Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Richard III - body found???











glasfryn

cleaning up cat sick
Nov 29, 2005
20,261
somewhere in Eastbourne
Maybe they should test it with your DNA then? Give em a ring.

did think this when they found the bones
but had a discussion with a genealogist who found that my ancestry was very interesting and then informed me that being an ancestor of William the Conqueror was not that rare and there were at least 20,000 of us at the last count and also that Richard the 3rd would have been fairly distant.
this is very interesting though and the technology that has proved him to be the lost king is fantastic
 






HovaGirl

I'll try a breakfast pie
Jul 16, 2009
3,139
West Hove
the only issue with this DNA test is that they are comparing it with the 17th generation of richard's sister... People interbreed so much with different families, migrate etc that most people living today in Britain whose family have lived here for at least the last 100 years will most likely be related to him. In regards to burying him lots of places are staking a claim because it will boost whoever gets him's tourism, some are using the claim that he did his most famous action here... his body was found here.. but really they should send his body to York as his ancestral home and the place where he wanted to be buried.

They've used the MtDNA, down the female line from his sister to a woman only recently died. They used that DNA from her son.
 


HovaGirl

I'll try a breakfast pie
Jul 16, 2009
3,139
West Hove
The story of him is a quite weird one, he was very loyal up until his brothers death and then set about murdering his 9 and 12 year old nephews to gain the throne. The last medieval King

There are other theories that the Tudors murdered the Little Princes in order to remove these two little obstacles to the throne the Tudors coveted.
 


HovaGirl

I'll try a breakfast pie
Jul 16, 2009
3,139
West Hove
me too
I am directly related to many of the Plantagenet's and since finding this out have not be able to put the history books down and they were as you say murderous bastards ....................they came from the Vikings so what else would you expect

They were Normans, descendants of William the Conqueror. (However, the Normans were the North Men, the descendants of Vikings who had settled in what is now the Normandy area of what is now France.)
 




Lawson

New member
Feb 25, 2012
294
They've used the MtDNA, down the female line from his sister to a woman only recently died. They used that DNA from her son.

The only issue is that in that period genetics have crossed over massively and the research can never prove conclusively that it was him. I am extremely skeptical over this whole investigation because some of the Richard III society were involved who fervently defend Richard against his incest and murder of the princes (although the latter is still unproved). Furthermore Sheffield seem to have clearly been impacted by the media fixation, and it will mean higher grants for their department, higher prestige for the university, and place their research quality high up. My main qualm comes from the fact they provide a collection of evidence that fits. The evidence was selective and highly circumstantial.. and it will be interesting to read their inevitable book on the subject. A key issue i had with their presentation was the way in which they mentioned how the Tudor accounts of Richard III were colourful, or something similar i can't remember their precise words, and that this means the depiction in the sources needs to be reapproached. They stated their intent is to re-read the evidence with the skeleton in mind and reinterpret sources to see if it fits the skeleton now they have it. This is a clear breach of historic practice; you make conclusions based on evidence but here they displayed clear intent to shape the evidence to the skeleton.
 


Dec 16, 2010
3,613
Over there
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1360012098.109022.jpg
 








Baron Pepperpot

Active member
Jul 26, 2012
1,558
Brighton
He wasn't all that bad as medieval rulers go.

He introduced the concept of legal representation for those who couldn't afford it and lifted restrictions on the production of books. He also ordered that the law be translated into English so the commoner could understand it. He even went into battle himself despite being disabled. Evidence suggests he was popular with commoners during his reign which is probably why the elite had it in for him. He was stiched up by the Tudors and this was reinforced by a brown-nosing Shakespeare.

Opposite to the Tories then...
 


Rodney Thomas

Well-known member
May 2, 2012
1,595
Ελλάδα
Anyone else getting a bit annoyed with the presenter and the other two goons? From a history graduate they're all rather stereotypical..
 




WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,778
Only NSC could turn this into a Plantagenet/Tudor Binfest

What was he thinking, pushing two princes up front with no defensive Lord to hold the fort ?
 


spongy

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2011
2,780
Burgess Hill
I'm by no means a history buff but I'm finding it very interesting. I think it's great. Our history has to be some the most interesting and diverse in the world. I beginning to take quite an interest in it and my missus is Tudor mad.
 








The Fifth Column

Lazy mug
Nov 30, 2010
4,132
Hangleton
PHP:
Anyone else getting a bit annoyed with the presenter and the other two goons? From a history graduate they're all rather stereotypical..

presenter with the big hair is quite amusing but the woman from the Richard 3rd society is so fake it's unbelievable, trying far too hard with her mock emotional attachment. I mean when she had to walk out of the room when she saw the skeleton to compose herself was such a contrived reaction, you could almost sense the experts thinking, "what a stupid cow".
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here