Bones of Richard III found ?

[Angela]

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]

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]

In the Supp info they say he is Y DNA G2.

 

[motzart]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/wor...ghtful-king-of-England-dies-in-Australia.html

 

[Degredado]

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]

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/wor...ghtful-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]

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]

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

 

[Angela]

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

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]

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

Richard Duke of Cambridge-his grandson

Richard Duke ofYork: His great grandson

Richard III His great grandson

The Duke of Clarence, Richard's brother:

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]

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]

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/ukn...oyal-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]

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?" 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]

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?" 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..

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]

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. 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_(novel)

 

[Maleth]

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.