Bones of Richard III found ?

The University of Leicester confirmed in a news conference 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.
 
Maciamo;403411 They tested both mtDNA and Y-DNA said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
According to this website 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
oriental said:
I am not sure which Henry you are referring to.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
oriental said:
Sorry I only read their biographies recently. I am not that attuned to all the names and so on.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
oriental said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
oriental said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
oriental said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am of the same mind with you wondering at the stuff out there that never makes most history books.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Little update. Richard III's mtDNA is confirmed as J1c2c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top