Archaeologists are DNA testing some bones they've found to see if they might be the remains of Richard III. Are there any other members of the Royal Family....

(747 Posts)
seeker Wed 12-Sep-12 13:19:56

where DNA testing might produce interesting results?

Themumsnot Wed 12-Sep-12 22:03:07

So all of you who think 'Enery did it, how do you explain where the Princes were for the more than two years that elapsed between the last sighting of them and the Battle of Bosworth? Rumours that they had been done away with were rife, as Richard well knew, but yet he didn't produce them and nobody at all had seen them. That, to me, is the strongest evidence in favour of his guilt.

LaQueen Wed 12-Sep-12 22:04:42

Exactly Saggy ...look at Matilda, look at Margaret of Anjou, look at Isabella of France - they wielded huge power, and caused civil war.

SaggyOldClothCatPuss Wed 12-Sep-12 22:05:15

They could have been anywhere. Out of sight, out of mind.

LaQueen Wed 12-Sep-12 22:07:47

I think either, Richard had them secretly removed from the Tower and sent to one of his Northern castles, to keep them safe from becoming politcial puppets in the future. Then when Henry VII became king, he had them found and murdered.

Or, more likely, Buckingham had them murdered whilst Richard was away on progress. When Richard returned, the boys hadn't been seen for months, he couldn't produce them, he didn't know where their bodies were - he'd been framed.

Themumsnot Wed 12-Sep-12 22:09:00

Not buying it. They had disappeared. People were saying that they were dead. For two whole years. The simplest explanation is usually the true one.
<Pokes tongue out and runs away.>

Themumsnot Wed 12-Sep-12 22:09:38

I'll buy your second explanation LeQ, but not the first one grin

LaQueen Wed 12-Sep-12 22:11:06

I actually think Buckingham had them murdered. He had motive, and opportunity (he was Constable of the Tower).

There'd already been at least one attempted abduction/murder of the boys prior to them disappearing, as I recall.

SaggyOldClothCatPuss Wed 12-Sep-12 22:11:49

Right you... OUTSIDE! <<saddles up destrier, buckles on armour, grabs lance>>

Themumsnot Wed 12-Sep-12 22:13:26

You can't fight me, I'm a girl. <<waves hankie>>

LaQueen Wed 12-Sep-12 22:13:51

[Joins Saggy ...dons hauberk, adjusts visor, swings morning-star, ominously...]

TunipTheVegemal Wed 12-Sep-12 22:15:39

<hides at Westminster>

EdithWeston Wed 12-Sep-12 22:17:11

The DNA results are going to take ages - presumably as it is hard, though no longer impossible, to process remains so old to produce a useable sample. Once they have got that, it should be fairly straightforward but does indeed rest on an assumption that there is an unbroken matriarchal line in the family (I'm pretty sure it's the female line that they have to look for down the Xs). Any adopted children could invalidate the whole testing hypothesis.

nipersvest Wed 12-Sep-12 22:17:47

i went to bosworth last week with dd's class on a school trip. was a very interesting day out, the guides were good at explaining it all and got the kids to act out the battle.

MattSmithIsMine Wed 12-Sep-12 22:18:34

Are we strictly talking about dead people?

<innocent expression>

LaQueen Wed 12-Sep-12 22:20:49

Have just been chatting over the maternal line with my Mum (another history buff).

The Plantagenet line did continue - ignoring the Tudor line which died out. Another of Edward IV's daughters married, and had at least one child.

But, can't quite figure it on from there? Obviously our current royal family have no connection.

LaQueen Wed 12-Sep-12 22:24:33

Anyone know what happend to the children of Lady Catherine Grey - the matriarchal line would have led from Elizabeth of York, to her?

kim147 Wed 12-Sep-12 22:24:54

Boring science fact - you can trace the maternal line through mitochondrial DNA. Both your DS and DC have the same mitochondrial DNA as it comes from the egg.

ALittleScatterOfRain Wed 12-Sep-12 22:26:30

Just backing up a little (well, jumping forward in history) to the Queen Regnant bit, am I right in thinking that Anne Boleyn was actually crowned as a Queen Regnant rather than a Queen Consort?

SorrelForbes Wed 12-Sep-12 22:27:05

LaQueen - I read We Speak No Treason at the age of 14 and developed a huge crush on Richard which continues to this day grin. I really must buy a new copy...

SaggyOldClothCatPuss Wed 12-Sep-12 22:38:40

Im fairly sure it has been suggested that the bones thought to be the princes be DNA tested, so there must be a match.
Can men and women pass on matenal DNA, or is it just mother to daughter?
There is a constant familial link through to present day. If its either sex, then surely the DNA could be tested?

LineRunner Wed 12-Sep-12 22:40:59

This is about Harry, right?

SaggyOldClothCatPuss Wed 12-Sep-12 22:49:22

??? @ Linerunner? hmm

SaggyOldClothCatPuss Wed 12-Sep-12 22:50:26

Isnt dentine a good source of DNA in very old bones?

LineRunner Wed 12-Sep-12 22:50:28

<hangs head>

seeker Wed 12-Sep-12 22:51:23

Whatever gave you that idea, liner runner? <whistles innocently>

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now