PDA

View Full Version : Bones of Richard III found ?



hope
13-09-12, 03:26
Perhaps you have already heard about this. If so here is the latest on the skeleton found under a Leicester car park which some are hoping might be the remains of Richard III. For those who have not read this news, you may find it interesting.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-reasons-remains/story-16886280-detail/story.html

Maciamo
04-02-13, 12:40
The University of Leicester confirmed in a news conference (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21319148) today that the bones discovered were beyond reasonable doubt those of King Richard III, the last Plantagenet ruler of England. They tested both mtDNA and Y-DNA, but did not, unfortunately, reveal the haplogroups.

hope
04-02-13, 17:04
[QUOTE=Maciamo;403411 They tested both mtDNA and Y-DNA, but did not, unfortunately, reveal the haplogroups.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps they will make them known at a later date, I hope so.

I was half expecting the result to be negative for Richard, I`m pleased we have the answer now.

Maciamo
04-02-13, 20:44
According to this website (http://plantagenetdna.webs.com/mechelenbonestheresults.htm) and what I gathered from the news conference about Joy Ibsen being a maternal match, Richard III would appear to belong to mtDNA haplogroup J.

hope
13-02-13, 19:46
According to this website (http://plantagenetdna.webs.com/mechelenbonestheresults.htm) and what I gathered from the news conference about Joy Ibsen being a maternal match, Richard III would appear to belong to mtDNA haplogroup J.


Small update. Perhaps we will know in the not too distant future.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/more-dna-tests-to-confirm-skeleton-is-richard-iiis.html?_r=0

oriental
13-02-13, 23:26
The head model they created from the skull is accurate but too young for the times i.e. Medieval Times. Modern day people are younger looking as they have an easier life and are well fed. All those 'extras' in period movies show their flacid bodies - smooth muscled and some fat. Even in the fifties in less developed countries the pictures of working people were leaner with muscles showing and bones and with little fat. Reading Richard III's biography shows he was already in military training at age 11 and was involved in a war at age 16. People aged faster those days. Richard III would be middle-aged sort of in those times not young looking as today's 30-year-old. Romeo and Juliet were 15 or 16. Henry VII's mother was 13 or 14 when he was born. He was the Royal rival and was 27 at Bosworth Battlefield. The painting shows Richard III older looking reflecting the aging process in Medieval Times and Richard III was constantly at war so he probably slept very little and aged more.

hope
14-02-13, 16:59
I think the reconstruction is quite good Oriental. However, I agree the muscle tone may be a little flattering for a man almost thirty-three at the period of time in which he lived. Saying that, he was of the Royal household so unlike the common person, his day to day life would have been more comfortable. Interesting that some are saying how it looks a lot like Farquaad from the Shrek movies ! :)

Regarding Henry`s mother I believe thirteen may have been a little young, even then, although legal. It is thought having Henry at such an early age did some damage and why despite several later marriages, Margaret produced no further children.

oriental
14-02-13, 22:44
I am not sure which Henry you are referring to. I didn't take much notice of Henry VII's marriages. He had four offsprings Arthur who died before marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII - the wife killer, Margeret who married the King of Scotland and another daughter who married the King of France. He was really trying to legitimize his family's throne by marrying off his family to surrounding royalty. When his first wife died he never seriously re-married. He was the son of a Welsh royal who secretly married a Beaufort wife of Henry VI (who died) of the House of Lancaster the junior Royal line from John of Gaunt the third son of Edward III who started the Hundred years' war over the Throne of France.

hope
15-02-13, 00:43
I am not sure which Henry you are referring to.


I was speaking of Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond, mother of Henry VII.
She was a mother and widow by the age thirteen. :sad-2:
I thought you referred to her in your post.

oriental
15-02-13, 01:14
Sorry I only read their biographies recently. I am not that attuned to all the names and so on. Thanks for pointing that out. I think Edward III really had a higher claim to the French throne through his mother but the French lords were following the Salish Rule about male inheritance and didn't want a foreign king to rule over France. I kinda find it funny they all spoke French until Henry VIII started speaking in English. Very strange history - England and France.

hope
15-02-13, 01:51
Sorry I only read their biographies recently. I am not that attuned to all the names and so on.


Yes, there is indeed quite a long list of names and dates to remember Oriental. Also trying to keep in mind who is related to who...get`s confusing at times I agree.

oriental
16-02-13, 02:09
The interesting thing is that the Richard III Society provides their point of view. The idea that Edward IV was very different in appearance to the other brothers Clarence and Richard may have had something to do with the revolt by Clarence. Edward IV was 6'4" and looked very different so they think he was illegitimate. He died and Richard III took over after Edward's two teenage kids were declared illegitimate. Clarence was killed on orders by Edward. The thing that was not in favour with Richard was that the Yorkists were split on his coronation. In the battlefield his Yorkist group stayed back even though Richard's army was slightly larger than Henry VII's. The Richard III society points out that the two teenage kids of Edward were alive and possibly Henry VII had them killed as Richard III was killed. Seeing how murderous Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were I wouldn't doubt Henry VII passed his murderous genes to them. Elizabeth I schemed against Mary Queen of Scots. Anyway it is all speculation. If they test the two skeletons of those princes maybe it could clear some aspects of the case. It would establish Edward IV's legitimacy as to whether he was a true York descendant or the result of an affair by his mother with someone else while his Yorkist "father" was somewhere else at the time of his conception.

hope
16-02-13, 19:01
The interesting thing is that the Richard III Society provides their point of view. The idea that Edward IV was very different in appearance to the other brothers Clarence and Richard may have had something to do with the revolt by Clarence. Edward IV was 6'4" and looked very different so they think he was illegitimate

Also, there was an entry in the Cathedral records at Rouen which suggested Edwards father, the Duke of York, who was stationed at Rouen in 1441, may actually have been in Pontoise on campaign at the time Edward was conceived.
Personally I don`t think much of these theories, I believe Edward was legitimate.

oriental
16-02-13, 22:15
Of course, it means nothing as both York and Tudor male lines are extinct. The British monarchy depends on the female lineage. The males all killed off each other. I think Richard III Society wants to clear up things.

Selwyn Greenfrith
18-02-13, 23:31
Sorry I only read their biographies recently. I am not that attuned to all the names and so on. Thanks for pointing that out. I think Edward III really had a higher claim to the French throne through his mother but the French lords were following the Salish Rule about male inheritance and didn't want a foreign king to rule over France. I kinda find it funny they all spoke French until Henry VIII started speaking in English. Very strange history - England and France.


French was kinda like the poor man's Latin, like Latin was at sometime the poor man's Greek. Most of Europe's elites at sometime spoke French so they could be down with the Romance/Catholic world, so it is rather more unweird than weird. England has been an 'nation state' at lot longer than France, so it has been England dealing with Flanders, Normandy, Brittany, Burgundy, Acquitaine and so forth rather than France.

oriental
19-02-13, 01:35
It was only recently that I bought a short history of the Hundred Years War (didn't know what it was about) and realized all kinds of things never taught in school. Of course, the Middle Ages was never touched if ever so lightly. On reading about Henry VIII that I found out the English royals started speaking English only after his reign. I even read about the history of the English language from the library and it was just as interesting the transformation from Norse-German, French and so on. Deep history of any country is interesting. so many details and lives that people led, are not in history books which only tabulate wars, dynasties and dates of events. Just the recitation of names and dates makes it so boring. It is like reading the class roll list. I like these forums for they present viewpoints of people living in those contentious regions.

Selwyn Greenfrith
20-02-13, 14:31
It was only recently that I bought a short history of the Hundred Years War (didn't know what it was about) and realized all kinds of things never taught in school. Of course, the Middle Ages was never touched if ever so lightly. On reading about Henry VIII that I found out the English royals started speaking English only after his reign. I even read about the history of the English language from the library and it was just as interesting the transformation from Norse-German, French and so on. Deep history of any country is interesting. so many details and lives that people led, are not in history books which only tabulate wars, dynasties and dates of events. Just the recitation of names and dates makes it so boring. It is like reading the class roll list. I like these forums for they present viewpoints of people living in those contentious regions.

I am of the same mind with you wondering at the stuff out there that never makes most history books.

oriental
21-02-13, 01:47
Yes there are so many mysteries. What happened to the civilizations that sank with the oceans' rise. That would be 70,000 years unaccounted for. Surely something developed. With the rise of the oceans humans had to re-emerge with the surviving mountain people. Human always lived by the sea. There are stone structures off Japan, India and even in the Mediterranean. I wonder if those who scrambled up are the new founders of the current human civilization. The Basques are quite a mystery. Could the ancient civilization that sank be a link to Greece, Egypt, etc?

Maciamo
24-04-13, 20:40
Little update. Richard III's mtDNA is confirmed as J1c2c.

hope
25-04-13, 01:11
Little update. Richard III's mtDNA is confirmed as J1c2c.


Excellent! Well you said in an earlier post he would likely be J, so you were right.

Angela
31-05-14, 00:04
Further tests confirm King Richard III had significant scoliosis, but was not hunchbacked.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/health/richard-iii-spine-scoliosis/

Richard's spine has a curvature of 70 to 80 degrees. Anything over 50 degrees is a candidate for surgery, Mitchell said; the NIH puts this figure at 45 degrees. The spinal curve probably wouldn't have reduced Richard's lung capacity such that he couldn't exercise, researchers said.

The real Richard does not appear to have had a limp or a withered arm, as Shakespeare had described. His trunk and abdomen would have appeared short compared with his arms and legs, Mitchell said. His right shoulder would have been slightly higher than the left.

His curved spine and these other asymmetries would have been more obvious when the king was unclothed than clothed.
"However, a good tailor and custom-made armour could have minimized the visual impact of this," the study's authors wrote.

Angela
02-12-14, 22:48
There is news about the yDna of Richard III, and he was apparently y Dna "G"

Another G, like the Bourbons, perhaps?

Ancient dna never ceases to amaze.

There is a further wrinkle, however. A male line which descends from John of Gaunt's illegitimate line (the Dukes of Beaufort), and which I suppose was presumed to be the line of the Plantagenet Kings (?) appears to be U-152. So, there seems to be a "non-paternal") event, somewhere, either before this time, or after it .

Poor Cecily Neville (a descendant of the Beauforts, herself, I believe), and the mother of both Edward IV and Richard III, was accused after her death of having produced Edward out of wedlock. I always thought that was horrific of Richard, to have spread or at least permitted those rumors to be spread, whatever the truth of the matter.

I would tend to doubt that it was Richard who was really illegitimate, however. Wasn't he supposed to be the one who looked like his father and the Duke of Clarence?

The illegitimacy could also stem from the Duke of Gaunt himself, about whom there were rumors during his lifetime, or, given the extra-legal nature of the relationship with Katherine Swynford, which gave rise to all those later legitimized children, and what were doubtless long absences on campaign, it may have happened then. Since this was before paternity tests, these men had to take it on faith.

Goodness, it's as good as an evening soap opera! :)

Anyway, here's the paper:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html

Anyone have any details on this "G" line?

This is an article from the BBC. I feel uncomfortable quibbling about these matters with Brits, but I don't see what this has to do with the legitimacy of Henry Tudor's claim, unless they mean because Margaret Beaufort may not have been an actual descendent of the royal line? Henry's male line was Welsh, and their only connection to the royal British line was that a handsome young Welshman happened to marry the Lancaster King's widowed French wife.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30281333

motzart
02-12-14, 23:02
In the Supp info they say he is Y DNA G2.

motzart
02-12-14, 23:47
This means that most of the Plantagenet line is G2, also Richard the Lionheart is G2

Looks like there are a literal ton of people to add to the "Famous G2" section.

hope
03-12-14, 01:16
There is news about the yDna of Richard III, and he was apparently y Dna "G"

Another G, like the Bourbons, perhaps?

Ancient dna never ceases to amaze.

There is a further wrinkle, however. A male line which descends from John of Gaunt's illegitimate line (the Dukes of Beaufort), and which I suppose was presumed to be the line of the Plantagenet Kings (?) appears to be U-152. So, there seems to be a "non-paternal") event, somewhere, either before this time, or after it .

Poor Cecily Neville (a descendant of the Beauforts, herself, I believe), and the mother of both Edward IV and Richard III, was accused after her death of having produced Edward out of wedlock. I always thought that was horrific of Richard, to have spread or at least permitted those rumors to be spread, whatever the truth of the matter.

I would tend to doubt that it was Richard who was really illegitimate, however. Wasn't he supposed to be the one who looked like his father and the Duke of Clarence?

The illegitimacy could also stem from the Duke of Gaunt himself, about whom there were rumors during his lifetime, or, given the extra-legal nature of the relationship with Katherine Swynford, which gave rise to all those later legitimized children, and what were doubtless long absences on campaign, it may have happened then. Since this was before paternity tests, these men had to take it on faith.

Goodness, it's as good as an evening soap opera! :)

Anyway, here's the paper:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html

Anyone have any details on this "G" line?

This is an article from the BBC. I feel uncomfortable quibbling about these matters with Brits, but I don't see what this has to do with the legitimacy of Henry Tudor's claim, unless they mean because Margaret Beaufort may not have been an actual descendent of the royal line? Henry's male line was Welsh, and their only connection to the royal British line was that a handsome young Welshman happened to marry the Lancaster King's widowed French wife.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30281333

I completely missed this piece Angela, thanks for adding.

Aberdeen
03-12-14, 04:23
The Tudors never had a legitimate claim to the British throne - they were usurpers. But it's all water under the bridge now. Any Plantagenet heirs who have designs on the British throne wouldn't be taken seriously after all this time. The same goes for the Stewarts - nobody wants them back, so those German usurpers from Saxe-Gotha who changed their last name to Windsor have nothing to worry about.

It is nice to know that Richard has finally been identified for sure. Perhaps his bones will rest easier now.

motzart
03-12-14, 05:44
Whats interesting about this is that it shows how unreliable "descendant" testing is for determining Y DNA of ancient figures. Maybe we need to re-open the case of that Vial of G2a blood from Louis the 16th.

Maleth
03-12-14, 13:39
Any Plantagenet heirs who have designs on the British throne wouldn't be taken seriously after all this time. The same goes for the Stewarts - nobody wants them back, so those German usurpers from Saxe-Gotha who changed their last name to Windsor have nothing to worry about.

The rightful Plantegenat King was never interested in the Throne anyways. Was happy living on a farm in Australia before he passed away 2 years ago.....and was a Republican

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9373273/Rightful-king-of-England-dies-in-Australia.html

Degredado
03-12-14, 15:29
G2a back with a vengeance, after losing the Capetian line :cool-v:

So this should be also the Y-DNA of some other interesting English figures such as Henry II, Richard The Lionheart, John Lackland, Edward I, Edward III, the Black Prince, Henry V...

Aberdeen
03-12-14, 15:40
The rightful Plantegenat King was never interested in the Throne anyways. Was happy living on a farm in Australia before he passed away 2 years ago.....and was a Republican

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9373273/Rightful-king-of-England-dies-in-Australia.html

I don't think any Stewarts want the job either, but there are still some people who drink toasts to "The King Over The Water", code for the last Stuart king or at least Bonnie Prince Charlie and/or his heir, although I think the direct line may have died out. Supporting that cause was the worst decision the Highland chiefs ever made, because of the destruction it brought to the Highlands.

Sile
03-12-14, 18:51
G2a back with a vengeance, after losing the Capetian line :cool-v:

So this should be also the Y-DNA of some other interesting English figures such as Henry II, Richard The Lionheart, John Lackland, Edward I, Edward III, the Black Prince, Henry V...

G2 makes more sense than R1 if these kings claim an old historical lineage with God.
G2 is over 20000 years older than R1

Degredado
03-12-14, 19:44
G2 makes more sense than R1 if these kings claim an old historical lineage with God.
G2 is over 20000 years older than R1

Weren't the Angevins/Plantagenets reputed to be descendants of the Devil? Hell, Maciamo can add Satan to the list of famous G2 as well :laughing:

Angela
03-12-14, 20:02
Weren't the Angevins/Plantagenets reputed to be descendants of the Devil? Hell, Maciamo can add Satan to the list of famous G2 as well :laughing:

I'm afraid you have it confused. The supposed "Satanic" ancestry of the Angevins, which legend I think they rather relished, as a way of keeping the hoi polloi in line, stems from one "Melisande" the wife of one of the original Angevins.

See:http://anilbalan.com/2014/05/10/the-demon-countess-of-anjou/

Angela
03-12-14, 21:16
Well, presuming that there was no NPE between Edward III and Richard III. My bet currently is that there wouldn't be. The only rumor of a possible NPE in that line is between Edmund, Duke of Langley, the son of Edward III, and his own second son, the Duke of Cambridge, who was Richard's grandfather. To my knowledge there is no contemporary rumor of that...it was dreamed up by one English historian named who based the claim on the fact that his father left him no lands. That seems pretty flimsy to me, absent contemporaneous rumors or problems with the dating. Sons have been disinherited for numerous reasons.

Edward III
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/9b/19/9b194537343ed796ba0d11616e0a8e51.jpg?itok=sluUdIPQ

Richard Duke of Cambridge-his grandson
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/richardcambridge.gif
Richard Duke ofYork: His great grandson
http://thewarsoftheroses.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/9/0/11904501/4666662.jpg?206
Richard III His great grandson
http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/8206.jpg

The Duke of Clarence, Richard's brother:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/George_Plantagenet,_Duke_of_Clarence.jpg
Other than the fact that Richard of York had a pretty massive jaw, which Richard III inherited, it doesn't seem that they look all that different. With the Duke of Clarence, there's even more of a resemblance.

Of course, all of these people intermarried so much that who knows where certain traits actually originated.

Bottom line, I think they have to test some bones from Edward III to be sure. (John of Gaunts are gone for good, I think. )

Degredado
03-12-14, 22:02
Considering a Plantagenet king himself has been unmistakably identified as G2, in all likelihood the NPE took place somewhere along the 20-25 generations between John of Gaunt and his presumed 20th century male-line descendants. Never mind king Richard's DNA results, even mathematical odds are strongly "against" the four R-U152 guys (and the I1 fella) thought to be living Plantagenets.

^ And thanks for the Melisande link, interesting story.

sparkey
03-12-14, 22:08
The Telegraph has a good graphic showing how many generations are along the Somerset line before you get to the modern testers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/11268218/Richard-III-DNA-shows-British-Royal-family-may-not-have-royal-bloodline.html

I would definitely wager that the illegitimacy is somewhere along the Somerset line at a place where it doesn't matter for anyone but the Somerset family. There are lots of generations there.

Angela
04-12-14, 20:16
I still don't get the BBC spin on this. Henry Tudor's only connection to English royalty was through his mother Margaret Beaufort, a descendent of John of Gaunt through his illegitimate offspring with Katherine Swynford, but the Beauforts had been barred from the succession by edicts of their own Lancastrian kin. He was an opportunist and a self made man if ever there was one. His dynasty's legitimacy rested on his marriage to the daughter of Edward IV. He and his son Henry VII, since they were claiming descent through a female line (even the barred one of Margaret Beaufort) proceeded to execute one after another all the remaining Plantagenets.

If it were ever proved that there was a break in the male line of descent from Edward III to Edward IV, then indeed the "legitimacy" of the succession could be called into question, which is why, whatever the truth of the matter, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for testing of Edward the III's bones.

Meanwhile, I find the whole thing ridiculous. With a conservative non-paternity rate among Europeans of 1-2% per generation, and higher rates among the aristocracy if the histories of seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe are any indication, I certainly would take any claims of paternal descent from some noble or royal figure with a large dose of salt. Much more accurate if it had been done by the maternal line, as is the case among many Native American groups. What was that phrase again? "It's a wise man who knows his father?":smile: Then you can add in the fact that the odds of carrying an actual piece of autosomal dna from anyone further back than a great-grandparent are very small.

Then again, maybe I'm influenced by the political leanings of the people among whom I was born and partially raised. The very suggestion that those Malatestas in my tree actually had some of the ancestry of those blood-suckers would have me seriously thinking about getting a total blood transfusion (or dna extraction, to be more accurate, were it possible. :annoyed:)

hope
04-12-14, 21:05
I still don't get the BBC spin on this. Henry Tudor's only connection to English royalty was through his mother Margaret Beaufort, a descendent of John of Gaunt through his illegitimate offspring with Katherine Swynford, but the Beauforts had been barred from the succession by edicts of their own Lancastrian kin. He was an opportunist and a self made man if ever there was one. His dynasty's legitimacy rested on his marriage to the daughter of Edward IV. He and his son Henry VII, since they were claiming descent through a female line (even the barred one of Margaret Beaufort) proceeded to execute one after another all the remaining Plantagenets.

If it were ever proved that there was a break in the male line of descent from Edward III to Edward IV, then indeed the "legitimacy" of the succession could be called into question, which is why, whatever the truth of the matter, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for testing of Edward the III's bones.

Meanwhile, I find the whole thing ridiculous. With a conservative non-paternity rate among Europeans of 1-2% per generation, and higher rates among the aristocracy if the histories of seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe are any indication, I certainly would take any claims of paternal descent from some noble or royal figure with a large dose of salt. Much more accurate if it had been done by the maternal line, as is the case among many Native American groups. What was that phrase again? "It's a wise man who knows his father?":smile: Then you can add in the fact that the odds of carrying an actual piece of autosomal dna from anyone further back than a great-grandparent are very small.

Then again, maybe I'm influenced by the political leanings of the people among whom I was born and partially raised. The very suggestion that those Malatestas in my tree actually had some of the ancestry of those blood-suckers would have me seriously thinking about getting a total blood transfusion (or dna extraction, to be more accurate, were it possible. :annoyed:)
Add to this the fact that John of Gaunt himself was not the legitimate heir but rather eight year old Edmund Earl of March. Trying to keep it all in an order can sometimes feel like a dog chasing it tail round and round..:confused2:

I don`t know if you have seen the documentary series Kings and Queens of England Angela, but it is on YouTube in three parts. The second part deals with this particular time, including the French King of England, Louis..which most people are quite unaware ever existed.

Here is a link to the series if you want to give it a watch. I thought it was pretty good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PfoYkgoBZQ Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bePT-iYPKyQ Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rmXEV6C9 Part 3

Angela
04-12-14, 21:36
Thanks, Hope. Between classes in English history, Shakespeare, and way too much reading of historical fiction, I've picked up a few tidbits here and there. :smile: If history were taught through literature as well as dry as dust textbooks, I think more people would be interested. I'll definitely take a look.

If you like that sort of thing, you might want to take a look at the novel "Katherine" by Anya Seton, which takes a very sympathetic, perhaps too sympathetic view of Katherine Swynford and John of Gaunt. If nothing else, it's a very realistic portrayal of the life and mores of that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_%28novel%29

Maleth
05-12-14, 08:09
The second part deals with this particular time, including the French King of England, Louis..which most people are quite unaware ever existed.

So in essence the Plantagenet line are descendants of a French Noble men, Huges du Perche who was around in the 10th century? If I got my quick research right.

hope
05-12-14, 16:59
So in essence the Plantagenet line are descendants of a French Noble men, Huges du Perche who was around in the 10th century? If I got my quick research right.
Yes, that`s correct, Maleth. However it was Henry II father, Geoffrey [the fair] of Anjou who coined the nickname Plantagenet. He was married to daughter of Henry I, Matilda--Henry II mother--. It seems he may have gotten the name by trying to impress Eleanor of Aquitaine, who afterwards, married his son, Henry II.
The House of Plantagenets is divided into three: The first Plantagenet kings were the Angevins..then Plantagenets..then the Houses of Lancaster and York..[I expect all this you know already..:) ]

Maleth
05-12-14, 17:18
Yes, that`s correct, Maleth. However it was Henry II father, Geoffrey [the fair] of Anjou who coined the nickname Plantagenet. He was married to daughter of Henry I, Matilda--Henry II mother--. It seems he may have gotten the name by trying to impress Eleanor of Aquitaine, who afterwards, married his son, Henry II.
The House of Plantagenets is divided into three: The first Plantagenet kings were the Angevins..then Plantagenets..then the Houses of Lancaster and York..[I expect all this you know already..:) ]

Thats interesting Hope, thanks for info. I wasn't aware of that. It just got me interested of how it was possible to have G dna since its so rare in Britian. Like R or I would be more expected. Although I was aware that Richard the lion heart did speak French if not mistaken, but often i need to go back to Royal family trees and put the dates in perspective :).

hope
05-12-14, 17:25
often i need to go back to Royal family trees and put the dates in perspective :)
I often need to go back to this tree just to recall who came from where and from whom Maleth, never mind the dates...:laughing:

Angela
05-12-14, 17:57
I often need to go back to this tree just to recall who came from where and from whom Maleth, never mind the dates...:laughing:

It's the same with all the royal lines. Renaissance Italy is a mess that way too. Every prince is related five ways to the Prince who is his (or her) mortal enemy. It's all of that inbreeding, although some were worse than others...look at what happened to the poor Spanish Hapsburgs!

Basically, it's a bunch of cousins ( sometimes minimally related genetically to their subjects) all fighting one another for a bigger share of the pot. Interesting, though, in a soap opera sort of way. At least I think it's interesting. :smile:

I did watch the second video, Hope. It was very good. I'm looking forward to watching the other two.

hope
05-12-14, 18:21
It's the same with all the royal lines. Renaissance Italy is a mess that way too. Every prince is related five ways to the Prince who is his (or her) mortal enemy. It's all of that inbreeding, although some were worse than others...look at what happened to the poor Spanish Hapsburgs!

Basically, it's a bunch of cousins ( sometimes minimally related genetically to their subjects) all fighting one another for a bigger share of the pot. Interesting, though, in a soap opera sort of way. At least I think it's interesting. :smile:

I did watch the second video, Hope. It was very good. I'm looking forward to watching the other two.
Sometimes I think Angela, in the past at least, it seemed more of a case that whoever had something of a claim to the throne and could simply grab the crown first, got to call himself king...:)
Glad you are liking the videos, it`s a while since I watched them but I think I might give them a watch again over the week-end.

Brennos
08-12-14, 14:14
I would definitely wager that the illegitimacy is somewhere along the Somerset line at a place where it doesn't matter for anyone but the Somerset family. There are lots of generations there.


The answer lies in the body of Edward III... if only they could test his bones...

And, again, statistically, the NPE could be placed in the John Gaunt's line, but who knows? Perhaps the NPE could also be placed in the few generations that divide Edward III from Richard III. Without a proof from the Y-Haplogroup of Edward III, this is only chat.

Brennos
08-12-14, 14:23
Other than the fact that Richard of York had a pretty massive jaw, which Richard III inherited, it doesn't seem that they look all that different. With the Duke of Clarence, there's even more of a resemblance.

Of course, all of these people intermarried so much that who knows where certain traits actually originated.

Bottom line, I think they have to test some bones from Edward III to be sure. (John of Gaunts are gone for good, I think. )


Common phisical traits can't be taken as a proof of a parental link: all the Stuarts also were painted with a huge nose... but it was only a political choice in order to show an iconographic continuity of the genealogical line. It is a sort of ancient advertisement....

Or, again, think about the Habsburg family: obviously not all the memebers of the family had a huge jaw, but it was a political choice.

Angela
08-12-14, 15:24
Common phisical traits can't be taken as a proof of a parental link: all the Stuarts also were painted with a huge nose... but it was only a political choice in order to show an iconographic continuity of the genealogical line. It is a sort of ancient advertisement....

Or, again, think about the Habsburg family: obviously not all the memebers of the family had a huge jaw, but it was a political choice.

That may be, but how on earth would we know that in any particular case? None of us were around at the time; we can't know whether the traits were there for a particular person or whether the artist took some liberties and placed them in the portraits to emphasize the descent. It's just conjecture.

That's not to say, of course, that the artists didn't embellish, particularly in the case of royal women when marriages were being arranged. Didn't that happen with Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves? She was so unlike her portrait when she arrived that he never consummated the marriage and had it annulled immediately. It caused quite a stir. On the other hand she had the last laugh, considering how many of his wives he beheaded.:laughing:

Anne of Cleves:
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/images/Cleves,Anne02.jpg

You're right though, physical appearance is inconclusive, especially given how they were all cousins.

Ed. I wonder if Jay Leno is related to the Hapsburgs in some way?:laughing::laughing:

http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/jay-leno.jpg

Brennos
08-12-14, 16:11
That may be, but how on earth would we know that in any particular case? None of us were around at the time; we can't know whether the traits were there for a particular person or whether the artist took some liberties and placed them in the portraits to emphasize the descent. It's just conjecture


A conjecture repeated by many prof. of Art at the University and Licei in Italy...

I'm sorry, but I can't find it ridiculous: cousins or not, hereditary traits are passed in many ways and it isn't sure that every generation a dominant trait can show up. For the Habsburg, they could have received that trait from the Piasts, but after two or three generation it could have easily been erased.

And, to follow your thought: none of us were around at the time; we can't know wheter the NPE happened in the John of Gaunt's line or in the Richard's one.

For me, it happened in the line of Richard only because of one reason: the greater diffusion of R-U152 in the ancestral seat of the counts of Gatinais. And, of course, also for another reason: we have really a lot of G samples around... perhaps is there any error in testing?

FunkyWanderer
18-02-15, 03:52
oh to be a fly on the wall when this drama originally happened.

Angela
26-03-15, 23:42
The soap opera concerning NPE's in the British royal family continues...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/25/richard-iii-dna-tests-uncover-evidence-of-further-royal-scandal?CMP=share_btn_tw

The authors could not determine, based on the results they had, whether the NPE was on the line from Edward III leading to Richard III, or whether it was on the line from Edward III through John of Gaunt to the Beaufort family. (I think I got that right...)

BTW, here is Benedict Cumberbatch reading at the reburial...and reading beautifully, I might add...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2015/mar/26/king-richard-iii-re-interment-benedict-cumberbatch-reads-poem-service-video

They thought maybe they could figure it out by getting the yDna of De Warren family members tracing descent further back to Geoffrey Plantangent. Surprise, surprise, it's yet a third yDna lineage...

So, was the Yorkist line illegitimate, or was it the Lancastrian line, or was it the whole Plantagenet line? Or are there other permutations?

This is one of many reasons I don't get all worked up about anyone in my family tree.

Maleth
27-03-15, 00:18
......and the coffin was made by a relative who is a carpenter living in Canada :smile:

Maciamo
27-03-15, 08:30
The soap opera concerning NPE's in the British royal family continues...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/25/richard-iii-dna-tests-uncover-evidence-of-further-royal-scandal?CMP=share_btn_tw

The authors could not determine, based on the results they had, whether the NPE was on the line from Edward III leading to Richard III, or whether it was on the line from Edward III through John of Gaunt to the Beaufort family. (I think I got that right...)

BTW, here is Benedict Cumberbatch reading at the reburial...and reading beautifully, I might add...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2015/mar/26/king-richard-iii-re-interment-benedict-cumberbatch-reads-poem-service-video

They thought maybe they could figure it out by getting the yDna of De Warren family members tracing decent further back to Geoffrey Plantangent. Surprise, surprise, it's yet a third yDna lineage...

So, was the Yorkist line illegitimate, or was it the Lancastrian line, or was it the whole Plantagenet line? Or are there other permutations?

This is one of many reasons I don't get all worked up about anyone in my family tree.

All this shows that cuckolding was relatively common even among royals. After all, what man wouldn't want his progeny to inherit the throne "simply" by seducing the queen ? It's much easier that to overthrow the current dynasty and have oneself acknowledged by the population as the new sovereign. Even at the level of the aristocracy the benefits for one's child of living a wealthy life with a title has so great that more than one man must have thought about it. Then some love affairs just happen spontaneously, without any premeditation (even unconscious one).

Who knows, maybe most of the royal Y-DNA lineages have been broken since the first king of the dynasty. This would certainly bring people to reconsider the legitimacy of inherited titles. Not that it really matters nowadays.

Aberdeen
27-03-15, 14:09
All this shows that cuckolding was relatively common even among royals. After all, what man wouldn't want his progeny to inherit the throne "simply" by seducing the queen ? It's much easier that to overthrow the current dynasty and have oneself acknowledged by the population as the new sovereign. Even at the level of the aristocracy the benefits for one's child of living a wealthy life with a title has so great that more than one man must have thought about it. Then some love affairs just happen spontaneously, without any premeditation (even unconscious one).

Who knows, maybe most of the royal Y-DNA lineages have been broken since the first king of the dynasty. This would certainly bring people to reconsider the legitimacy of inherited titles. Not that it really matters nowadays.

In the Middle Ages, a queen who cheated on her husband was liable to be charged with treason and executed, so I'm curious about the motivation of such women. But I suspect that if we could identify the kings who were cheated on, they would have been married for a few years but hadn't yet had a son and heir. The queen of such a king might well take the risk in order to make sure she was the mother of a future king, even if it had to be by another man. Or she might have decided that she would remain alive and healthy longer if she could produce an apparent heir apparent. After all, the failure of the wife of Henry VIII to produce a healthy son had disastrous consequences for her, and changed the course of English history. One can't completely ignore the possibility of someone doing something reckless for the sake of passion, but I suspect people who grew up in the courts of Medieval Europe usually acted from mercenary motives.

Angela
27-03-15, 14:37
In the Middle Ages, a queen who cheated on her husband was liable to be charged with treason and executed, so I'm curious about the motivation of such women. But I suspect that if we could identify the kings who were cheated on, they would have been married for a few years but hadn't yet had a son and heir. The queen of such a king might well take the risk in order to make sure she was the mother of a future king, even if it had to be by another man. Or she might have decided that she would remain alive and healthy longer if she could produce an apparent heir apparent. After all, the failure of the wife of Henry VIII had disastrous consequences for her, and changed the course of English history. One can't completely ignore the possibility of someone doing something reckless for the sake of passion, but I suspect people who grew up in the courts of Medieval Europe usually acted from mercenary motives.

I too was thinking about that. The penalties were very severe, so the motivation must have been very strong. (Not that only royals saw death as the proper punishment. In Italy, into the twentieth century, finding your wife in bed with another man was a defense if you killed her, and the man for that matter.)

I also wonder how they managed it. Queens were constantly surrounded by attendants. Then there's the fact that even in these periods people could count to nine. Monarchs were constantly absent...the infidelity had to take place at the most dangerous times, i.e. when the husband was in the vicinity. I can only think that the attendants must have been in collusion with them.

Perhaps it was indeed to get an heir. A woman who was "barren" could be put aside. It never seemed to occur to the men that the man might be at fault, although I'm sure it occurred to the women. In that vein, I've wondered whether the charges against Anne Boleyn might have had a basis in fact, although dragging all those men into it, and even including her brother, plus the whole tone of the documents has always struck me as hinting at sexual obsession and its corollary, extreme sexual jealousy.

Of course, if they had just followed a matrilineal line of descent, none of these problems would have arisen. Barring some extraordinary circumstance, you can pretty easily determine the identity of the mother. :smile:

Maciamo
28-03-15, 14:11
In the Middle Ages, a queen who cheated on her husband was liable to be charged with treason and executed, so I'm curious about the motivation of such women. But I suspect that if we could identify the kings who were cheated on, they would have been married for a few years but hadn't yet had a son and heir. The queen of such a king might well take the risk in order to make sure she was the mother of a future king, even if it had to be by another man. Or she might have decided that she would remain alive and healthy longer if she could produce an apparent heir apparent. After all, the failure of the wife of Henry VIII to produce a healthy son had disastrous consequences for her, and changed the course of English history. One can't completely ignore the possibility of someone doing something reckless for the sake of passion, but I suspect people who grew up in the courts of Medieval Europe usually acted from mercenary motives.

Don't forget that some kings might have been homosexual, so they would not have been so paranoid about their queen cheated on them than Henry VIII.

In the Middle Ages the king still went to wage war by himself and was often away for long periods of time (think Richard Lionheart), leaving the queen to do as she pleases. There may have been people to supervise, but they can always be bribed to turn a blind eye on lovers. If the person in charge of the supervisors/guards is the one with a secret relationship with the queen, it is even easier. Monarchs never married for love, so the temptation of cheating was high. It was normal for kings to have lovers and concubines, which could make the queen jealous and wanting to get even. It's human nature.

As for the penalties, in an absolute monarchy anybody was a potential target for the kings' wrath or whim anyway, even his siblings, best friends or his wife (Henry VIII again). Anyone could end up on the scaffold for almost no reason at all, or through deceptions and plotting from enemies at the court. In such a context lives weren't very valuable and risk taking was much more common than for most people today. If you know you have a high chance of being punished or executed for things you haven't done, you might as well take your chances when you can.

Aberdeen
28-03-15, 18:36
Don't forget that some kings might have been homosexual, so they would not have been so paranoid about their queen cheated on them than Henry VIII.

In the Middle Ages the king still went to wage war by himself and was often away for long periods of time (think Richard Lionheart), leaving the queen to do as she pleases. There may have been people to supervise, but they can always be bribed to turn a blind eye on lovers. If the person in charge of the supervisors/guards is the one with a secret relationship with the queen, it is even easier. Monarchs never married for love, so the temptation of cheating was high. It was normal for kings to have lovers and concubines, which could make the queen jealous and wanting to get even. It's human nature.

As for the penalties, in an absolute monarchy anybody was a potential target for the kings' wrath or whim anyway, even his siblings, best friends or his wife (Henry VIII again). Anyone could end up on the scaffold for almost no reason at all, or through deceptions and plotting from enemies at the court. In such a context lives weren't very valuable and risk taking was much more common than for most people today. If you know you have a high chance of being punished or executed for things you haven't done, you might as well take your chances when you can.

That's very true. I suppose a king who needed a son and heir in order to quell rumours about his homosexuality might not care how his queen got pregnant as long as he didn't have to be personally involved and the queen chose a lover with the same hair and eye colour as the king. Although the queen would have no way of knowing for sure whether that was the real plan or whether the king was trying to trap her into a situation where he could say "Off with her head!" I can't imagine what it would have been like to live under a despot who behaved like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland. That would certainly alter a person's idea of what constitutes a reasonable risk.

Dobrica
13-04-15, 18:05
don't belive

LeBrok
14-04-15, 01:32
don't belive Please use Reply With Quote button at the bottom of a post to comment on it, otherwise we have no idea what you are referring too.