The ancestry of Boris Johnson, the new Mayor of London

This is the text of a letter I have sent to The Times. It might be of interest to you.

"There has been much talk in the last few weeks of the ancestry of Boris Johnson, the new Mayor of London. A lot of the talk has concentrated on his illegitimate descent from King George II on his father's side. Some commentators have referred to his descent from the famous social reformer, Dame Milicent Garrett Fawcett, the sister of the equally famous Dr Elizabeth Garrett Anderson.

The first problem for the "Boris descends from Dame Milicent" story is that Dame Milicent and her husband, Henry Fawcett MP, had only one child, Philippa Garrett Fawcett (1868-1948). So I thought I'd do some digging into any possible connection and see what I came up with.

Mr Johnson's maternal grandfather was the lawyer, Sir James Edmund Sandford Fawcett QC (1913-1991). He was the son of Rev Joseph Fawcett (1878-1950), who was born in Brough, Westmorland. He was the fourth son of William Fawcett (1839-1900), of Augill House, a prosperous Westmorland farmer, the eldest son of Fenton Fawcett (1800-1861), also of Augill House. Fenton Fawcett was christened in 1800 and was the 6th son of William Fenton and Mary Fenton, who were married in Brough-under-Stainmore, Westmorland, in 1775.

So far so good.

Turning now to Dame Milicent's husband, Henry Fawcett MP. He was born in Salisbury, Wiltshire, in 1834 and was the 3rd son of William Fawcett JP and his wife Mary Cooper. This William Fawcett was born in Kirkby Lonsdale, Westmorland, in 1793, and was the son of William Fawcett and Elizabeth Grundy. Henry Fawcett's elder brother, yet another William Fawcett, had children and grand-children in the Salisbury area who I have traced down to 1901.

So, we have two families of Fawcetts, both from Westmorland, but as far as I can see no direct relationship unless it is some where way back in the middle of the 18th century.

So where does this "Boris descends from Dame Milicent" story come from? Is it a strange political myth or is there some substance in it? Is there a relationship which I have yet to unearth?"

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

Source: rec.heraldry

Act repeal could make Franz Herzog von Bayern new King of England and Scotland

Gordon Brown is considering repealing the 1701 Act of Settlement as a way of healing a historic injustice by ending the prohibition against Catholics taking the throne.

The Duke of Bavaria, with his niece Elisabeth, is a descendant of King Charles I.

But doing so would have the unforeseen consequence of making a 74-year-old German aristocrat the new King of England and Scotland.

Without the Act, Franz Herzog von Bayern, the current Duke of Bavaria, would be the rightful heir to the British Crown under the Stuart line.

The bachelor, who lives alone in the vast Nymphenberg Palace in Munich, is the blood descendant of the 17th-century King Charles I.

"If it [the Act] goes then the whole Catholic line is reinstated," said Prof Daniel Szechi, a lecturer in early modern history at the University of Manchester.

"Franz becomes the rightful claimant to the throne. We would just exchange one German family for another one."

The Act was introduced as part of the power struggle between Parliament, the Christian churches and the monarchy, then dominated by the House of Stuart.

It prohibits any Roman Catholic from having access to the throne, even through marriage. Once a person marries a "Papist" they shall be "for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the Crown", it asserts.

The legislation effectively severed the Stuart line of succession, a family who favoured Catholicism, and switched it to their distant relatives the Hanoverians, from which our current Queen descends. James II, the son of King Charles, fled into exile.

The Stuarts stopped making claims to the Crown after the death of Henry Benedict Stuart (known to the Jacobites as Henry IX) in 1807, but there remains bitter feeling among many Catholics at their treatment.



The Royal Stuart Society still holds annual vigils at the bronze statue of Charles I in Trafalgar Square.

The Act of Settlement's reach continues today. Prince Michael of Kent renounced his claim to the throne when he married Marie-Christine von Reibnitz, a Catholic divorcee, in 1978.

Next month Peter Phillips, 30, the eldest grandson of the Queen and 11th in line to the throne, will automatically lose his birthright by marrying Autumn Kelly, a Canadian Catholic.

The Act has recently come under attack from Church leaders and MPs, in particular Scottish MPs, as an unjustifiable discrimination.

In the face of this new pressure, the Prime Minister indicated he would consider abolishing the legislation as it was "antiquated" and discriminatory.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, whose brief includes constitutional affairs, said the Government was ready to consider repealing the Act, although he added that it was an extremely complicated issue.

Dr Eveline Cruikshanks, the author of The Glorious Revolution and a former president of the Royal Stuart Society, said: "They ought to repeal the Act. The language is particularly offensive to Catholics and should go."

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan, the editor of Cracroft's Peerage, said that while theoretically the Duke's claim was good, it could never be actioned because Parliament now effectively chose the monarch.

"It is a very interesting hypothesis and theoretically he is the head of the House of Stuart," he said. "But the Government effectively chooses the monarch now and it is highly unlikely to remove the Windsors from the throne."

As for the Duke of Bavaria himself, he is a reluctant heir.

The graduate in economics, who values his privacy, has always laughed off pretensions to the British crown and prefers to concentrate on his modern art collection.

Baron Marcus Bechtolsheim, the president of the administration of the Duke of Bavaria, said: "The Duke generally does not comment on this issue because he sees it as an entirely British question which does not concern him. And he regards it as a purely hypothetical issue.

"Even if this change in Britain happens, it won't change his attitude. All this interest in his opinion makes him smile because, really, he is very happy and satisfied with being the Duke of Bavaria."

By Richard Alleyne and Harry de Quetteville
Last Updated: 2:48am BST 07/04/2008
Source: Telegraph.co.uk