like to hear from you.

Robert Jaggars said...

The idea that Henry VIII was the father of Richard Edwardes has recently been discredited in Kelly Hart’s, The Mistresses of Henry VIII (2009):

“There are also suggestions that Richards Edwardes was Henry’s son. The evidence rests on him receiving an Oxford education that his family could not have afforded. There are many possible explanations for this: he could have had a benefactor, a scholarship, or perhaps his mother was the mistress of a rich man. Richard or his family may have impressed someone influential. Perhaps it was his father who paid - but there were many men who could have afforded to pay this and there is no reason to assume that it was Henry VIII. Richard Edwardes has many descendants who believe he was Henry’s son. This rumour seems to have originated from the Edwardes family themselves and not from contemporary source. Much of our (more dubious) information comes from family histories.

Edwardes’ mother, Agnes Blewitt, was not a courtier. She was from Somerset and is unlikely to have met Henry; he may have had affairs with low-born women, but they were unlikely to have lasted long. Mistresses needed to be able to dazzle at courtly accomplishments and this usually meant having had an aristocratic upbringing. It could cause offence to target wives and daughters of the highest in the land, but the king was also not expected to keep the company of women who were too far his social inferiors. A commoner may have held Henry’s attentions long enough for a casual fling and perhaps to conceive a child. Yet Henry may have considered his social inferiors for long-term mistresses, as he happily picked low-born ministers.

Edwardes was a poet, musician and composer who spent some time at Elizabeth’s court. He married Helene Griffith, which does not seem to have been an advantageous marriage. They had one son, William, who continued the Edwardes line by having sixteen children. Richard Edwardes died in 1566, three years after his marriage, and there is no evidence that links him to Henry VIII during their lifetime. Nevertheless the rumours persist.” (pp. 77-78).

Anonymous said...

Kelly Hart’s, The Mistresses of Henry VIII (2009) is only one book and only one 'historian.' Various historians see it differently. Let's not forget that Hart is the author of a book, not an historian.

Robert Jaggars said...

Your exactly right Anonymous.. just stated what I found , every genealogist will have to make up there own mind either to go with it or not... My theory is my own as yours :) I am connected to Henry 1st... on much better facts and research so I choose not to go here... have a good 4th all :)

Anonymous said...

I saw this Richard/Henry rumor several years ago. All very interesting and entertaining, if nothing else. My late mother-in-law was descended from James H. Edwards, apparently a son of Harvelin Edwards. I found a site linking him to a William E. born 1746 in Wales. Another site shows him as a son of Thomas E. and Elizabeth/Isabel Downing, but I'm not sure if this is all correct. There are so many Edwards with the same names, it's hard to distinguish one from the other. Anyone have any solid
documentation on this line?

Anonymous said...

A cousin has had the Edwards lineage confirmed through DNA tests,,,my Edwards Lineage is correct all the way to Agnes Blewett and beyond...Richarde Edwards is in the Royal DNA Database

Anonymous said...

I am a descendant of Richard Edwardes (Edwards) as well, son of Agnes Beupine Blewitt and Henry VIII. This comes from my G.Grandmother's Family Line. Her maiden name was: Edwards. My last name is: Goss.

Unknown said...

Very Cool info here. I started my research a couple weeks ago on Ancestry. I am an Edwards in Oklahoma of the line of Richard (I believe). My research shows my family coming to Oklahoma from Tennessee, from North Caroline, from Virginia, from Wales.

To the person who's cousin did a DNA test, I would love to know the course in which they did this as I'm very interested in confirming my lineage.

Hello Family!

amy said...

I am also a direct descendant of Agnes Blewit's son Richard. I hear rumors that the father was Henry VIII, but they seemed so outrageous I wanted to confirm them (I have been unable to do this). I have the original documents of the mysterious "Edwards Millions" which go to the heirs of Robert Edwards (descendant of Richard). My grandfather paid a genealogist to research the Edwards family and find our clan's crest. This is how i have the documents tracing my edwards line back to Richard.

after immigrating via Boston and Philly, my Edwards clan ended up in Pennsylvania. All were successful business men in eastern PA.

If anyone has any proof of this Henry VIII line, please email edwardsbrandt@gmail i'd love to swap info.


Anonymous said...


amy said...

All I asked was if anyone had confirmation documents, not a rude response.

Anonymous said...

a point regarding edwards hall it would not be known as edwards hal it would have been in welsh

Anonymous said...

I am a previous poster and direct descendant of one of the many Richard Edwards that immigrated to the United States around that time. The first ancestor that I feel comfortable claiming is Samuel Edwards "The Planter" who made his home in Northeastern North Carolina. Many of his ancestors, my family included, still reside in this area.

I am also in possession of one of the few remaining copies of "The Edwards of Northampton" by Bruce Montgomery Edwards. The book begins with the immigration of the Edwards clan and details the "Edwards Millions", but does not mention Agnes or the Tudor connection. You'd have to read "Edward's Legacy" by David Dean Edwards for that. It does, however, mention Edwards Hall, saying "nothing but a pile of rubble now remains to mark its location in this rough, hilly, rocky land." The fact the Glamorgan officials deny the very existence of "Edwards Hall" raises even more questions, and not just for the Tudor connection. Oh, and here's the link of the sketch mentioned in an earlier comment of "Edwards Hall": Looks like a castle. Any castle.

Because this is all merely SPECULATION, I have not included the Tudors in my genealogical work. (Though, if asked, I will bring it up as a tall tale.) Agnes being given the Tudor crest seems to be the most compelling argument used here. If that is even true, it could be due to the connection between the two families in the past, as mentioned in previous posts.

I am still looking for the painting of Richard and Elizabeth mentioned by the English lit commenter. I'm also curious about the DNA aspect of this -- is it even possible to trace an Edwards to the Tudor line? If so, "Anonymous" should make public the DNA results their "cousin" received to help put this to rest.

This whole mess has made me very disillusioned towards genealogical research. If you don't have the means to find hard evidence of a ancestral connection, even if it doesn't involve a famous historical figure, tread carefully. Check, double check, triple check dates. And consider that maybe the time and emotions invested isn't worth it.

Funny side note, a portrait of Elizabeth Woodville is my Facebook profile pic. I've heard: "Who did that painting of you?", "Whoa, doppelganger.", and "OMGOMGOMG reincarnation exists!" lol Just because you look like someone, doesn't mean there's a connection. It is neat though.

Jen Edwards

Sarah Lester said...

Hi Jen Edwards. I am a previous poster as well. I agree with you. You have scrutinize the information you are putting in your family tree. I have talked with a couple English Historians and they agree that they don't believe there is a connection to our Richard Edwards and the Henry VIII.
As for the DNA this would only work if you had a known male descendant with a male descendant of the Edwards clan. If I remember right. And as I can recall there isn't really anyone that can claim that. So the next thing would be to do a DNA comparison from the remains of Henry VIII himself which may or may not have any useable DNA. Also there would need to be an ok from the current royal family in order for that to happen. As I can recall there has been requests and of coarse they denied the requests.

I am wondering what the ramifications would be if our ancestor was actually an illegitimate son of Henry VIII. Personally, all I would want to know is if it were true that would be it. I know the person who started this claim to Henry VIII was someone who was trying to obtain land where present day Wall Street was which is one of the richest parcels of land. Some people's motives are not right.

I think it would be wonderful if we could prove it one way or the other.

Sarah Lester said...

Forgot to mention Jen Edwards. I have that same happening with a portrait of at the time of Princess Mary who later became Mary I of England. I found it when I was the same age as she. I showed it to my family and they thought I looked exactly like her :) I mean hair, eyes, nose, facial structure and everything! I have talked to a couple people about that too and for them that would solidify the claim. But I, like you, want that hard evidence to prove it.

Diane said...

I have also just traced my Edwards line back to Henry VIII. So he's my 15th great grandfather. I double checked dates all the way back as well to be sure. If anything, I just think it's a cool story. On another branch I'm related to Robert E Lee, Martha Washington from another, and Joan of Arch on one on my Mom's side. All just cool tidbits really. Our more recent stuff from Robert E Lee we actually have documents, civil war money, an old canon ball and some other goodies. It's been fun to research, super time consuming, but just interesting. Especially when you get back to war battle written recounts, etc. Fun stuff!

David Edwards said...

Like most everyone else I too may be related to Henry VIII. My last name is Edwards. My months of ancestry research leads me back to him. The story I read was that Henry stayed at a hunting lodge where Richard and Agnes lived and he got her pregnant who is supposed to be the connection. I was wondering if the lodge ruins are still there.

David Edwards said...

Like most everyone here, if it is true that Henry and Agnes had a son and she and her husband raised the child as an Edwardes, I am supposed to be a descendant. I say do the DNA and find out once and for all. I would like to know it there are any pictures of the area of land where the hunting lodge stood or if it or it's ruins are still standing.

Anonymous said...

Texas descendants
Henry was a womanizer from the age of 12 or so. Women simply did not turn their liege down and it is well to remember women were chattel to be used as family or husband saw fit, even to warming the kings bed. Wife or no wife it mattered not. If there was a child, more the better as it elevated the stature of the family noble or not. Babies were exchanged for stillborn, even disappeared when birth inconvenient. We cannot use modern mores and morals during the Tudor era. One must think in terms of lifestyle in the Tudor court.....which was to say something like a frat house gone wild. DNA is virtually useless because of intermarriage & line marriage. So we can dream or be contrary, it is what it is.

Kate said...

Just started looking and I'm curious to know if anyone came across the name Uriah in their search. There would be about three generations of the name Uriah. And if anyone has info for a Jane Arrington. If you find that these names bisect in your tree please feel free to contact me. I'm just looking for fun. I have no desire to claim The Mad King, even though he's listed on my tree. I would rather know more about family I could maybe get ahold of now. My email is Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I am a direct descendent of Richard, as he is my many greats grandfather. Records show that he indeed was the son of Henry Tudor and was gifted a castle, he was not accepted from king Henry as his son.

Kathleen Swaim said...

I am also a direct descendent of Richard. He is my many times great grandfather & my side of the family finally ended up in Arkansas. I have just recently started my family tree. I believe that Richard was the King's son and for reasons unknown to us he did not claim him. While researching my tree I use his adoptive father as my grandfather. If anyone has a completed family tree please send me a copy at It would be neat if somehow & someday we all could meet.

Ken Edwards said...

To the best of my research, I've found the (illegitimate)descendants of Henry VIII in America settled in the southeast. Virginia, Carolina's, etc. My ancestry, can be traced back to 1790, Union Corners, New York. I've found no connection to Henry VIII. Most likely, (in my opinion) any association to Henry VIII's line is not in NY.

Betty Lee said...

I have recently uncovered that I too am a descendant of Rev. Richard Edwardes. I would love to find more of my extended family. Here is how my family tree breaks down:
Henry VIII Tudor King
Rev. Richard Edwardes
Richard Edwardes Jr
William Edwardes
Thomas Edwardes SR.
Thomas Edwardes
William Edwards
Mary Edwards
Sarah Sally Cochran
Austin Proffitt
Harvey Proffitt
Peal Etta Proffitt
Clifford Raymond Compton (my grandfather, my mother's father)

Linda Edwards said...

Me to

Marilyn Basel, Cookbooks & Poetry said...

The circumstantial evidence for a Richard Edwards son of Agnes Blewitt Edwardes being a child of Henry VIII is very strong. The families did know each other well. The Edwards family lived at or very near the King's hunting lodge where they could have dallied without notice of the court.
William Edwards the husband of Agnes had no reason not to claim Richard as his son if he was in fact his son; he had claimed his other two sons by Agnes formally, so we have to ask ourselves what reason did he have to omit claiming Richard? This points to, William Edwards husband of Agnes did not believe Richard was his own. But why was William at that moment not willing to divorce Agnes or worse? If he knew the King had a biological interest in the child, he might have been persuaded or compelled to let the matter slide.
The King seems to have made it up to him by giving the Edwards family a castle and by ensuring Richard's education would be paid for, and the King was not afraid to document it. We have to ask ourselves why would it cross the King's mind to do any of this for the Edwards family and specifically Richard? Again, this points to the King having a reason to support the Edwards family and specifically the son of Agnes, named Richard. If Henry suspected he might be Richard's father, that would most neatly explain these events that we do know actually happened.
The answer to why Henry avoided claiming Richard outright may have had something to do with his wife's pregnancies at the time. If someone makes a chart or timeline of Catharine's ill-fated pregnancies some light may be shed on Henry's reluctance to claim Richard as heir. How close are Richard and Elizabeth in age? I should look into this. Henry did believe he would produce an heir by his legal wife--maybe that is part of it.
What reason did Richard Edwards son of Agnes have to write a play for Queen Elizabeth? It makes more sense when one considers these knew they were half-brother and half-sister. All the attention paid to Richard by the court is best explained by the supposition that he was Henry's son.
DNA testing is the way to prove it. If all the descendants threw in together a tiny bit toward paying for that, it could be done. It is not likely the royals in England would have any interest in doing that--the Edwards descendants are the ones who can make it happen, if they can get the permission of powers that be.
Later King Henry did try to promote his other bastard son Henry Fitzroy as an acceptable heir, and perhaps at the time he gave a castle to the Edwards family he was also purchasing his freedom from their claims to a future throne. King Henry was always nearly broke because of his wars and he did not just go around bestowing castles and free educations willy-nilly. That Richard was his son explains his generosity to the Edwards family best. I think Richard Edwards son of Agnes unclaimed son of William was the son of Henry VIII. We have more reason to think so than to doubt it.

Pam said...

Hello to all Edwards. I am the great granddaughter of Lucy Edwards of South Carolina, Her father is Nathaniel Edwards and through Nathaniel we have traced our family back to Richard Edwards. My uncle James is still living and I have several male cousins as well.

Nancy said...

Would be great if we could have the body of King Henry VIII and Lord Hundson Cary exhumed to see how close their dna is. My Miles and Henry Cary family claims lineal descent from Lord Hunsdon Cary, and my dna tests shows a lot of Cary matches including a Stafford. A Stafford married Mary Bolyn as her second husband, and I believe they had a child or two.

A DNA test would certainly put a lot of claims to rest and reinforce the ones that are out there.

Elijah_Luthor said...

Ladies and Gentlemen, there has been talk that Agnes Blewett - reportedly Henry VIII's mistress during his marriage to (Queen Consort) Katherine of Aragon - was a woman of low estate. As I too descend from Henry VIII by the way of his illegitimate son Reverend Richard Blewett Edwardes I, I would also like to once and for all reveal Agnes Blewett's royal and noblemen ancestry by the way of BOTH her parents. She descends from Alfred the Great, her closest English royal ancestor being King Edward [Plantagenet] I of England.

Alfred the Great to Reverend Richard Blewett Edwardes I 01-

*Alfred d'Angleterre 'The Great,' first to be recognized as “King of England”
Ealhswitha Mucil de Gainen

Edward The Elder, King of the Anglo-Saxons
Edgiva / Eadgifu of Kent

Edmund I, The Magnificent, King of the English
Elgiva / Ælfgifu of Shaftesbury

Edgar The Peaceful, King of the English
Elfrida / Aelfthyryth

Æthelred II, The Unready
Elgiva / Ælfgifu of York

Edmund II, “Ironside,” King of the English
Edith of Wessex

Edward the Atheling / Edward the Exile
Agatha of Hungary

Margaret of Wessex, Queen Consort of Scotland
Malcolm III Caenmore, King of Scotland and Strathclyde

Matilda of Scotland, “Good Queen Maud”
King Henry I of England (Beauclerc)

Matilda, “Empress Maud”
*Geoffrey Plantagenet (V) Duke of the Normans, Count of Anjou, Touraine, and Maine
*Geoffrey Plantagenet was the founder of the Plantagenet royal house.

King Henry II of England, “Curtmantle”
Eleanor of Aquitaine

King John I of England, “Lackland”
Countess Isabella of Angoulême

King Henry III of England
Eleanor of Provence

King Edward I of England
Eleanor of Castile

Elizabeth [Plantagenet] of Rhuddlan, Countess of Hereford
Humphrey de Bohun VIII, Fourth Earl of Hereford

Margaret de Bohun, Countess of Devon
Hugh de Courtenay, Second Earl of Devon

Margaret de Courtenay
John de Cobham, Knight

Joan de Cobham
Sir John de la Pole

Joan de la Pole, Baroness Cobham
Sir Reginald Braybrooke of Cooling Castle

Joan Braybrooke, Fifth Baroness of Cobham
Sir Thomas Brooke

Elizabeth Brooke
John Saint Maur

Joan Saint Maur
Walter Blewett of North Petherton

Nicholas Blewett of North Petherton
Joan FitzJames

*Richard Blewett of Holcombe
*Mary Grenville
*Richard Blewett of Holcombe and his wife Mary Grenville both descend from King Edward I of England and are ninth cousins to each other.

*Agnes Blewett***
**King Henry (Tudor) VIII of England***
*Agnes Blewett was reportedly a mistress to King Henry VIII during his marriage to (Queen Consort) Katherine of Aragon.
**King Henry VIII of England is my fourteenth great-grandfather by blood through this line of descent.
***Both Agnes Blewett and Henry VIII are descendants of King Edward I of England. Agnes is King Edward I's ninth great-granddaughter and Henry VIII is King Edward I's sixth great-grandson. Agnes Blewett and Henry VIII are seventh cousins thrice removed to each other.

*Reverend Richard Blewett Edwardes I
(1) Margaret Babbs | (2) Helene Elizabeth Griffith
*Richard Edwardes, an illegitimate son of King Henry VIII, took on the surname of his adoptive father William Edwardes. Edwardes was a composer, playwright, and poet. He was 'Master of the Children of the Chapel Royal' and initiated English tragedy on the Latin classical model, but set in a contemporary world. He was educated at Oxford receiving a Bachelor and Master's degree in Law. His one extant play is 'Damon and Pithias' (1571). Edwardes always had direct access to the royal family throughout his entire life.

Elijah_Luthor said...

Alfred the Great to Reverend Richard Blewett Edwardes I 02-

*Alfred d'Angleterre 'The Great,' first to be recognized as “King of England”
Ealhswitha Mucil de Gainen

Edward The Elder, King of the Anglo-Saxons
Edgiva / Eadgifu of Kent

Edmund I, The Magnificent, King of the English
Elgiva / Ælfgifu of Shaftesbury

Edgar The Peaceful, King of the English
Elfrida / Aelfthyryth

Æthelred II, The Unready
Elgiva / Ælfgifu of York

Edmund II, “Ironside,” King of the English
Edith of Wessex

Edward the Atheling / Edward the Exile
Agatha of Hungary

Margaret of Wessex, Queen Consort of Scotland
Malcolm III Caenmore, King of Scotland and Strathclyde

Matilda of Scotland, “Good Queen Maud”
King Henry I of England (Beauclerc)

Matilda, “Empress Maud”
*Geoffrey Plantagenet (V) Duke of the Normans, Count of Anjou, Touraine, and Maine
*Geoffrey Plantagenet was the founder of the Plantagenet royal house.

King Henry II of England, “Curtmantle”
Eleanor of Aquitaine

King John I of England, “Lackland”
Countess Isabella of Angouleme

King Henry III of England
Eleanor of Provence

King Edward I of England
Eleanor of Castile

Joan of Acre, Countess of Gloucester and Hertford
Gilbert of Clare, Seventh Earl of Gloucester

Margaret de Clare, Countess of Gloucester
Hugh de Audley, First Earl of Gloucester

Margaret de Audley, Countess of Stafford
Ralph de Stafford, First Earl of Stafford, K.G.

Beatrice de Stafford
Thomas de Ros, Fourth Baron de Ros of Helmsley

Margaret de Ros, Baroness Grey de Ruthyn
Reginald Grey, Third Baron Grey de Ruthyn

Margaret Grey
William Bonville, First Baron Bonville, K.G.

Lady Philippa Bonville
Sir William Granville, Knight

Sir Thomas Grenville I of Stow, Knight
Elizabeth Gorges

Sir Thomas Grenville, Knight
Isabella Gilbert

*Mary Grenville
*Richard Blewett of Holcombe
*Richard Blewett of Holcombe and his wife Mary Grenville both descend from King Edward I of England and are ninth cousins to each other.

*Agnes Blewett***
**King Henry (Tudor) VIII of England***
*Agnes Blewett was a mistress to King Henry VIII during his marriage to (Queen Consort) Katherine of Aragon.
**King Henry VIII of England is my fourteenth great-grandfather by blood through this line of descent.
***Both Agnes Blewett and Henry VIII are descendants of King Edward I of England. Agnes is King Edward I's ninth great-granddaughter and Henry VIII is King Edward I's sixth great-grandson. Agnes Blewett and Henry VIII are seventh cousins thrice removed to each other.

*Reverend Richard Blewett Edwardes I
(1) Margaret Babbs | (2) Helene Elizabeth Griffith
*Richard Edwardes, an illegitimate son of King Henry VIII, took on the surname of his adoptive father William Edwardes. Edwardes was a composer, playwright, and poet. He was 'Master of the Children of the Chapel Royal' and initiated English tragedy on the Latin classical model, but set in a contemporary world. He was educated at Oxford receiving a Bachelor and Master's degree in Law. His one extant play is 'Damon and Pithias' (1571). Edwardes always had direct access to the royal family throughout his entire life.

Elijah_Luthor said...

And here is my descent from King Henry [Tudor] VIII-

King Henry [Tudor] VIII of England
Agnes Blewett (reported mistress)

Reverend Richard Blewett Edwardes I
Helene Elizabeth Griffith (second wife)

Reverend Lord Richard Edwardes II
Ellenor / Eleanor Pursloe Thomas

Baron Joshua Richard Edwards, of Cardiff
Margaret Babbs

William Edwards I, 'of Llangyfelach and Jamestown'
Jonet Reese (first wife)

*William Edwards II
**Jane Seymour
*Through his ancestry, William Edwards is a descendant of King Henry VIII of England by the way of an illegitimate son Richard Edwardes.
**Through her ancestry, Jane Seymour is a descendant of the First Duke of Somerset Edward Seymour, whom was brother to (Queen Consort) Jane Seymour, Henry VIII's third wife. Through their mother Margaret Wentworth, siblings Edward and Jane are descendants of King Edward III of England.

*Anne Edwards
**(1) Dr. John Endicott | (2) Samuel Endicott
*Through both of Anne Edwards' parents, she has royal ancestry.
**Dr. John Endicott was Anne Edwards' first husband. Anne's second husband was Samuel Endicott, the father of her daughter Anne Endicott's husband. Both Dr. John Endicott and his brother Samuel Endicott are patrilineal grandsons of Governor John Endecott through his second son Zerubbabel Endicott.

*Anne Endicott
*Samuel Endicott I
*Husband and Wife were first cousins.

Samuel Endicott II
Mary Putnam

*Samuel Endicott III
Sarah Jones
*Samuel Endicott III was murdered by Sylvanus Brewer at Abner's Gap, Russell County, Virginia in the Autumn of 1817.

Joshua Henry Endicott
Hannah James

Samuel Endicott
Louisa Romans

Henry J.C. Tilton Endicott
Susan Harrietta “Hattie” Samons

Joshua W. Endicott
Mary Anna Workman

Elbert Junior Endicott**
*Angie Belle Ball**
*Angie Belle Ball, my paternal grandmother, is the 19th great-granddaughter of Sir William Wallace, “Braveheart.”
**My patrilineal grandparents are thirteenth cousins twice removed from each other.

*Elbert Dwayne Endicott
*Tina Marie Danklefsen
*My parents are (1) fifteenth cousins twice removed, (2) sixteenth cousins once removed, (3) twenty-fourth cousins thrice removed, and (4) eighteenth half-blood cousins twice removed from each other.

*Jacob Dwayne Endicott**
*I am the 10th great-grandson of first governor for Massachusetts Bay Colony John Endecott, the 14th great-grandson of King Henry VIII of England, and the 21st great-grandson of Sir William Wallace, “Braveheart.”

By the way, Eilleen Regina Edwards, also known as 'Shania Twain,' is my tenth cousin by the way of our common ancestors William Edwards and Jane Seymour.

Kyra Minturn Sedgwick is twice my eighth cousin. Our first set of common ancestors are Tarrant Putnam and Elizabeth Bacon. Our second set of common ancestors are (Captain) Samuel Endicott I and Anne Endicott.

I am also close or distant cousins with American Presidents. For those that want to know definitively, all American Presidents (except Dutch-descent Martin Van Buren) descend from King John I of England. Here is proof:

Elijah_Luthor said...

As for Jane Seymour, the wife of William Edwards, here is her ancestry to King Edward III-

Here is Jane Seymour's descent from King Edward III of England-

King Edward III of England
Philippa of Hainault

Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence
Elizabeth de Burgh

Philippa of Clarence, Countess of Ulster
Edmund Mortimer, Third Earl of March

Elizabeth Mortimer
Sir Henry 'Hotspur' Percy

*Elizabeth Percy
*John Clifford, Seventh Baron de Clifford, Seventh Lord of Skipton
*Elizabeth Percy and John Clifford are both descendants of King Edward I of England.

Mary Clifford
Sir Philip Wentworth of Nettlested

Sir Henry Wentworth of Nettlested
Anne Say

Margery Wentworth
Sir John Seymour of Wolf Hall

*Edward Seymour (I), First Duke of Somerset
Catherine Fillol
*Edward Seymour, the First Duke of Somerset was the brother to Henry VIII's third wife, Queen Consort Jane Seymour. He was also the uncle to King Edward (Tudor) VI and served as his Lord Protector of the realm during the young king's minority.

Lord Edward Seymour (II)
Margaret Walshe

Sir Edward Seymour (III), First Baronet
Elizabeth Champernowne

Sir Edward Seymour (IV), Second Baronet
Lady Dorothy Killegrew

*Sir Edward Seymour (V), Third Baronet
*Anne Portman
*Sir Edward Seymour (V) and his wife Anne Portman are thirteenth cousins twice removed from each other.

Jane Seymour
William Edwards II

John Halterman said...

You all are rambling on about the same stuff. Start from the beginning and go forward. I have William and Richard in every generation. You need to be careful. I have gone thru all dates and some of the records can be off by a year or two. Easy to get off track. I sure would like to see where you get these records from.

shelby said...

Are you at all related to the Edwards' and Taylors' of Edgecombe County? My GGM was an Edwards from there(we still own the farm), and is by her that we are allegedly related to this Richard Edwardes.

shelby said...

My GGM was an Edwards of Edgecombe co, and it is through her we are allegedly descended from Richard Edwardes. We are Taylors, but she was an Edwards, played the banjo, gummed rainbow snuff, and her family had enough land to give her and her brothers each a farm upon marrying.

Jason Edwards said...


My brother traced our family tree back to Richard Edwardes using, and I am just looking into this. It seems there is no way to prove Richard Edwardes was the Illegitimate son of Henry the 8th, but I find it very interesting! I never would have inagined that when I watched the Tudors on Showtime lol.

Kind Regards,

Jason Edwards South Carolina, USA

Elijah_Luthor said...

It is possible to prove or confirm all of this with D.N.A. tests but the current illegitimate 'House of Windsor' unlawfully ruling Britannia does not want such things to happen as it would prove that 'the House of Tudor' has male descendants, even if they were begotten from unsavory situations such as adultery or fornication. Now, I am disappointed that Henry [Tudor] VIII committed adultery when he was married. But, had he not sired illegitimate scions, we Edwardes / Edwards descendants would not exist. Plus, on his death bed, he honestly did repent and gave his whole being over to Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ before passing away. Thank God (literally) for that. Thomas Cramner, the Archbishop of Canterbury along with others present were material witnesses to his genuine repentance and salvation. Details of this can be read in Gail Riplinger's "In Awe of Thy Word." Further, the product of such a union, (Reverend) Richard Blewett Edwardes the First himself was a practicing Christian man. His career, which King Henry reportedly is to have subsisted, allowed for the Reverend in to being a precursor to William Shakespeare and possibly the founder of 'comic relief' in English literature, especially in plays. So, children borne from certain circumstances - that most people find unsatisfactory - can indeed grow up to be honorable and wholesome people, never needing to be held accountable for the actions of their biological parents. Sharing such information might give some of we Edwards descendants comfort that our ancestors were good people, depending on your own opinions with such line of thinking.

But, beyond all of that, we Edwardes / Edwards descendants have royal and noble ancestry. Even if the Reverend is NOT King Henry's 'natural son,' Agnes [Blewett] Edwardes has Plantagenet blood through both of her parents, who are ninth cousins with each other sharing King Edward [Plantagenet] I of England as their closest common ancestors. But, there is still so many details that give legitimacy to the Edwardes / Edwards claims. Most of us have remarkable characteristics and physiognomies that resemble members from 'the House of Tudor.'

As for those that descend from King Henry VIII through Catherine Carey, daughter of Mary Boleyn, I am happy to report that she is indeed the King's natural daughter. I am friends and cousins with the legitimate King of England and Scotland, male primogeniture descendant from 'the House of Stuart,' John Robert Michael Francis Layton. Go here for the Real Truth on Britannia's lawful, legitimate, genetic, and hereditary and at present "Titular" King. "King John II of England" is one of few people on Earth today whether from the Old or New World whom has the most royal and noble blood, by the way of both of his parents. He possesses upwards of 1,800 blood links to Charlemagne, King of the Franks whom is the most common and historic ancestor within the passed millennium of most Germanic and English-descent Europeans and Americans. D.N.A. tests have never been done on Henry VIII himself as his remains have never left his burial place, even during times when the vault was disturbed or visited. What the D.N.A. information reveals on Catherine Carey is that she descends from Henry VII and Elizabeth [Plantagenet] of York. These blood links are not through her mother so therefore it has to be with her natural father, a man with Tudor blood. That mystery can now be put to rest as John II's contacts and genealogical research with reliable experts have proven that ancestral blood link beyond a shadow of a doubt. John II has Tudor blood through both of his parents but the Catherine Carey connection is specific to his matrilineal ancestry.

Elijah_Luthor said...

We Edwards descendants can deduce that since Catherine Carey is truly the daughter of King Henry VIII that this then leads credence to Richard Edwards more and more likely also being the king's natural son borne from similar circumstances. This is something we can hope for, not because we are "royal hunting" as some genealogical people would suggest, but to put to rest on who are our real ancestors. Knowing whom we descend from not only excites us but also gives us some measure of identity. I myself desire wholeheartedly in carrying on the legacies and greatness of our ancestors, whether they be royal, noble, or commoner. More over, I am my own man but I believe it is honorable in being a Renaissance man and continuing such familial customs. Let us not forget we are all cousins. If any of you have William Edwards II and Jane Seymour as your closest common Edwards progenitors, then you are at least tenth to eleventh cousins with me, Elijah Luthor. Neato, huh?! (Well, it's neato for those that care, of course). L.o.l.

Forgive me, I talk too much. For any one reading my words, I also want to confirm for you all that because of our respective Tudor and Plantagenet ancestors, we all descend from eighteen Emperors of Rome. Included in that list are three of the five principate imperators from the Julio-Claudian dynasty: Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius. Caligula and Nero's bloodlines were (praise be to God) extinguished in their lifetimes.

Anonymous said...

Word of mouth history is hard to prove but with that in mind, how many formerly word of mouth histories have now been proven as fact? This same word of mouth history has been passed down to me as well. My Spencer family has proven genealogy which goes back to Thomas Talvas Montgomery DeSpencer born 1036 and on the Edwards side to Richard Edwards born 1647 in CT, USA.
This Richard is supposedly the Great grandson of the Richard Edwards born to Agnes Blewitt Edwards.

My Grandfather told the same family history to us of the Manhattan land grant to the Edward's family due to the Henry VIII royal connection. How is it possible that so many Edward's family members who don't even know one another have had this same information past down for generations?

Richard son of Agnes apparently has thousand descendants. If it is true that Richard Edwards born to Agnes Blewitt is the son of Henry VIII's, the extreme irony of all of this is that Henry really messed up. He Blew it! lol (could this have been where the saying came from? Makes you wonder doesn't it.

And yes if you are wondering my Spencer genealogical research does show I am a distant cousin of Lady Diana Spencer.

Anonymous said...

I have seen many genealogists and amateus dismiss peopl as fictional or made up when in fact the documentations are plenty, both in the usual records and in family histories and circumstantial evidence that cant be easily dismissed. What is that about? Why dismiss as unreal anyone in history just to feel important? Those people are not making a good name for themselvez, are they? The DNA is the ultimate proof but not all can afford it. Glad you are confident of your ancestry, naysayers aside.

Barbara Smith said...

We may have an answer to the DNA solution to prove Richard Edwards was Henry's son. Henry's suit of Armour is here in the USA. It is at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, NY. He had many jousting accidents wearing that Armour. If any of his DNA is still inside it we might get the answer after 500 years.

Anonymous said...

I too and a descendant of Richard Edwards and also Sir Thomas Nathaniel Edwards. I am so fascinated by all of this. Its weird that I saw pictures of the Henry the VII and though, he looks just like my uncle (my mom's brother) and thought that was really weird. Then I found out later that I could be related to King Henry VII. I think it would be amazing to do the DNA test. Has anyone actually looked into this ? Is it plausible and I wonder what the cost would be. I have a feeling even if we did come up with the money, I wonder if the Tudor family would allow it, since he was royalty and a King. I say lets set up a go fund me page and get started raising money !! :) I am also fascinated with the connection to the land in Manhattan. It's said that Thomas Edwards was given land from the King of England for fighting for the English side. He then leased the land to the Catholic church for 100 years and the Catholic church never gave the land back !! Leave it to the Catholic church to cause trouble... Please e-mail me if you have any information. E-mail - Let's have a family reunion !! :D


Why can't we compare current Edwards dna with people who have known tudo dna. There are published dna profiles of both families.

Catherine Merrill said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marilyn Basel, Cookbooks & Poetry said...

There is no shame in having parents who were not married at time of birth as many noble rulers have proved, including William the Conqueror, and Charles Martel, the savior of Europe when the Arabs were trying to rule the world. Henry was a self-centered man who placed his own appetites above God and paid a heavy price in grief and pain for it. One of my friends is a Bolyen, descended from George, Anne's brother, who was executed only because Cromwell hated his honesty in shipping and Henry feared that George would seek revenge if he was allowed to live. Anne and George's father betrayed them both in exchange for high standing in Henry's court, but one could argue in the end he was merely trying to save himself from similar fate. Back to Richard Edwards,Henry took no pains to hide that he gave baby Richard's mother a mansion and paid for the best education available for baby Richard, and his mother's husband at the time never legally accepted Richard as his own. These facts cannot be explained by anything but Henry's being convinced he was Richard's biological father though he never offered to give Richard his title. His mother's husband was not in town when Richard was conceived, and they had proximity to court so it is not implausible Henry VIII fathered Richard as so many have concluded. There is too much evidence to think otherwise.

Donna Wood said...

I too am from that line of Edwards. I have done a great deal of research on both the Tudor line as well as their maternal line. Please contact me if you would like more info. I am there last from the line of Edwards that came to their US in 1850 so any relations out there would be amazing.

Donna Wood said...

He was gifted Edwards Hall from Queen Elizabeth I his half sister. Richard married one of Elizabeth's lady in waiting

Donna Wood said...

Henry provided Richard with enough money to attend college. He went to Oxford where he was known for his plays and music. I have been told that there are records at Oxford.

Donna Wood said...

I know that story and have some documentation. A family member researched a huge amount of info in their 60's and 70's

Catherine Merrill said...

Mixing two Richards here. Richard Edwardes died 1566. His son Richard Edwards is probably the dad of the others born decades after. Check it out.

Edith said...

Rev Richard Edwards was my 12 great grand father

Anonymous said...

Rev Richard Edwards was also my 12 Great Grand Father!

Anonymous said...

Has DNA of Richard Edwards corpse been tested against King Henry VIII, a cruel and mean king? Records show in my Edwards family as true, but no publishing of information on the DNA status of this. It is being investigated in US and Australia.
I am trying to find my family secrets and the men in my family are angry over my findings and I assuming they know how cruel our British family are and how cold they have been. Very ugly family feuds going on here.
And this has not been helpful spite their evil intentions and torts against our other family members. The royal offspring mostly were unhappy and shows in the family line.

Elijah Luthor said...

Hello again everyone. This is Elijah Luthor. In June 2016, I had shared and revealed on this page that I had believed that the true claimant to the English throne was John Robert Michael Francis Layton ( As of October 2016, I no longer possess those sentiments and I am no longer friends with him, even though he is my cousin. As I am myself a TRUE Biblical Christian, not beholden to any worthless and deceitful 'traditions of man' denomination or sect, it was wholly wrong of me to support a papist and Vatican loyalist. Lord God forgive me. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Real Truth concerning whom should be on the joint English and Welsh thrones, what I consider "the Britannian throne," is direct paternal male Tudor blood. No one of direct patrilineal Scotsmen (Stuart), Dutchmen (Orange), or German (Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) blood should ever rule on the ENGLISH or WELSH thrones. People may not believe the Tudors ever had any rightful claim on the English throne. Here is a page that gives legitimate cause for Henry Tudor to claim the throne 'by right of conquest,' 'by right of blood,' and 'by right of marriage': I also need to reveal that Henry [Tudor] VII, King of England and Lord of Ireland was a direct unbroken patrilineal descendant of Arthur, King of Britannia, founder and king of the original "United Kingdom." Ladies and Gentlemen, Arthur really was real. I promise you. And most importantly, he descended from 'the Judahite Royal House of David' through BOTH of his parents. Get to know the real King Arthur here: and P.S. There is a reason that King Henry VII named his first-born son - not after himself - to "Arthur."

Elijah Luthor said...

I would like to take this time to lovingly correct my fellow Edwardes / Edwards cousins on two things. (01) Firstly, when people share that Agnes Blewett was permitted to put the royal Tudor rose on her personal 'family crest,' they are completely incorrect. If she was permitted to include the Tudor rose as part of her own personal heraldry, it would be upon the shield of her “Coat of Arms.” “Family crest” is INCORRECT. A 'crest' is a PART of the heraldic design that makes up a complete 'coat of arms.' All Coats of Arms and their shields are made individually and ARE NOT passed from one family member to another LEST it is through a royal or noble house and only then few minor details are added or subtracted, such as a 'label.' People need to do their research on heraldry and 'heraldic badges' to understand the rules as dictated from “the College of Arms,” which is situated in England. (02) Secondly, people need to cease associating the name “Beaupyne” or “Beaupenny” with Agnes [Blewett] Edwards (1509 - 1575). The only connection with an “Agnes Beaupyne” in Agnes [Blewett] Edwardes' family or ancestry is her third great-grandmother 'Agnes Beaupyne' (circa 1385 - 1442) - the daughter of Thomas Beaupyne, Member of Parliament and Margaret De La More - whom was married to John Blewett / Bluet I (1376 - 1420). Here is Agnes [Blewett] Edwardes' descent from that couple: John Blewett / Bluet I (1376 - 1420) and Agnes Beaupyne (circa 1385 - 1442) > John Blewett / Bluet II (1402 - 1463) and Maud Chestledon (1406 - 1458) > Walter Blewett of North Petherton (1430 - 1481) and Joan Saint Maur (1432 - 1490) > Nicholas Blewett of North Petherton (1456 - 1523) and Joan FitzJames (1457 - 1523) > Richard Blewett of Holcombe (1478 - 1523) and Mary Grenville (1478 - 1537) > Agnes [Blewett] Edwardes (1509 – 1575).

Elijah Luthor said...

I also want to share that Agnes is also a direct patrilineal descendant of Arthur, King of Britannia. Arthur was born on December, Tuesday the 25th, A.D. 0479 [Julian-Augustan calendar] at a monastery at Tintagel in Cornwall. He passed away after being mortally wounded at 'the Battle of Camlan' fighting against his natural son Mordred in present-day Camelford in Cornwall on February, Tuesday the 16th, A.D. 0538. March, Thursday the 28th, A.D. 0519 is considered the date on which began “Modern Britannian History.” It was in that year that Arthur founded the 'original' “United Kingdom” having unified Hibernia (the emerald isle of Ireland), Britannia (Wales and England), and France by right of conquest. Arthur was the biological son of Eutherius, King of Britannia (paternal descendant from 'the Judahite Royal House of David' and 'the Roman Imperial House of Caesar') and Igraine, widow and duchess to (Duke) Glois / Gorlois of Cornwall. Igraine was a 'House of David' scion through both of her parents. King Arthur lived to be 58 years, 1 month, and 23 days old. His biological father's name in Latin was Eutherius, in English, it was “Uthyr Pendragon” taken from the Welsh words 'yr vthyr pen draco.' [Before spelling modernizations, the Latin alphabet characters of “u” and “v” were switched]. “Yr uthyr” is transliterated to mean 'the awesome' or 'the terrible' whereas “pen draco” meant 'chief prince' or 'chief war leader.' Welsh royal and noblemen houses that descended from Arthur included a “red dragon” (now an extinct reptile) as part of their Coats of Arms. When Welshman Henry Tudor won the English throne on the battlefield, he included 'the red dragon of Cadwaladr' as a supporter onto his 'English Royal Coat of Arms' uniting the dominions of Wales and England under his rule as Arthur before him. Henry Tudor descends from Arthur's first-born child and son - Amhar, Prince of Britannia - from his first wife and queen consort Guinevere. Therefore, Henry VII's claim on the throne through BOTH of his parents was lawful and legitimate as well as God-ordained as he ended the medieval period in Britannia and helped to usher in the Early Modern Period. The Tudor dynasty paved the way for the English Renaissance and the English Reformation which liberated the people from centuries of perpetual unchecked tyranny under what I call "the apostate status quo establishment" perpetrated and perpetuated by the central bankers and the Roman Catholic Church, which is a PAGAN sect and IS NOT “Christian.” Because of the influence of 'the English Royal House of Tudor,' the Holy Scriptures were transliterated into [Early Modern] English and printed by the King's own printing presses!!! The people who fervently hungered for the LETTERED Word of God were no longer in the dark concerning the Gospel Truth as they previously were under “the establishment” which purposely kept the people ignorant, confused, and without grace. The Tudors, although not perfect people, did in words and in deeds, change and alter history FOR THE BETTER. Glory to God in the highest and Lord God be with us all; for those of us whom are sincerely repentant and prayerful. Lord God, grant me the means to someday meet and unite with my dearly-beloved and appreciated Edwards cousins from the Tudor bloodline.

Karl Thacker said...

These claims of Henry VIII lineage in Edwardes/Edwards is a bit comical. Aside from the timeline of some claims simply not working, such as Scotland not being under English rule at the time of supposed granting of lands, but so far NOBODY has produced
Anything which shows Agnes was ever a member of Henry's court
Anything which shows Agnes being dismissed from Henry's court
Anything which documents Henry visiting the lodge where the affair supposedly occurred
Anything which documents Agnes being paid a stipend by Henry
Anything which documents Richard's education being paid for by Henry
Anything which documents Henry granting lands to Agnes/her family
Anything which documents Henry giving permission for a rose to be used on any family crest or being assigned a Heraldic coat of arms with such
And on and on and on.... Everyone likes to say these things took place, but so far NOBODY has provided any documentation which supports the claims. And, yes, these documents do exist from the period. But so far not on this subject... And I won't even get into the number of people on sites such as Ancestry whose family tree have NOTHING for documentation or support for their use beyond 'other trees'. Oh, and those trees have no evidence or support.

Elijah, trying to link her family to King Arthur, someone who is not even agreed as having existed, is a bit much. To then try to claim a lineage to person not proven to exist is a huge stretch. As-is trying to link actual people to fictional tales from the bible.

Elijah Luthor said...

Information in the form of archived manuscripts throughout England, Wales, and Scotland in the passed ten years plus - 2005 forward - have confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt Arthur, founder and king of the original United Kingdom, truly did exist. And for the love of God, please don't believe any of that sensational mythology nonsense, not any of you. Those aforementioned manuscripts were out of the reach of the church establishment and their sycophantic clerics who were responsible for erasing Arthur's memory and legacy. Arthur was a TRUE Christian and was an adversary to the Roman Catholic Church, which is a PAGAN cult and is NOT "Christian." When Arthur claimed territory by right of conquest during battle, he was victorious every single time. When he pushed further into the Continent, having gained Provençe (southern France) and Lombardy (northern Italy), his military wins were alarmingly brought to the intention of the papacy in Rome and their ally in the east, Emperor Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire. They thought that Arthur was trying to re-form or revive the Roman Empire begun by the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Therefore they considered the Britannian monarch a threat to their borders and their controlling influence. As it turns out Arthur descends from 'the Roman Imperial House of Caesar' through both of his parents. Arthur's biological father and mother were first cousins twice removed from each other sharing as their closest common ancestors Constantine II, King of Britannia / Emperor of Rome Constantine III and Severa, imperial princess, regent of Britannia. And please don't bother looking these people up on Wikipedia. Either the people that operate Wikipedia don't want the public knowing this information or they feel the reference material does not conform to their standards. When researching individuals such as Arthur, what is required is to research material NOT put out by "the officials authorities." Exercising critical thinking and doing one's due diligence is what separates real scholars from mere pupils. I have done my own independent research and can confirm this information is indeed true. Plus, the added advantage is archaeological proof that has been discovered in recent years more than validates this knowledge. The world's most preeminent genealogist David Hughes has access to primary sources and has networking relationships with certain officials and descendants of many older royal houses wherein he has been able to combine all of the pieces of this epic history together and restore the historical timeline. Henry VII claimed descent from King Arthur not because of some blind idealism but because his Welshmen ancestors faithfully chronicled their genealogies. Arthur during his own lifetime claimed descent from 'the Judahite Royal House of David' of which he descends from through both parents. In fact, Davidian blood converged through his parents and in to he himself making him at that time the quintessential 'House of David' male scion. The Roman Catholic Church for centuries has been in the business of murdering those of direct Davidian blood because heirs to the now defunct throne of Israel are a threat to their scheming ways. I have been doing genealogical research long enough to have it down to a science and I always quadruple check my sources and finds. I have had to correct my own genealogy a few times until I found reliable, traceable reference material.

Elijah Luthor said...

As to your welcome and thought-provoking critiques regarding confirming Agnes [Blewett] Edwardes' connection or relationship with 'the English Royal House of Tudor,' of course no one in this post is going to provide "proof" of these claims, at least not the kind that would satisfy any one's curiosity. It is safe to deduce that most of the Edwardes / Edwards descendants whom have commented on this page are Americans and not Britannians (those from England and Wales). This means that as descendants far done the bloodline, tens of decades removed from their European ancestors, they do not have definitive access to 'original' documents contemporary to the time period. What we (potential) "Tudor" descendants have learned are family traditions; in some cases others have benefited from inheriting certain treasures and facts only known to them and then later shared with others. Those with the financial means to seek out the 'primary sources' are those that have confirmed enough information, along with others on the same odyssey, to piece together a common narrative. Not one Edwardes / Edwards is going to have ALL of the answers unless such an individual is extremely wealthy and can track down the desired information and move "important" officials and institutions to confirm ongoing hypotheses. As for we Edwardes / Edwards descendants ourselves, many of us do bear striking or at least passing physiognomies of the known likenesses of Henry VII, Henry VIII, (Reverend) Richard Blewett Edwardes I, or any of the Tudor siblings of Henry VIII and the Reverend. As for Henry VIII to not openly claim Richard, let us look at the timeline...

Elijah Luthor said...

...Six children were born from (Queen Consort) Katherine [Trastámara] of Aragon with Henry VIII between 1510 - 1518. Only the future (Queen Regnant) Mary [Tudor] I of England and Ireland (1516 - 1558) lived, the others dying the day of birth or were born stillborn. The next child from the loins of Henry VIII born was Henry FitzRoy, First Duke of Richmond and Somerset, Earl of Nottingham (1519 - 1536) whose mother was Elizabeth "Bessie" Blount, a definitively confirmed mistress. The next 'potential' natural male issue was (Captain) Thomas Stukeley (circa 1520 - 1578), son of Jane Pollard (an unconfirmed mistress), daughter of (Sir) Lewis Pollard and Anne Hext. The following natural child is either Richard Edwardes or Catherine Carey | (Lady) Catherine Knollys (circa 1524 - 1569) whose mother is confirmed mistress Mary Boleyn. It has yet to be fully confirmed if the Reverend was born in 1523 or in March of 1525. Also from Mary Boleyn is her son Henry Carey, First Baron Hunsdon, Knight of the Garter (1526 - 1596). He is another 'potential' natural male issue. Another lesser-known candidate for Tudor paternity is Elthelreda Malthe (circa 1527 or circa 1535 - January 1559) whom was a lady-in-waiting to (Queen Regnant) Elizabeth [Tudor] I of England and Ireland and was present for her coronation. She was the first wife to poet and writer John Harington and the mother to Esther / Hester Harington. Following is (Sir) John Perrot (1528 - 1592) whom served as Lord Deputy of Ireland when Queen Elizabeth I officially brought Ireland under the English crown. The next child is (Queen Regnant) Elizabeth [Tudor] I of England and Ireland (1533 - 1603), daughter of (Queen Consort) Anne Boleyn, second wife to Henry VIII. An unnamed son (August - September 1534) and another unnamed son (January 29, 1536) were both miscarriages borne from Anne Boleyn. And the final child from Henry VIII, was with his third wife and queen consort Jane Seymour, was Edward [Tudor] VI, King of England and Ireland (1537 - 1553). The total number of offspring that were truly the King's whether legitimate or illegitimate or suspected to be his were seventeen children.

Elijah Luthor said...

King Henry VIII, after not having any surviving male issue with Katherine of Aragon, turned his attention away from his marriage in pursuit of satisfying his natural sexual drive. By doing so, he shamefully engaged in fornication and adultery, Lord God forgive him. Produced from this liaison was the only 'natural son' he "publicly" claimed as his: Henry FitzRoy, First Duke of Richmond and Somerset, Earl of Nottingham (June 15, 1519 - July 23, 1536). Contrary to Showtime's "The TUDORS," Henry FitzRoy lived to be seventeen years old. He married (Lady) Mary Howard - daughter of Thomas Howard, Third Duke of Norfolk and Elizabeth Stafford - Duchess of Norfolk - but passed away before he had any children of his own. From this moment on, I believe that it is safe to deduce that the controversy of having and then publicly acknowledging an illegitimate son taught Henry a lesson. Whilst he was King, the final executive authority, he could have simply claimed any children borne from his seed regardless of how and with whom they were conceived. But, Henry VIII was principled enough not to cause any further "public" shame upon the Tudor dynasty. He wanted any LEGITIMATE male issue to still be conceived and born within the union and covenant of holy wedlock. So, we can hypothesize that if Henry got himself in similar situations thereafter, he would have to keep such knowledge far more "private" and known to less and less people, especially from people at court and even his own domestic servants. Regardless, the Truth ALWAYS has a way of being revealed somehow and by someone. When people claim Agnes was a courtier, that means that she was welcome at, frequented, or was seen being present at English court, even if it wasn't all the time. It also doesn't mean that Henry "courted" her, although he could have for a space of time. Being a courtier means people are openly welcome to be in attendance in polite society. In the case of Richard's conception, IF he truly is the King's 'natural male issue,' then the King more and likely kept this situation and all others thereafter very private. Enough knowledge about this whole ordeal suggests he "privately acknowledged and subsisted" this particular child. And regardless of how Richard was conceived (if he truly is a Tudor scion) he is not to blame for the choices or actions of his biological parents. He himself grew up to be an honorable man, a true Christian, served as a Reverend, and was a highly learned Renaissance man. Another thing worth ruminating is that if the Reverend is the son of King Henry VIII and those of have traceable blood connections to them, then we can thank the King for his sinful behavior, otherwise we wouldn't exist. Think about it.

Elijah Luthor said...

*TYPO- "...and those of us whom have traceable..." Please ignore any other typos or missing word in my posts. This page doesn't allow its commentators to 'edit' their responses.

Catherine Merrill said...

But Richard Edwardes was given yards of fine cloth to make up funeral clothing for Richard Edwardes to wear at the funeral of Princess Mary. Richard And Princess Elizabeth were painted together on the steps while deep in conversation. They were apparently close friends.
He wrote and directed a play for her, but a fire broke out. What a comedy of errors.

Stephanie Gray said...

Richard is my (13th) great grandfather as well. Has anyone done any DNA to prove who his father is ?

Edith said...

Richard was one of my great-grandfathers I was wondering if they found anything out about the DNA

Anonymous said...

Richard Edwards is my 10th great grandfather.

Anonymous said...

My paternal great grandfather was an Edwards. I just learned of the possible Tudor connection less than 24 hours ago. I have really enjoyed reading this thread and all the various opinions on this matter.

Stephanie Gray said...

I am also directly descended from Richard. I would love to continue tracing my ancestors whether it be the Edwards line or the Tudor line. Is there anyway we could get some dna to prove if he was or was not Henry's son and finally put the issue to rest ?

Unknown said...

To be quite honest with you the ancestry of the foster father is much more royal and awesome! The foster father is the real father. It makes so much more sense.

Vickie (Edwards) McGovern said...

I am also a Richard Edwardes (Edwards) descendant (maiden name edwards) he was my great great.....grandfather. Interesting to read all of this. I found out through a cousin of my fathers whom I never knew until recently. This is all very interesting and I love reading the comments. I currently live in Texas but come from the Edwards in Edgecombe NC

Petra said...

Good grief. I'm a descendant of the Bluett's of Holcombe Court. It was my great, great grandfather that sold it, my great grandfather was born there. Anyway, what a fun read this thread has been. I trust nothing without supporting documentation - without it, it's all just rumour and speculation. I do love a great story, though, and this is a great story! Fantastic!

Anonymous said...

Are you sure that Mary Grenville descends from King Edward I through this proposed lineage?

Elijah Luthor said...

Yes, I am absolutely certain. In fact, she has another line of descent from Edward [Plantagenet] I besides this one. :) So, Agnes [Blewett] Edwardes does indeed descends from 'the English Royal House of Plantagenet' from both of her parents.

Unknown said...

I am also a Lewis and a descendant of Richard's. Would love to talk to you.

Paulette Lewis said...

I totally agree with everything you say about Agnes. I too am descended from Richard Edwardes.

Elijah Luthor said...

Earlier on this post, I, Elijah Luthor, shared how Agnes [Blewett] Edwardes descends from Edward [Plantagenet] I, King of England and Eleanor [Ivrea] of Castile, Queen Consort of England; once by the way of her father Richard Blewett of Holcombe and once by the way of her mother Mary Granville / Grenville. Here is a third line of descent from Edward I, a secondary line from her mother's ancestry:

Edward [Plantagenet] I, King of England, Lord of Ireland and Duke of Aquitaine
Eleanor [Ivrea] of Castile, Queen Consort of England

Elizabeth Plantagenet of Rhuddlan, Countess of Hereford
Humphrey de Bohun (VIII), Fourth Earl of Hereford

*Margaret de Bohun, Countess of Devon
*Hugh de Courtenay, Second Earl of Devon
*Margaret de Bohun and Hugh de Courtney are the closest common ancestors to Richard Blewett and Mary Grenville making them (Richard and Mary) sixth full-blood paternal cousins once removed to each other.

Edward Courtenay
Emmeline Dawnay

Hugh Courtenay
*Matilda Maud de Beaumont
*Matilda Maud de Beaumont is the second great-granddaughter of Henry [Plantagenet] III, King of England and Eleanor [Barcelona] of Provence, Queen Consort of England, descending from their son Edmund Plantagenet 'Crouchback,' 1st Earl of Leicester and Lancaster by the way of the patrilineal ancestry of her (Matilda's) mother Eleanor [Plantagenet] of Lancaster.

Margaret Courtenay
Theobald Granville

*(Sir) (Knight) William Granville
*(Lady) Philippa Bonville
*(Sir) (Knight) William Granville and (Lady) Philippa Bonville are fifth full-blood maternal cousins once removed sharing Edward [Plantagenet] I, King of England and Eleanor [Ivrea] of Castile, Queen Consort of England as their closest common ancestors.

(Sir) (Knight) Thomas Grenville I of Stow
Elizabeth Gorges

(Sir) (Knight) Thomas Grenville II
Isabella Gilbert

*Mary Grenville
*Richard Blewett of Holcombe
*Mary Grenville and Richard Blewett are sixth full-blood paternal cousins once removed and ninth full-blood paternal cousins to each other.

Agnes [Blewett] Edwardes

Elijah Luthor said...

I have found genealogical information at WikiTree ( and ( showing Agnes Blewett's mother Mary Grenville was married three times; firstly to Richard Blewett of Holcombe, secondly to Thomas Saint Aubyn II, and lastly to James Everard / Everand. Mary Grenville with James Everard are the parents to their only child together Margery [Everand] Pysing of East Myng ( To ease you all's conscience, yes, Agnes is still the daughter of Richard Blewett as we all know. What is telling is additional information from these web-pages with other family members from 'the English Noble House of Grenville.' Mary Grenville's sister Honor Grenville was married twice to important men, firstly to John Bassett IV ( and secondly to Arthur Plantagenet, 1st Viscount Lisle, Knight of the Garter (,_1st_Viscount_Lisle), whom she married in 1529. Her first marriage to Bassett allowed her access to the English Tudor royal court. (Sir) John Bassett IV, made a 'Knight of the Bath' by King Henry VII (7th), previously served as a Sheriff of Cornwall and of Devon. In 1520, he with his 'Devonshire retinue' accompanied Henry [Tudor] VIII during the diplomatic summit of 'the Field of the Cloth of Gold.' It was during this time that Mary Boleyn, chronologically speaking, was an active mistress to Francis [Valois-Angoulême] I, King of France. So, we possible Tudor scions can reason that John Basset and Honor Greville had at some time in the early 1520's introduced their family members to King Henry. Therein is how it was possible for the King's Majesty to meet their niece, Agnes Blewett, the daughter of Honor's sister Mary. After meeting, the King of England may had begun a “private courtship” with Agnes and then be invited to polite society at court as a courtier; even if she wasn't 'publicly acknowledged' as one of the King's “ladies.” I myself have found some information at a family heritage genealogy page, (lost in my thousands of bookmarks, sorry about that), suggesting that Agnes was not born in 1509 but “about 1505.” This means that when she had given birth to her first-born child and son Richard, she was not age 14 but about age 18. Thinking on it, I don't believe the King himself would have had carnal knowledge with such a young teenager anyhow; it's far too inappropriate, immoral, and ungodly, especially for him. (Ironically, Henry VIII's own father Henry [Tudor] VII was conceived when his mother Margaret Beaufort was age 13). Saved in my bookmarks, I had found information revealing that (Reverend) Richard Blewett Edwardes (I) was born on October, Thursday the 15th, 1523 and was baptized on March, Saturday the 25th, 1523. As far as his date of birth, I was prudent enough to save that information here: So, if this information is absolutely true, then this break-down of the timeline would make sense having Agnes as Henry VIII's “private courtier” to then be followed by confirmed mistress Mary Boleyn whom gave birth to a daughter in 1524. Does this make sense to you all, my fellow Edwards brethren?! It is totally possible that Blewett family members were present at court. Furthermore, these connections to court could have been solidified when Agnes gave birth to the King's son and when Mary Grenville's sister Honor had married the King's half-blood uncle Arthur Plantagenet. If we keep doing research, we just may find more amazing coincidences and connections. ...And we all know that saying regarding coincidences. L.O.L. ;) All of this will finally be established at long last with concrete and verifiable primary sources and D.N.A. proof. O, how I cannot waiteth!!! [Sighs of hope].

Elijah Luthor said...

Typo- "...was baptized on March, Saturday the 25th, 1525." Richard was baptized in 1525. Okay?

Elijah Luthor said...

Here is another possible line of descent for Agnes [Blewett] Edwardes from Edward I of England.

Edward [Plantagenet] I, King of England, Lord of Ireland and Duke of Aquitaine
Eleanor [Ivrea] of Castile, Queen Consort of England

Joan [Plantagenet] 'of Acre,' Princess of England, Countess of Hereford and Gloucester
(Sir) (Knight) Ralph de Monthermer, 1st Lord Monthermer, Earl of Hereford and Gloucester (second husband)

Hawise de Monthermer (second wife)
(Sir) Ralph Bluett

Walter Bluett I
Christiana Greneham

Walter Bluett II
Ellen Mallet

John Bluett I
Agnes Beaupeny

John Bluett II, Esquire
Maud Cheseldene

Walter Bluett, Esquire
Joan Saint Maur / Seymour

Nicholas Bluett, Esquire
Jane FitzJames

Richard Blewett of Holcombe
Mary Grenville

*Agnes [Blewett] Edwardes
*In this line of descent, if it is true, Agnes [Blewett] Edwardes is the eighth great-granddaughter of Edward I of England and Eleanor of Castile. Confirmation with primary sources is required to determine if Hawise de Monthermer is the daughter of "Joan of Acre." (

Susan said...

Hi Cousins: I, too, am a descendant of Richard Edwards, I, son of Agnes Blewett. He would be my 11th Great Grandfather. My closest Edwards relative is Sarah Genette Edwards 1788–1865 • Sumner, Tennessee. She was married to William M. Douglas, Her Edwards' line goes back to James Edwards, I who immigrated from England to Virginia. King Henry, VIII of England was not my choice of ancestors, especially knowing that he beheading some of my other great grandfathers. However, reading everything that I have read, real and unreal, looking at the similarity in photos of half siblings Richard, Mary, Elizabeth, Edward, and Henry Fitzroy and my own relative Sarah Genette Edwards Douglas/ I see lots of confusion in this blog, and lots of genealogy mistakes, but everyone just wants the truth of where do I come from and how has it made me, me? If the painting of half Siblings Elizabeth I and Richard Edwards on the steps of St Mary's in conversation really exists, I would love to know in whose collection it is. Also, where are the facts that Lord Hunsdon ( who would have been another half sibling to Richard Edwards, as Henry Carey, Mary Boleyn's son by King Henry, VII) actually murdered Richard? I have not found any reference to this, but it would be an interesting story. Family Tree DNA has a lot of projects, as does, if someone is really actually wanting to find out actual DNA links to either the Edwards family or the Tudors. You can email me at

Elijah Luthor said...

I believe you will come to appreciate Henry [Tudor] VIII even more if you did more analytical research on him. The Tudors patrilineally descend from the REAL King Arthur; and yes, he really did exist. Arthur through both of his parents directly descends from 'the Roman Imperial House of Caesar' and 'the Judahite Royal House of David' in which is chronicled in the Holy Scriptures tracing back to Adam and Eve. Genealogically speaking, Henry VIII - and tracing up through both of his parents - is a "gateway ancestor" as is Arthur ap Eutherius (A.D. 0479 - A.D. 0538). His father Henry [Tudor] VII descends from 'the Capetian Cadet Royal House of Valois.' Henry VII and his queen consort Elizabeth [Plantagenet] of York both descend from 'the Frankish and French Royal House of Capet,' making them both "male-preference primogeniture" descendants, claimants, and heirs to the French throne; by ignoring the Salic laws regarding monarchial lines of succession on the Continent. Also, understand the political climate in which Henry VIII lived. Concurrently consider that as he was withdrawing the Kingdom of England away from the heathen, pagan Vatican, he was constantly surrounded by nobleman and courtiers whom gave him bad and biased counsel on matters-of-state. With his deteriorating corporeal and mental health, it was difficult for him to continuously exercise judicious spiritual discernment; Lord God forgive him. It's only on his deathbed as faithfully witnessed by Thomas Cramner and other ministers that the King's Majesty finally and sincerely repented for his earthly transgressions and had correctly received Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour. Thomas Cramner absolutely did not want the King to pass away before he was given his opportunity to repent with a contrite heart. The Archbishop loved the King so much that he made certain Henry VIII was saved just in time. Reliable testimonies prove that these moments honestly took place. So, when you do research on your blood ancestors, understand the eras and cultures in which they lived, appreciate them for their triumphs, and pray to God that they received salvation before they passed away. Whether we are begotten from commoners, frontiersmen, nobility, and or royalty, our ancestors existed and because of their lives and genetic material, we now exist. As for (Reverend) Richard Blewett Edwardes I (1523 - 1566) being murdered by his 'possible' half-blood brother Henry Carey, First Baron Hunsdon, K.G. (1526 - 1596), I have never once heard of such a thing. As far as I know, the Reverend more and likely passed away from natural causes, sadly, at the age of 43 years.

Vicki Mandell said...

Hello Kim. I am also a descendant of the king. I have just discovered that I am a Hawkins. And am related to the Adkins. Do our line must go up together. Somehow.

Karen Punchard said...

There certainly does appear there are a lot of descendants of Richard Edwards around the globe. He is my 10th great grandfather. I, like many of you, would like to know if he is a legitimate or illegitimate child of King Henry VIII. Only out of curiosity. My Edwards ancestors remained in the United Kingdom until about 1819 when Esther Leach, daughter of Anne Edwards and William Leach, immigrated to Lanark County in Ontario, Canada in 1819.

Elijah Luthor said...

Karen, Richard would be considered an "illegitimate" son of Henry [Tudor] VIII. Legitimate children, whether royal or commoner, are conceived and born within 'the Union and Covenant of Holy Wedlock.' Richard is the son of Agnes [Blewett] whom (I myself believe) was a short-time 'private courtier' to the King. Chronologically, Agnes precedes Mary Boleyn in the King's carnal affections. But, there is something worth considering with "natural children." Since Henry VIII's 'legitimate' children Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I each died without issue, the throne (or at least, inclusion in the line of succession) could pass to the King's natural male descendants as they would be identified as "heirs male scion of the King's body and of the blood royal." And unlike in France where the throne passes by "male-only primogeniture," descendants of Richard Edwardes would be "male-preference primogeniture" descendants, preferably the most directly paternal. If the people in the United Kingdom desired in having a King Regnant of authentic paternal Englishman and Welshman descent (a true 'Britannian') over the patrilineal Germanic Windsors, that would certainly be preferable. As it turns out, Elizabeth II's claim(s) completely violate Henry VIII's Last Will and Testament. He absolutely did not want his elder sister Margaret Tudor's heirs (“the Scottish Royal House of Stewart”) to inherit the throne in England. His will stipulated that the issue from his younger sister Mary Tudor be the heirs following those of his own children. Now, Elizabeth II does indeed descend from Henry VII (as well as Henry VIII) from "natural issue" and even Mary Tudor (Henry VIII's sister), but none of those lines of descent are directly 'paternal.' Thusly, Elizabeth II's claims are all in all far more weaker than one whom is of more direct paternal descent (legitimate and illegitimate) from the Tudors.

Elijah Luthor said...

However, there is a much larger bigger picture to all of this. The true King Regnant for the United Kingdom must first qualify for the throne "by right of faith." The Holy Spirit commands he be a [non-denominational] true Biblical Christian beholden to no denomination or sect as all organized religion is total and complete false doctrine and false worship. The true King Regnant for “the United Kingdom of Britannia, Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Commonwealth realms, and the Overseas Territories” descends from (01) Henry VII via Mary Tudor honouring Henry VIII's Last Will and Testament, and (02) Henry VIII through his eldest male scion whom produced his own lineal male-preference primogeniture descendants. Preserving the royal bloodline from 'the English Royal House of Tudor' is Biblical as it is provably, lineally traceable back to "the Judahite Royal House of David" and "the Israelite Priestly House of Levi." The kingdoms in Europe are continued branches of the throne in “the United Kingdom of Israel” as preserved and reliable genealogical manuscripts can attest. Whether they are true Christians or not, all of the ruling monarchs in Europe genealogically are “of the seed of David.” But, only those whom are true Christians genuinely filled with and guided by The Holy Spirit are called and ordained to be the true monarchs, and not by descendancy or inheritance alone. God commands that those whom He enthrones are to be 'true servants of the Lord' and not merely by their circumstances of birth or ancestry. In 'The Book of Daniel,' one will learn that the Most High places human monarchs on their thrones and can also remove them from power. By not appreciating the Creator's involvement in human affairs is how wicked rulers will arise and the people will become oppressed, as is the case under the Windsors whom are NOT Christians. Proverbs 29:2 (KJV) “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”

DiAnne Edwards said...

Hello family, I just stumbled onto this site.

Anonymous said...

Hello DiAnne Edwards and so have I.

A lot of interesting theories and have even gleamed some reliable information to search for. My maternal line are Edwards. Supposedly from Thomas Nathaniel Edwards, (messy family as someone years ago on this thread posted).

Mary Jackson said...

I am a Historian and a Cultural Anthropologist. Let me set thing straight here.
Richard Stuart was the son of the King Henry, VIII and Agnes Agnes Beaupine Bluett. Henry later had his marriage to Agnes annulled. King Henry Tudor was born ~1491 and died ~1546. His wife, Agnes Beaupine Blewitt, was born 1509 and she died ~1575.
Prince Richard was the first legitimate son of King Henry VIII Tudor and should have been next in line to the throne. However, Henry's wandering eye ended that. After Henry's annulment from Agnes, Prince Richard took the last name of his step-father, his mother's 2nd husband,
William Edwardes; born ca. 1500 in England and died ca. 1547. 14 Feburary 2019.
King Henry made a practice of disposing of his wives and the Catholic Church didn't like it. So, King Henry, VIII took over the Catholic Church, declared it Protestant, and made himself head of the church. This is why all Monarchs of England now believe they are directly able to rule by the word of God and are "divine". They took the sacerdotal vestments, generally discarded by the clergy – dalmatic, alb and stole and used them to decorate themselves when they were coronated. The current Queen Elizabeth of England is no exception.

Mary Jackson said...

Then you are a Royal descendant. See my post here.

Mary Jackson said...

Prince Richard was born while King Henry and Agnes were married and before Henry annulled his marriage to Agnes. She was not his mistress but his wife.

Anonymous said...

interesting but no documentation.

Many Different Things said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I traced back the family tree of Agnes Blewett, she is of the royal bloodline, I am her 15th great grandchild and Henry I 30th great grandchild. I am in great disappointment over the rumours that my 14th great grandfather rev. Richard Edwardes may have been a Tudor and for over 400 years the Edwards name has been carried out in shame.

Anonymous said...

Henry VIII would of found some reason to behead Agnes Blewett, if she was indeed his wife, rather than mistress. He was brutal and cruel to his wives, 2 out of 6 were beheaded and used his wives to produce male heir, as well as Mistress Mary Boleyn.

Anonymous said...

Google 77 acres in Manhattan. I am one of them Edwardses !!! There's thousands of us

Grimsfury said...

I am, proven by official birth and death records, the heir of Richard Edwardes son of Agnes and HRM Henry VIII. The Edwards family histories, heirlooms, documents, records, scrapbooks, property deeds, etc, are all in my possession. I intend to confirm it further once I am available to travel. Lovely to meet you all. Contact me anytime @grimsfury

DiAnne Edwards said...

😉 Yes, very interesting theories for sure.

Elijah Luthor the First said...

Grimsfury, how art thou? Peace be unto you. I am "By the Grace of God, Elijah Luthor the First." How can oneself reacheth thee? Is "@grimsfury" at a social media platform? I would most certainly enjoy speaking with a fellow Tudor scion regarding our extraordinary ancestors and our lineal connections to them. I can be reached at my Twitter account: Just in case thou art tempted, I would counsel you not in future to publicly reveal any e-mail address[es] on any site or forum as you could be bombarded with high volumes of mail. That is just some 'familial advice.' ;) If thineself desireth, we can exchange contact information between ourselves privately. On another note, one can descend from (Reverend) Richard Blewett Edwardes I, the natural son of Henry [Tudor] VIII, most assuredly. However, it is The Creator Himself whom hast already determined whom is the true and lawful descendant, claimant, and heir for 'the English Royal House of Tudor.' The first qualification and requirement is "by right of faith," in that one must be a [non-denominational] true Biblical Christian. Descending from "the Tudor dynasty" is very serious yet also very special as this bloodline identifies its 'called and anointed' descendant(s) - whom art "of the seed of David" - as being "the heirs of dynasties," as dictated to mineself 'through the agency of The Holy Spirit.' I pray God be with you and peace be unto you. P.S. "The Tudors have returned!" Glory to God in the highest and God save "the Christian United Kingdom" from the evildoers (in especially those vile, serpentine Windsors)!!!

Sharon Sphinx said...

My Great Grandfather was Henry Edwards married to Annie Kirven Edwards in South Carolina. Seems I have a lot of cousins I didn't know about! Well hello.