Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Body of Richard III found  (Read 59679 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
katerzzz

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 75

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 268


Mary Who?


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2012, 08:22:30 PM »

Wow, I really need to start paying attention on these boards, especially on historical matters considering I'm starting a three year history degree in five days....
What I'm concerned with is whose DNA are they going to use to compare the bones of...let's call him 'Dickie' for now, because even though I'd like to call him RIII there's still a chance he's not. Yeah, whose genetic material are they going to use to compare Dickie's with?

And I agree, Emily, the Plantagenets were an amazing dynasty, though the sad thing is most people don't know much about them. They know about the Princes in the Tower and then Henry VIII but not much before the former. I must confess I'm much more interested in history from 1750 onwards but will follow this through to the end now.

 Star to Emily!
Logged

GIFSoup
Sooo cool
Cloaked

Muted
Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 748

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5388





Ignore
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2012, 03:13:36 AM »

Katerzzz, yes, history is interesting.
I think that DNA from Dickie will be compared with DNA from a descendant of his sister, Anne of York.  The two shared a mother.
I read this a week or two ago and on the Internet so I hope that my memory serves me correctly.
Logged
Emily
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 308

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 889





Ignore
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2012, 06:18:19 AM »

Quote
thanks to the evidence from Cecily Neville (the mother of both Edward IV and Richard III) that she'd had a fling with a groom and Edward IV was not a Plantagenet.

I must here protest that it is by no means proved that Cecily Neville ( a very pious lady) gave evidence that she had a fling with a groom.  Some people believe this, but it is by no means accepted by all historians.  If Edward was her son by her husband then the marriage of her granddaughter, Elizabeth of York, to Henry Tudor insured that the present Queen is the descendent of the Plantagenets.

http://www.richardiii.net/r3_mother.htm

There is no way to prove it now at any rate.  



Well the gestation period for Edward IV would have to have been suspiciously long - something like 15 months, if he was a Plantagenet, as his father was mostly away at war during that period. I think Channel 4 did a programme about it with various historians showing proof of the dates.

I understand that the Titulus Regius that Parliament passed making Richard III king was mainly based on Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville being bigamist.

Apparently Edward IV liked to get about, but some high born ladies refused to sleep with him - so he married them secretly, making them and the priest promise not to say anything. The priest promised because Edward was King and the silly women promised because they hoped to be Queen. The marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was also one of these secret marriages with no-one from the King's family present - but I think Edward IV loved her because he then introduced her to them and made her his official Queen. Unfortunately the other lady was still alive when Edward IV married Elizabeth, making all their children illegitimate.

Therefore Elizabeth of York was illegitimate and unions between her and Henry could pass no Plantagenet line down because Henry too only had a weak illegitimate claim via the Beauforts.

P.S. An 18th century Member of Parliament, Horace Walpole wrote a famous book about Richard III

It's luckily out of copyright and free for anyone to read. here it is: Historic Doubts on the Life of Richard III

And here's a neat little paragraph from it:

Quote
The doubts on the validity of Edward's marriage were better grounds for Richard's proceedings than aspersion of his mother's honour. On that invalidity he claimed the crown, and obtained it; and with such universal concurrence, that the nation undoubtedly was on his side --but as he could not deprive his nephews, on that foundation, without bastardizing their sisters too, no wonder, the historians, who wrote under the Lancastrian domination, have used all their art and industry to misrepresent the fact. If the marriage of Edward the Fourth with the widow Grey was bigamy, and consequently null, what became of the title of Elizabeth of York, wife of Henry the Seventh? What became of it? Why a bastard branch of Lancaster, matched with a bastard of York, were obtruded on the nation as the right heirs of the crown! and, as far as two negatives can make an affirmative, they were so.

They didn't mince words back then! (Widow Grey was Elizabeth Woodville - she had already been married and widowed by the time she married Edward IV).
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 06:38:38 AM by Emily » Logged
fairy

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 2645

Offline Offline

Posts: 15799





Ignore
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2012, 12:06:01 PM »

As your MtDNA comes entirely from your mother I find it extremely dubious to compare Dickie's DNA with that of a descendant living today. Sixteen generations are a long time to make sure you haven't missed out on one mother. Basically in every generation a daughter had to produce a living female child that in turn would produce another daughter. Daughters are notoriously difficult to track, since they changed names and address with every marriage, a lot of registers do only list women as spouses of or daughters of the men or even only as part of the household.
Chances are that Dickie's DNA is indeed the correct mtDNA, and the mtDNA of the descendant has changed, because there is a son somewhere down the line, after all this Londoner doesn't seem to have a living female blood-relation. Imagine they hadn't found the body at Greyfrias before the next generation?Huh?
Logged

Mary's life motto:
"if I had the choice between world peace and a Prada handbag, I'd choose the latter one" Marian Keyes.
Emily
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 308

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 889





Ignore
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2012, 03:40:20 PM »

As your MtDNA comes entirely from your mother I find it extremely dubious to compare Dickie's DNA with that of a descendant living today. Sixteen generations are a long time to make sure you haven't missed out on one mother. Basically in every generation a daughter had to produce a living female child that in turn would produce another daughter. Daughters are notoriously difficult to track, since they changed names and address with every marriage, a lot of registers do only list women as spouses of or daughters of the men or even only as part of the household.
Chances are that Dickie's DNA is indeed the correct mtDNA, and the mtDNA of the descendant has changed, because there is a son somewhere down the line, after all this Londoner doesn't seem to have a living female blood-relation. Imagine they hadn't found the body at Greyfrias before the next generation?Huh?

The Canadian man in London does have an unbroken documented line on the maternal side (that's why they chose him above all the other Plantagenet descendants knocking about (and there are thousands, including some in Australia, all documented, because being descended from the Plantagenets who ruled for 300 years is the type of thing people are keen to document!). Also - though Mitochondrial DNA is passed down the female line, it is present in both men and women.

So Cecily Neville will have passed her Mitochondrial DNA to both Richard III and Anne of York - and this DNA will be identical. Anne of York will have passed it to all her children, and her female children will have passed it to the next generation. As long as she has an unbroken female line down (and she has), the DNA from this Canadian Londoner should be identical to the body in the carpark.

If it's not identical, then it's more likely that the body in the carpark is not Richard III rather than it's likely that the Mit. DNA of the Canadian-Londoner is not that of Anne of York.
Logged
julygal

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 288

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 979





Ignore
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2012, 03:49:19 PM »

From the article: THE KINGS' MOTHER
Laynesmith, Joanna. History Today56. 3 (Mar 2006): 38-44.

Quote
Michael K. Jones has unearthed evidence that York was away from Rouen for more than a month at about the time Edward must have been conceived. On average, a child born on April 28th, 1442, as Edward was, would be expected to have been conceived about August 5th, 1441. York was away from mid-July until August 20th. Yet Edward could easily have been born either a fortnight early or late as many babies are today without ill effect. In fact it seems likely that Edward's low-key christening in a mere castle chapel, rather than the impressive cathedral baptism arranged for his younger brother Edmund, is evidence that Edward was born before time, prompting fears for his survival, especially in the light of the short life of Cecily's first son.

As I said - not all historians believe in his  illegitimacy.  Certainly Richard Duke of York, Cecily's husband, never acted as if he considered him anything other than his real son.

Also from the article:

Quote
Allegations that kings were bastards and powerful women were adulteresses were a commonplace of political propaganda. Back in 1460 Warwick had reportedly accused Margaret of Anjou of committing adultery with men usurping Henry VI's power. On another occasion Warwick is supposed to have claimed that Margaret's son, Edward, was fathered by a wandering player. In the circumstances it seems most likely that Cecily's adultery, too, was a figment of his lurid imagination. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the most enduring account of the great King Arthur's court brought to ruin by the adultery of Queen Guinevere is generally believed to have been written by a knight in Warwick's service, Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revell. This work was completed in 1471, the same year that Warwick was killed at Barnet and Henry VI mysteriously met his death in the Tower of London.
Logged
fairy

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 2645

Offline Offline

Posts: 15799





Ignore
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2012, 03:59:04 PM »

As your MtDNA comes entirely from your mother I find it extremely dubious to compare Dickie's DNA with that of a descendant living today. Sixteen generations are a long time to make sure you haven't missed out on one mother. Basically in every generation a daughter had to produce a living female child that in turn would produce another daughter. Daughters are notoriously difficult to track, since they changed names and address with every marriage, a lot of registers do only list women as spouses of or daughters of the men or even only as part of the household.
Chances are that Dickie's DNA is indeed the correct mtDNA, and the mtDNA of the descendant has changed, because there is a son somewhere down the line, after all this Londoner doesn't seem to have a living female blood-relation. Imagine they hadn't found the body at Greyfrias before the next generation?Huh?

The Canadian man in London does have an unbroken documented line on the maternal side (that's why they chose him above all the other Plantagenet descendants knocking about (and there are thousands, including some in Australia, all documented, because being descended from the Plantagenets who ruled for 300 years is the type of thing people are keen to document!). Also - though Mitochondrial DNA is passed down the female line, it is present in both men and women.

So Cecily Neville will have passed her Mitochondrial DNA to both Richard III and Anne of York - and this DNA will be identical. Anne of York will have passed it to all her children, and her female children will have passed it to the next generation. As long as she has an unbroken female line down (and she has), the DNA from this Canadian Londoner should be identical to the body in the carpark.

If it's not identical, then it's more likely that the body in the carpark is not Richard III rather than it's likely that the Mit. DNA of the Canadian-Londoner is not that of Anne of York.

Impressive detective work on this DNA heritage.
I was just saying that documentation over such a long period of time is not infallible and as such I would not dismiss the body as not being Richard III for the sole reason that there wasn't a DNA match. I would double check with the remains of his sister.
Logged

Mary's life motto:
"if I had the choice between world peace and a Prada handbag, I'd choose the latter one" Marian Keyes.
Nice_Hat

Small Member
****

Reputation: 85

Offline Offline

Posts: 638





Ignore
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2012, 11:26:47 PM »

I really like this thread. History really is fantastic. @Emily, your posts are great. I've seen a couple of them and are all very insightful. Thank you for your contribution!
Logged

midnightblue711

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 17

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 177





Ignore
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2012, 06:16:27 PM »

I hope they find out for sure so this person can have a proper burial. Thanks for the information!
Logged
Cloaked

Muted
Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 748

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5388





Ignore
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2012, 02:41:05 AM »

I see that Richard III's great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grand nephew, Michael Ibsen, is visiting the spot where Richard died. (phew  Sweating)
He is awaiting the results of the DNA testing with excitement.
Hopefully the DNA tests will be back before Christmas and this mystery of the missing body of Richard III might no longer be a mystery!  
Logged
esther angeline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1028

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4285





Ignore
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2012, 09:56:16 PM »

Fairy's idea of matching this body's DNA with the DNA of the sister, Anne is a great one.  Why haven't they tried that?   Any news on any results?  I read somewhere that even if it is Richard III, that the Queen does not want him buried in Westminister Abbey.  Is that her Tudor DNA talking?  Thinking Whistle
Logged
Lady Alice

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1147

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3712





Ignore
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2012, 10:19:31 PM »

Fairy's idea of matching this body's DNA with the DNA of the sister, Anne is a great one.  Why haven't they tried that?   

Probably something to do with either deterioration of DNA material over the centuries or contamination.

I'd bet they still try, though.
Logged

Cloaked

Muted
Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 748

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5388





Ignore
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2012, 09:41:56 AM »

I read an article, dated 15th Dec 2012, stating that all will be revealed in January!
I am excited to hear what the tests concluded .. and we will soon know.
Logged
Lady Alice

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1147

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3712





Ignore
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2013, 05:01:05 AM »

I will have to find out when I wake up (it's still 3am or so in London right now, so yeah, not going to be up at 2am my time to find out) to find out the results. It would be an awesome b-day present to wake up and find that this was indeed R3, just from a historical standpoint.

 Sweating
Logged

fairy

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 2645

Offline Offline

Posts: 15799





Ignore
« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2013, 09:40:23 AM »

YOur B'day Lady Alice? If so many happy returns and a fabulous day to you...
The results are said to be in sometime during the afternoon...so you can safely sleep in...
Logged

Mary's life motto:
"if I had the choice between world peace and a Prada handbag, I'd choose the latter one" Marian Keyes.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: