PDA

View Full Version : My Kingdom For some DNA



WiccanLiberal
02-03-2013, 09:08 PM
Skull 'could be King Richard III'
(AFP) 26 minutes ago <iframe frameborder="0" hspace="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" tabindex="0" vspace="0" width="100%" id="I0_1359943357830" name="I0_1359943357830" src="https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?size=small&count=true&hl=en-US&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhostednews%2Fafp %2Farticle%2FALeqM5gGYH0ZVbUDc-UZE70iaH4Wjs7Whg%3FdocId%3DCNG.1b42b383631cf67f0e4 f0ad04c39ad47.31&gsrc=1p&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fabc-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fgapi%2F__features__%2Frt%3Dj%2Fv er%3DGyFIWT38BxQ.en.%2Fsv%3D1%2Fam%3D!1SHbgmtzBX7J mrjUxw%2Fd%3D1#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_clos e%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1359943357830&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com" allowtransparency="true" data-gapiattached="true" title="+1" style="margin: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: static; top: 0px; width: 70px; border-style: none; left: 0px; visibility: visible; height: 15px;"></iframe>
LONDON Archaeologists hunting for the lost remains of King Richard III have revealed the first image of a battle-scarred skull found at a Leicester car park ahead of what they said would be a "major announcement" about their findings.
More than five centuries after the mediaeval king was killed in battle, academics were due Monday to reveal the identity of a skeleton unearthed in September at a car park.
The skeleton bears striking similarities to descriptions of Richard, who ruled England from 1483 until his death at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 at age 32.
Its curved spine has an arrowhead embedded in it, and there is evidence of a wound at the back of the skull.
The image released by the University of Leicester showed a well-preserved skull with most of its teeth still intact.
"The skull was in good condition, although fragile, and was able to give us detailed information about this individual," said Jo Appleby, who led the exhumation.
"In order to determine whether this individual is Richard III we have built up a biological profile of its characteristics. We have also carefully examined the skeleton for traces of a violent death."
But the university stopped short of revealing whether the skull was Richard's ahead of its press conference at 1000 GMT on Monday.
Scientists have been using the DNA of distant relative of Richard's to try to confirm the skeleton's identity.
They took DNA samples from 55-year-old Michael Ibsen, a Canadian-born carpenter who lives in London, and have been comparing them with samples from the skeleton.
Ibsen is a 17th-generation nephew of the king, who was immortalised as the hunchbacked villain of Shakespeare's "Richard III".
Richard is thought to have been buried at the Franciscan friary of Grey Friars in Leicester, but the church was demolished in the 1530s and its location had been lost until now.
The skeleton was unearthed in what is thought to have been the choir of the church, which was also uncovered during a three-week archaeological dig at the car park.

WiccanLiberal
02-04-2013, 05:38 PM
Been looking at the news today. The announcement was made that the remains are certainly those of the missing monarch. The reported plan is to reinter the remains with ceremony in Leicester Cathedral at some point next year. I will be curious to see if the currrent royals make an appearance.

Abbey
02-04-2013, 06:18 PM
Fascinating stuff. I was hoping he would be reinterred at Westiminster Abbey, but I read that QEII has denied the privilege.

I also read that he had about 5 battle-type wounds. I love how these kings of old rode into battle with their armies. Impossible to imagine that nowadays.

Voted4Reagan
02-04-2013, 06:30 PM
Dna has confirmed... it is indeed Richard III....

Long live the king.....

Now for a suitable royal funeral.....

Drummond
02-04-2013, 06:42 PM
Fascinating stuff. I was hoping he would be reinterred at Westiminster Abbey, but I read that QEII has denied the privilege.

I also read that he had about 5 battle-type wounds. I love how these kings of old rode into battle with their armies. Impossible to imagine that nowadays.

Well, Richard III didn't have the best of reputations. I'm sure that played its part ...

Voted4Reagan
02-04-2013, 06:47 PM
Well, Richard III didn't have the best of reputations. I'm sure that played its part ...

I would love to See Obama do that...

We're behind you Mr. President...

WAY BEHIND YOU!!

Drummond
02-04-2013, 07:33 PM
I would love to See Obama do that...

We're behind you Mr. President...

WAY BEHIND YOU!!

You'd love to see Obama's remains dug up from under a car park in Leicester ?

What did Leicester ever do to deserve such a fate ?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
02-04-2013, 07:42 PM
Fascinating stuff. I was hoping he would be reinterred at Westiminster Abbey, but I read that QEII has denied the privilege.

I also read that he had about 5 battle-type wounds. I love how these kings of old rode into battle with their armies. Impossible to imagine that nowadays.

That is because they had both honor and courage!
Obama can not even so much as spell 'em..... --Tyr

Abbey
02-04-2013, 08:11 PM
Well, Richard III didn't have the best of reputations. I'm sure that played its part ...

Lol, you know better about these things I'm sure. Maybe they can let bygones be bygones after 600 years or so? ;)

aboutime
02-04-2013, 08:20 PM
I would love to See Obama do that...

We're behind you Mr. President...

WAY BEHIND YOU!!


V4R, That's almost like repeating the Lawyer joke. Only this time, it's Obama.
When we say...We Love obama (Lawyers) deeply. SIX FEET DEEP!

mundame
02-04-2013, 08:27 PM
Fascinating stuff. I was hoping he would be reinterred at Westiminster Abbey, but I read that QEII has denied the privilege.

I also read that he had about 5 battle-type wounds. I love how these kings of old rode into battle with their armies. Impossible to imagine that nowadays.


Well --- his nephews that he certainly had killed are interred at Westminster, after being found during the reign of Charles II buried ten feet deep, together, under a stairs in the Tower where they were last seen alive. So it would be a little awkward.

Richard II stole the throne from the legitimate heirs, his brother's own sons, aged 12 and 9. And killed them. What would his brother have thought of that? Richard never showed any disloyalty and made himself very useful the whole of Edward IV's reign, but that king died quite suddenly at (I think) age 44. Appendicitis, some think. As Winston Churchill writes, "his faithful brother Richard saw himself suddenly confronted with an entirely new view of his future."

Abbey
02-04-2013, 08:28 PM
Well --- his nephews that he certainly had killed are interred at Westminster, after being found during the reign of Charles II buried ten feet deep, together, under a stairs in the Tower where they were last seen alive. So it would be a little awkward.

Richard II stole the throne from the legitimate heirs, his brother's own sons, aged 12 and 9. And killed them. What would his brother have thought of that? Richard never showed any disloyalty and made himself very useful the whole of Edward IV's reign, but that king died quite suddenly at (I think) age 44. Appendicitis, some think. As Winston Churchill writes, "his faithful brother Richard saw himself suddenly confronted with an entirely new view of his future."

Good point, Mundame. :cool:

Voted4Reagan
02-04-2013, 10:15 PM
You'd love to see Obama's remains dug up from under a car park in Leicester ?

What did Leicester ever do to deserve such a fate ?

Ride into battle.... at the head of his ARMY...

like I said... We'd be WAY behind him if he did.....

WiccanLiberal
02-05-2013, 01:28 PM
Good point, Mundame. :cool:


Yes but history is written by the victors. Much of what we have on Richard is filtered through the lens of the Tudor monarchs who succeeded him. From a more balanced point of view, he seems little different from a great many medieval rulers and may have been a bit better than some. He was responsible for some fairly progressive reforms, including the use of bail, the establishment of a poor man's court system, eliminating restrictions on printing books, and translating many laws from French into English. Not as bad a record as you might think.

Kathianne
02-05-2013, 04:59 PM
Well, Richard III didn't have the best of reputations. I'm sure that played its part ...

So true. Looks like his hands were tied and his skull bashed in. Someone really didn't like him. ;) He also appears to have had spinal deformity, thus Shakespeare's description of him seems quite accurate, except for the deformed hand.

mundame
02-05-2013, 05:52 PM
Yes but history is written by the victors. Much of what we have on Richard is filtered through the lens of the Tudor monarchs who succeeded him. From a more balanced point of view, he seems little different from a great many medieval rulers and may have been a bit better than some. He was responsible for some fairly progressive reforms, including the use of bail, the establishment of a poor man's court system, eliminating restrictions on printing books, and translating many laws from French into English. Not as bad a record as you might think.


It is unlikely the monarch himself came up with any of that; his lawyers and chancellors working through three monarchies were making improvements.

The people hated him. Nobody lost sight of the fact that his nephews had mysteriously disappeared in the Tower and he wasn't talking about them, though Edward V was supposed to be crowned; that is why he had travelled to London. Richard II only reigned 26 months; he was deeply unpopular, for excellent reasons; he was the Usurper.

Richard II stole the crown via murder, threatened to marry his niece after his own older wife died in VERY mysterious circumstances, and she herself is known to have feared he meant to kill her, and his brother's widow took sanctuary in a church for months trying to save the lives of her children and herself. Richard II was easily defeated by Henry Tudor because a lot of the nobles went over to Henry's side, though he had almost no blood claim whatsoever. But Richard II was a butcher, constantly killing the nobility and threatening their children. He took the eldest son of one of them hostage and said his head would be struck off if the noble didn't fight on his side with all his affinity; this man said stiffly, "I have more sons." In the end the men charged with killing the heir decided to wait as things were not looking good for Richard's side, so the young man survived.

I think Henry VIII was worse, but Richard II was an evil king.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/graphics/Millais.Princes.jpg

The Uncrowned Edward V (Right) and the Duke of York in the Tower

Robert A Whit
02-05-2013, 06:57 PM
Yes but history is written by the victors. Much of what we have on Richard is filtered through the lens of the Tudor monarchs who succeeded him. From a more balanced point of view, he seems little different from a great many medieval rulers and may have been a bit better than some. He was responsible for some fairly progressive reforms, including the use of bail, the establishment of a poor man's court system, eliminating restrictions on printing books, and translating many laws from French into English. Not as bad a record as you might think.

I hope that you, Mundame and Drummons who seem .... I might not be spotting the other experts .... keep discussing this a bit more. This is my chance to learn something new.

If the issue was if he ruled or two boys ruled, seems to me to favor an adult ruling.

I rely on Mundame a lot for her knowledge of the history of that era. Maybe I would be smart to also listen to you.

I agree that the victors create the history as we learned by the acts of the Rogue Abe Lincoln.

WiccanLiberal
02-05-2013, 08:18 PM
In point of fact, there is no concrete evidence that he had anything to do with the deaths of the princes. The majority of the so-called evidence on that comes from a certain playwrite who was operating under a Tudor monarch. The boys were declared illegitimate based on their father's being previously married and not dissolving that marriage. With the princes illegitimate, they had no further claim to the throne and were no threat to their uncle. Richard was PETITIONED to assume the throne - likely a good choice since the idea of having an underaged ruler on the throne in the face of the threat posed by Henry Tudor was the utmost stupidity. It would also appear Richard was generally charitable, giving several large endowments to colleges and chapels. Again I say most of the pinion on this man was largely established by his victorious enemies and further popularized by Shakespeare.

Robert A Whit
02-05-2013, 09:33 PM
In point of fact, there is no concrete evidence that he had anything to do with the deaths of the princes. The majority of the so-called evidence on that comes from a certain playwrite who was operating under a Tudor monarch. The boys were declared illegitimate based on their father's being previously married and not dissolving that marriage. With the princes illegitimate, they had no further claim to the throne and were no threat to their uncle. Richard was PETITIONED to assume the throne - likely a good choice since the idea of having an underaged ruler on the throne in the face of the threat posed by Henry Tudor was the utmost stupidity. It would also appear Richard was generally charitable, giving several large endowments to colleges and chapels. Again I say most of the pinion on this man was largely established by his victorious enemies and further popularized by Shakespeare.

Hell, I dunno. This part of history for me is not what I can call well studied. As a Kid, my favorite history was that of South America. I recall that some of the boys could cause the 6th grade teacher to openly weep and run to her office when talking about american history. We all laughed at her problem.

She had the flag in the class and any mention of it caused her to bawl her eyes out.

We were little bastards.