General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScientists confirm that 500-year-old skeleton found under parking lot is England's King Richard III
LEICESTER, England (AP) Scientists say they have found the 500-year-old remains of England's King Richard III under a parking lot in the city of Leicester.
University of Leicester researchers say tests on a battle-scarred skeleton unearthed last year prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that it is the king, who died at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, and whose remains have been missing for centuries.
"Richard III, the last Plantaganet King of England," has been found," said the university's deputy registrar, Richard Taylor.
Osteologist Jo Appleby said Monday that study of the bones provided "a highly convincing case for identification of Richard III."
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/scientists-reveal-result-richard-iii-hunt-0
Demeter
(85,373 posts)RIP, Richard Plantaganet, former King of England
mnhtnbb
(31,302 posts)This was parked in the garage.
Hasn't moved in years...
The custom license plate read: "Dicky III"
mnhtnbb
(31,302 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)The lot they excavated him from was built over the church he was known to have been buried at.
Also, once they found the complete skeleton, it had some features that were associated with Richard, particularly the spinal problems.
cali
(114,904 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)The battle where he was killed - that could have been at least part of it.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,243 posts)KatyMan
(4,118 posts)n/t
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)sweetloukillbot
(10,696 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)He was the only monarch not officially buried somewhere.
More facts about the DNA test would be interesting. 500 years later, the DNA would have very little in common. Was it mitochondrial DNA? That might identify all descendants of certain mothers.
eShirl
(18,462 posts)"And DNA from the skeleton matches a sample taken from a distant living relative of Richard's sister."
cali
(114,904 posts)<snip>
The team's genetic analysis reinforced the link to Richard III: DNA was extracted from bone samples and compared with modern-day mitochondrial DNA from two descendants of Richard III's family, including an anonymous donor as well as Michael Ibsen, a Canadian-born cabinetmaker who is a 17th-generation descendant of Richard III's eldest sister, Anne of York.
"The DNA evidence points to these being the remains of Richard III," said Turi King, a geneticist at the University of Leicester. She said additional DNA tests were still in progress.
Genetic matches based on mitochondrial DNA aren't as clear-cut as, say, a paternity test but a mismatch would have ruled out any family connection. Similar techniques were used to identify the remains of Czar Nicholas II and other members of Russia's royal family, who were killed in 1918 during the Russian Revolution.
<snip>
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16832540-verdict-issued-on-skeleton-found-under-parking-lot-its-king-richard-iii?lite
treestar
(82,383 posts)A Canadian cabinet maker is a descendant of Anne of York. Kind of neat to know.
eShirl
(18,462 posts)"In 2003, as part of a project to identify the possible remains of Margaret of York (sister of Richard III and Edward IV), John Ashdown-Hill traced an all-female line of descent from another sister, Anne Neville, to a retired journalist in Canada, Mrs Joy Ibsen (née Brown). Mrs Ibsen passed away in 2008 but her son Michael Ibsen, now living in London, very kindly provided a DNA sample as comparison for the Greyfriars project.
"With respect to Dr Ashdown-Hill, in order for the University of Leicester to use Mr Ibsens DNA as a benchmark, we had to be absolutely sure that the all-female line of descent from Cecily Neville to Mr Ibsen was rock-solid. This task fell to Professor Kevin Schürer, the Universitys Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Enterprise."
-snip-
"In the course of his research, Professor Schürer identified a second all-female line of descent from Cecily Neville to a living person, again with solid documentary evidence for every step of the way. This individual (who, like Mr Ibsen, had no idea of their royal ancestry) wishes to remain anonymous but has also kindly provided a DNA sample for analysis by Dr Turi King.
"Crucially, this second persons mitochondrial DNA matches Mr Ibsens, confirming that they share a common female ancestor many generations back and therefore the genealogy connecting both people to Cecily Neville (and hence Richard III) is accurate."
cali
(114,904 posts)I first became interested in Richard III when I was 12 and read Josephine Tey's wonderful "Daughter of Time". I highly recommend it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daughter_of_Time
irisblue
(32,794 posts)I learned to never trust historians with an ax to grind.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Best shakespeare (dramatic) play ever
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)the body displayed 10 wounds, 8 of them in the skull and some likely to have caused death, possibly by a blow from a halberd, a kind medieval weapon with an ex-like head on a long pole. Other wounds seem to have been inflicted after his death to humiliate the monarch after his armor was stripped and he was paraded naked over the back of a horse, the researchers said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-the-third-bones.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=2&
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)and to be displayed.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)a pelvic wound likely caused by an upward thrust of a weapon, through the buttock.
LOW BLOW to say the least.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2273164/Richard-III-Scientists-reveal-DNA-results-confirm-kings-body-car-park-
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)Which it seems to be, according to the article.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Hekate
(89,977 posts)... think of Dubya and the sons of Saddam Hussein...
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)he came that close to killing the traitor before he was cut down.
As for the Hussein boys, I remember that. It certainly was disgusting. I was surprised when Dubya didn't broadcast the hanging of Saddam on all channels.
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)...-great-great-maternal-grandfather.
A large number of Americans can say the same, but I'm probably a little closer genetically owing to the fact that my mother is English.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,083 posts)Are you descended from a mistress?
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)And a couple of illegitimate children...
cali
(114,904 posts)at age 10. He had two illegitimate offspring: Katherine Plantagenet about who very little is known and John of Gloucester who had no known issue.
It's highly unlikely that you are a direct descendent of Richard III. Family myths have a way of becoming firmly entrenched.
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)considering what I noted below (post #27), and coupled with assertions from elderly family members, I see no reason to doubt it.
In addition,there is actually no credible source of John of Gloucester's death. The single surviving reference is dated a century after the said incident.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,083 posts)aged 10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_of_Middleham,_Prince_of_Wales
And there are no known descendants of the known illegitimate children: http://www.r3.org/basics/basic6.html http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/richardofeastwell.html
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)was unsuccessful.
Two possible surviving lines:
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=phawkins&id=I1110
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Plantagenet_%28Richard_of_Eastwell%29
And it should be noted, there are sources which claim that Richard III had seven children.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,083 posts)by the man who claimed he was Richard's son, ie he had no known descendants. Yes, he's credited by some with 7, but if only 3 names are known, they can't be the ancestors that you know about.
So I presume it's that 'family legend' about John of Gloucester you're relying on. How detailed is it?
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)at how hard you're trying to disprove my claim, Muriel?
I actually feel a little slighted, to be frank. But since this is a public message board, then I can't really complaint.
But I hope you'll forgive me if I am less than inclined to discuss this with you further.
Fyi, even the amazing Jane Asher claimed lineage to Richard III.
ps: Richard of Eastwell was never called "the last Plantagenet", and we have no knowledge of his descendants.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,083 posts)It's the only story that links him to Richard III.
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/richardofeastwell.html
Don't feel slighted; it's just that family legends, that have survived hundreds of years, tend to be unreliable. All it takes is for someone to decide to tell a tall story, and for a descendant to accept it as true, and the family legend is there. We had a 'family legend' that there was a Doge of Venice in our ancestry. Then a vital link was shown, by research done by the National Library of Scotland (to look into the background of a brother, who produced the first decent maps of Scotland), to be just the son of a minor Scottish landowner, with wills and descriptions of the sale of land, and not the grandson of a Doge. It takes more than a similar sounding surname to confirm a link.
JoDog
(1,353 posts)We are dealing with history that was only committed to parchment years after the fact by victors who were not above lying. Henry Tudor was willing to do just about anything to secure his crown, including marrying Edward IV's daughter and probably killing his sons (The Princes in the Tower). Erasing the mention of a few heirs of Richard III from the official sources would have been just a morning's exercise for him. It's also believable that Henry VIII would have continued the tradition, especially while his line was insecure before the birth of his son.
A few years ago, I learned that I am descended from the Plantagenet house through Joan of Acre. My ancestors' nobility took its first hit with the death of Richard III, and they totally fell from grace with the Wars of the Roses. However, as way leads onto way in history, those events eventually put them in a position to become some of the first colonists of America.
If you are doing research into this, Fleetwood, I encourage you to continue. You should consider gathering together the evidence and putting it out on e-book format as well to benefit "armchair historians" like me. You never know what you may find.
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)cousin (see what I did there), but sadly, I lack the time, and more importantly, the expertise to conduct a proper research on the subject. But it is a great idea, and something I would ponder on. Who knows, perhaps there is a genealogist out there who would be interested to follow up with this.
That aside, I believe your take on the Tudors are not far from the truth. Already we see several new point of views emerging. An article I read recently even went as far as calling Richard III as one of the best English kings.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Some are born out of wedlock, but they are all legitimate human beings.
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)...then whatever. I corrected you and you look rather silly trying to defend your statement.
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)There are a host of other slurs that are no longer acceptable in polite company. I imagine that if you tried really really hard you may be able to think of a few all by yourself.
One of the fathers of hip-hop agrees with me. Him and about a million others like myself:
"...I'm legit, I'm legit
not illegitimate
this rhyme ima spit until I get
my original birth certificate
so give it up..."
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)You knew very well the context in which the word was used, but you deliberately chose to ignore it, and went on an incredibly weird trip in an effort to prove something.
I imagine if you tried really, really hard, you may be actually able to see this by yourself.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)...well that makes everything bubbly and rainbowy and stuff.
I made my point. You can choose to ignore it, thats your prerogative. Adios.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that's my main question.
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)but if you refer or call children or babies born now "Illegitimate", there's something wrong with you.
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)... based on your own personal opinion?
You know, I could answer your question, but I don't really feel the need to subject myself to your moral evaluation.
That aside, is there something wrong as well with the millions others who used the term today?
The fact is, society requires a linguistic method to define children born outside the convention of marriage, primarily for legal reasons. No doubt the term is also used pejoratively by some and has accumulated a measure of social stigmatization, but the word itself, and its original use, originates from a legal perspective on inherited statuses.
If society, collectively, decide that the pejorative connotations have outweighed the logical and intended definition of the word, then it will gradually introduce a replacement to convey the legal distinction. And it certainly will not be "out of wedlock", as someone else suggested earlier.
Heck, even "bastard", at one time, was an acceptable term. There were even laws named using the term. But once the term was hijacked by religious fundamentalists, society eventually pushed it to the fringe.
But I don't have to tell you this, CreekDog. I've read some of your earlier posts. You're a smart cookie - you already know this.
Thus the reason for my original question: why do you ask?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)because you just called that child "illegitimate".
as I said, historically in terms of calling a child the legitimate heir to the throne, i can understand.
but to call children born today, not far from half those born today, as "illegitimate" is antiquated, disrespectful and obtusely inaccurate on your part.
so the only reason left to use the term is that you like the term more than you like the children you are applying it to.
why? because there is no legal definition of children as "illegitimate" these days. they aren't denied anything by the state based on the marriage or lack thereof by their parents.
and that YOU are offended that i would criticize you for demanding to be able to call children in this age by that term?
get over yourself. you just labeled tens of millions with that crappy term and you can't take a little criticism for it?
you aren't fit to discuss politics if you can't take a criticism 10 times milder than terms you use.
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)... current standard of journalism, societal convention, and proceed to make an assumption, write a rambling post, and then call me names and insult me?
Are you serious here?
Which part of this is a discussion exactly, considering you haven't actually addressed any of the points I raised, and are only interesting in insulting me?
lol. I thought this only exist Yahoo comments.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The term 'illegitimate' may not be used much today when talking about children, but in a historical context it's not an understatement to say that entire wars have been fought over the legitimacy of a child's birth. It's a historical term referencing a childs legal ability to inherit.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Would you accept racial or ethnic slurs as long as we were speaking about historical figures?
Children may be born out of wedlock, but they are never illegitimate.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,083 posts)and appropriate when discussing the recorded descendants of a king, because those from the marriage had legal right to inherit property or the crown.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Referring to human beings as illegitimate is disgusting and each one of us has the power over the words that we choose to use.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)The word 'bastard' conveys the same meaning.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)But like other groups that have long suffered discrimination and hatred, we have come to embrace some terms...on our own terms.
http://www.bastards.org/
But you know, like other minority groups, when a non member calls us by this we know they are just vile hateful people.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)to the term "illegitimate."
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Anger is usually the underlying issue with such hatred. Are there other groups of people that you hold in such disdain?
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)When I was a child, being called illegitimate never stung. Being called bastard, yes. Having someone describe it with the clinical "born out of wedlock" most certainly did. However, as an adult I realize that both "illegitimate" and "born out of wedlock" were also descriptions of legal status. Taking all the labels off me didn't change that. I was naturally the child of my mother but had no legal father until and unless one or both of my parents made the declaration in a way recognized under law.
BTW, your link is to an adult adoption rights site. Adoptees are a minor subset of us.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)And wow. It really appeared that you were just doing your damnedest to be insulting. I don't know what else to say to you, except best of luck to you.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)The topic was ways of referring to people whose parents weren't married when they were born. The word 'bastard' is the succinct word in English for it, but it's gone out of favor in this narrow context, even while it's still popular as an insult.
You don't like "illegitimate children" but used "born out of wedlock," as if that's somehow an improvement. Frankly, I'd rather be called a bastard than a person who was "born out of wedlock. You of course can choose differently.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,083 posts)during Henry VIII's reign: "Elysabeth the kynges doughter illegyttimate borne vnder the same mariage" in a 1536 Act. That's the first meaning of the word; not 'an illegal human being', but one who doesn't get legal rights of inheritance.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)...that are now understood to be demeaning. I guess with overt racism & homophobia no longer being acceptable there needs to be some group of people that can be publicly ridiculed and flogged for the amusement of the majority. Looks like a few of you are digging in.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,083 posts)No-one is trying to "ridicule" or "flog for amusement" anyone, living or dead. It is a legal term, that was used, at the times when it was relevant in law, about which children had legal rights over their father's property.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)We have the power over the words we choose to use.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,083 posts)You're referring to
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
in which 'three fifths' refers to a number. But it's worth remembering that calling someone from that time a 'slave' is not disrespectful to them, or anyone living now; it's an accurate term of their legal status.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)He probably lost his car and died searching for it. I have nightmares like that.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I'm guessing.
yellowcanine
(35,690 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)yellowcanine
(35,690 posts)hatrack
(59,387 posts)Wraith20878
(181 posts)A Hearse! My kingdom for a Hearse!
JaneFordA
(141 posts)During the English Civil Wars, Cromwell's troops supposedly un-buried Richard, turned his skeleton into powder and used the stone coffin as a watering trough for the horses. According to legend, Cromwell encouraged them to do so because he wanted everyone to know that there was nothing special about monarchs--alive or dead (as though executing Charles First didn't make the point).
Just goes to show ya, Oliver, if ya wanted the job done right, you should have sledge-hammered that skeleton yourself!
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)1483 "Richard III declares himself King after confining and possibly ordering the murder of his two nephews, Edward V and Richard Duke of York, in the Tower of London ..."
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...to all politicians who are advocates of a strong military
and Global Projection of Military Strength.
cali
(114,904 posts)I suspect you have no interest whatsoever in history beyond how it can be used to further your political agenda. Personally, I think that's a sad and impoverished view of history.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Then, as now, wars are fought to enrich the 1%.
At least in Richard's day, they had the dignity and courage to die in battle.
Our leaders today sit in the safety of their throne rooms and direct the deaths of the truly "sad and impoverished".
AND [font size=1 color=gray]
Shhh...I don't want to shock you, dear, so I am whispering.
This IS a "POLITICAL Discussion Board",
and this IS posted in General Discussion.
Drawing Political Parallels IS expected.[/font]
If you want to discuss "Pure History",
I would suggest a Pure History Discussion Board.
If you need additional help,
I can direct you to one.
You are correct in one sense.
My first impulse was NOT Pure History, but Shakespeare.
I initially decided against that because I felt that was too pompous,
but since you have set THAT bar, I will post one of my favorites now:
"Dispute not with her, for she is lunatic." Shakespeare, Richard III
Poor Richard.
He was such a sad and impoverished monarch.
ananda
(28,759 posts)..
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)riverwalker
(8,694 posts)a geneaologist had to do some cool detective work to find him. I love these stories!
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Would this have been the dude that was the spiteful gimpy son of the dude who was the adviser to Queen ... whoever Vandessa Redgrave played .... in the movie "Anonymous"?
(yeah, I know that was some serious word salad, and I apologize but I don't have any kind of grip on English history & would like to get one.)
cali
(114,904 posts)being killed in a battle at Bosworth field, marking the end of the War of Roses. He is the subject of Shakespeare's play entitled Richard III, which paints him as villainous and the murderer of his two young nephews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England
Chiyo-chichi
(3,558 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)
William Cecil, Lord Burghley was his father and Queen Elizabeth's chief advisor.
The younger Cecil, who is coming into power as his father and the queen approach the end of their lives, is portrayed as a hunchbacked villain in Anonymous.
The film suggested that Richard III was staged in advance of the Essex Rebellion in order to make the general populace turn against Cecil, who wanted James on the throne.
So... the film did want you to associate Robert Cecil with Richard III.
A lot of that is not historically accurate, though. It was Richard II that was staged in conjunction with the Essex Rebellion, not Richard III. Richard II was scandalous because it depicted the deposition of an English monarch. And we don't know that Cecil was hunchbacked.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)I appreciate the explanation!!
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I've been following this story. I'm glad it is indeed him. How amazing!
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Government people are trusted, the people are not.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)yellowcanine
(35,690 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The church was torn down hundreds of years before the parking lot was built. The location of his grave was lost. Only the discovery of an old map showing the location of the church gave them a clue as to the location of his grave.
flamingdem
(39,300 posts)bloody'ell I been parked upon!
Hekate
(89,977 posts)Thanks for the link.
benld74
(9,881 posts)Hekate
(89,977 posts)Here
I noticed two things immediately -- the incredible curvature of the spine, and the absolutely excellent teeth. This is someone who may have had really bad untreated scoliosis, but he had a great diet for his time, and I would expect his bone density to show that -- and apparently it did.
It is true that "history" is written by the victors, and as the novelist Terry Pratchett demonstrated brilliantly in Wyrd Sisters, a dramatic play can indelibly imprint a version of history on peoples' minds for centuries to come.
Rest in peace, King Richard. I think your reputation is about to be restored somewhat.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I love English History, I can never get enough of this information. Thank you for your post!
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)I figured it had to be him because of the spine of the skeleton being crooked the same way that Richard's was reported to be and the type of wounds were also what was noted to be the manner of his death. When they did the facial reconstruction of the skull it was amazing how much it looked like his portraits. I've been anxiously awaiting the DNA results for a definite though.
I just love this kind of stuff. All those centuries of his body's whereabouts being unknown and suddenly it's found.
Raine
(30,520 posts)so much. I belonged for years but didn't renew because there was so much fueding amongst the membership as they fought for control and leadership. This has renewed my interest though and I think I'm going to join again.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)that's funny.
Skittles
(152,918 posts)hoo boy was I right