Advanced search

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?

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

I saw something about this recently. Didn't they dig up a car park in Leicester?

BurlingtonBertieFromBow Wed 12-Sep-12 13:22:31

It is said that no one listed in Burke's peerage would undertake DNA testing for fear of what it might reveal

seeker Wed 12-Sep-12 13:24:40

Doing it as we speak, blackberry ice!

combinearvester Wed 12-Sep-12 13:26:46

At the risk of sounding like a total idiot, who are they going to test the results against? How will they prove the DNA from those bones is him or not?

Also I thought they were digging that car park up because they thought it was a priory, surely there would be loads of old bones under there?

seeker Wed 12-Sep-12 13:30:34

Apparently there are living descendants the DNA can be tested against. Joking apart- it is incredibly interesting. The bones show a spinal deformity and a damaged skull.

kim147 Wed 12-Sep-12 13:36:10

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mrstiggywinklethehappyhedgehog Wed 12-Sep-12 13:43:07

They are talking about this on radio 4 now, fascinating! I'm sure there would be no suspicious results in today's royals at all...!

sleepyhead Wed 12-Sep-12 13:48:37

I think they managed to find a woman in Canada who was a direct descendent on the female line? Apparently there were a lot of false starts along the way though.

When my dad was researching our family tree he was working from a really detailed version that my grandfather had done which went back 200 years. Unfortunately, it's easier to fact check these things now and my dad discovered that an ancestor 5 generations back was born 2 years after his father died. So we had lots of info about people from the 1800s but none of them were actually related to us...

sleepyhead Wed 12-Sep-12 13:50:23

I don't think today's royals are particularly direct descendents of the Plantagenets are they? So they wouldn't go for them anyway.

TunipTheVegemal Wed 12-Sep-12 13:52:29

A spinal deformity? So Horrible Histories will have to rewrite their Richard III song! (They are firmly in the 'all the hunchback stuff was Tudor propaganda' camp.)

quoteunquote Wed 12-Sep-12 13:55:11

change world history, as that is what got Rasputin involved with the russian royals

one gene changes the world

TunipTheVegemal Wed 12-Sep-12 13:55:19

Richard III song

MeanAndMeaslyMiddleAges Wed 12-Sep-12 13:55:27

I'm a nice guy!

seeker Wed 12-Sep-12 13:56:59

I think the "hunchback" thing is Tudor propaganda, but isn't the fact that he had one shoulder higher than the other pretty well documented?

LaQueen Wed 12-Sep-12 13:57:16

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seeker Wed 12-Sep-12 13:59:28

Cf The Daughter of Time.

Alan Grant was my first love.

TunipTheVegemal Wed 12-Sep-12 13:59:56

I always thought Henry VII did in the princes. He looks shifty in the paintings (whereas RIII looks lovely).

LeonieDeSaintVire Wed 12-Sep-12 16:00:20

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SloeFarSloeGood Wed 12-Sep-12 16:06:04

Watching with interest.

Themumsnot Wed 12-Sep-12 16:11:52

However much one might wish it to be so, it isn't really likely that Henry VII did for the Princes. They were declared illegitimate by Richard, imprisoned in the Tower by Richard and the last known sighting of them was in 1483, and rumours of their death were in widespread circulation by the end of the year.
Having said that, if Richard hadn't had them killed, Henry would have had to.

SheelaNeGoldGig Wed 12-Sep-12 16:12:49

Is this going to be the prrgnant polar bear or the norwegian parcel unwrapping sll over again?

Waiting with bated breath for DNA results.

trixie123 Wed 12-Sep-12 16:22:36

It was Buckingham most likely. Henry didn't have the opportunity (though actually his massively overbearing mother, Margaret Beaufort was in London at the time and was in moving in court circles). Buckingham had a very tenuous claim to the throne (though actually slightly better than Henry's) and rebelled against Richard shortly after the princes were missed. Theory is that he was after the throne himself, and the princes' illegitimacy was spurious so they needed to be dead for him to claim. Richard however, was widely thought to be the culprit at the time. Contemporary sources (not Tudor) point the finger at him.

MyNeighbourIsStrange Wed 12-Sep-12 16:23:58

To be fair Elizabeths Grandmother was sister to those Princes in the Tower.

Yohoahoy Wed 12-Sep-12 19:29:17

If the belief that Richard III had the Princes killed had been widespread at the time, how likely is it that Elizabeth Woodville would have released her daughters from their safe sanctuary into Richard's keeping?

The timing of the Princes' disappearance was not useful to Richard, who was promoting his claim to the throne as a matter of legitimacy - he was very keen not to be seen as a usurper.

Keeping the Princes alive and visible and in comfort (they were in the Royal apartments at the Tower, not in a dungeon) would have been a help to him. Their deaths made it a lot easier for his enemies to stir up support.

Can you tell I'm a bit of a Richard fan? :D

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: