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....

[seeker]

where DNA testing might produce interesting results?

Oh, there are some mutterings that Mary Boleyn had an illigitimate daughter with Henry VIII, which was passed off as her husband's (Carey? Carew?) child. The dates don't stack up though. And Henry was a bit of a showboat so undoubtedly would have claimed an illigitimate child as his own, even if it was 'only' a girl.
Fitzroy was his only one. And he died of consumption not long after Anne Boleyn's execution.

The BEST bit of intrigue is a bit further down the line; the rumours that Elizabeth I had an illigitimate child by Thomas Seymour. There's circumstantial evidence but it's pretty flimsy and could be read both ways. I can't remember the dates off the top of my head but it tallies with a period that Elizabeth laid low with 'dropsy' and a 'sickness'. There's also a quote from Jane Dormer, who was part of Mary's household (and so was undoubtedly anti-Elizabeth) which I've managed to find: "?There was a bruit of a child born and miserably destroyed, but could not be discovered
whose it was; only the report of the mid-wife, who was brought from her house blindfold thither, and so returned, saw nothing in the house while she was there, but candle light;only, she said, it was the child of a very fair young lady. There was muttering of the Admiral and this lady, who was then between fifteen and sixteen years of age.? As I said, it's pretty tenuous. Personally I think it's unlikely. Instead it's propaganda to tarnish Elizabeth's reputation whilst Mary was on the throne.

There's a fantastic bonk-buster about Elizabeth and Thomas Seymour, kits. I read it when I was 13 or so and it was a revelation.

I doubt we'll ever know with any of them, but it's fun to speculate. I tend to reckon you're right Fitzroy was his only one.

Alison Weir's book 'The Princes in the Tower' is very good- but she concludes that Richard did it, apologies to all the Ricardians. I am also a Richard fan, have read RHJ, Penman, Tey etc (RHJ is still the best, don't particularly like the other novels about him except for Tey who is good fun). I prefer non-fiction for finding out what really happened though, and Weir details all the original sources and why she gives more weight to some sources than others. She explains in some detail why she thinks it wasn't Henry VII and why it wasn't Buckingham. As someone said upthread, the easiest explanation is probably the right one. I now think he probably did it.

Here's an interesting theory regarding Henry VIII and his lack of progeny (legitimate or otherwise. Off to bed now. Will be back tomorrow.
www.science20.com/news_articles class="underline">viiiandmiscarriageswasitkell_antigen-76877HenryVIIIKellssyndrome

Sorry, try the link again.
www.science20.com/news_articles/henry_viii_and_miscarriages_was_it_kell_antigen-76877

Totally (or at least a lot) OT but I know nothing about Richard III or any of them really, being American and all. But I would really like to; it's enormous bits of history that I'm missing.

Where should I start? Is there a good book that's sort of all-encompassing?

Nothing to add except what an absolutely lovely thread.

cheerful - this may be too basic, or too complete if you only want the tudors, but I've heard it goes down well (you can get audio as well).

www.amazon.co.uk/History-Britain-Simon-Schama/dp/0563521090/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347600028&sr=1-9

That would definitely be all-encompassing. The problem with finding good books that do Richard III and the Tudors is that the way history used to be taught (sometimes still is), is with a period boundary between them.

I would really like to know too, if anyone has a good rec for the basic history across that time period, from maybe 1450-1600, I haven't found one.

(Not what you asked, but I do think google/wiki are quite good and, obviously, free ... there must be loads of history buffs out there who are really keen.)

happy - ooh, that's interesting.

It is tragic, isn't it, though.

Been on the Richardiii Society Facebook this morning (I know, I know - get a life) and some are speculating that the wounds on the Leicester skelly argue against it being Richard. For instance, A slice to the back of the head - a man in a helmet would have a crush trauma; and an arrow-head couldn't have pieced armour. It's even suggested that it's the skeleton of an archer running away from the battle. But why would he have been buried in Greyfriars? Suppose we must wait for the experts pronouncement.

Ooh, the thick plottens.

Btw, I think 'getting a life' is not within the ethos of this fine thread.

I'd be amazed if it isn't him - or at least, isn't the body that was buried as being Richard's. I mostly read about prehistoric archaeology now, and to be able to map a church nave onto the ground and read a written account of what was buried there, and then start digging and find something broadly correspondent sounds enviably secure to me!

If the DNA isn't a match, what would that prove and not prove I wonder? Depends what kind of tests they're doing.

Hm ok it's mitochondrial, so that ought AFAIK to rule out non-identification on the basis of any illegitimacy...

That's so true - I hadn't thought of it like that. I guess doing your work, you would notice it so much.

I read one time that for a family to produce an unbroken line of boy children in each generation (like the Capetian house), without ever ending up going back through the maternal line, is vanishingly unlikely to happen over more than a few generations. So it does feel as if male kingship is setting itself up for a fail, really.

Yy, and it's also next to impossible without testing to really know that a child is the son of his official father! Anywhere along the line somebody could have had an affair, whatever the conventions of the day say about it. This worries me about genealogy too. How on earth would you know? Seems a very odd way to go about maintaining political stability, doesn't it.

In a funny way, genealogies and so on only make sense if you understand them the way we understand parenting now - that the child you bring up as your own, is your own child, even if there isn't a biological connection.

It is bizarre, though, to go to such lengths to preserve female 'chastity' in paranoia, rather than strategize so as to put less emphasis on who's biologically related to whom.

I would like to know about that leonie!

I have the excellent evidence of the bonkbuster I mentioned above, which goes with that theory. And with the brilliantly-named 'Dr Butts' (who is real, just great name), who tells her she's messed up her insides getting pregnant by Thomas Seymour and is consequently infertile.

Or there's that theory she was a hermaphrodite. Of course. Because that would naturally explain how she was all brave and manly, too.

Or Richard was such a hero that he was fighting without armour and with his breakfast butty in one hand?

Oh ... is it possible to say 'enjoy' toddlers' music? If so, enjoy. Or at least, I hope it's tolerable and the toddler(s) in question have a ball.

Somebody way upthread mentioned the two skeletons found near Edward IV's tomb at Windsor. This is what Wiki says:

In 1789, workmen carrying out repairs in St. George's Chapel, Windsor, rediscovered and accidentally broke into the vault of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville, discovering in the process what appeared to be a small adjoining vault. This vault was found to contain the coffins of two mysterious, unidentified children. However, no inspection or examination was carried out and the tomb was resealed. The tomb was inscribed with the names of two of Edward IV's children: George, 1st Duke of Bedford who had died at the age of 2, and Mary of York who had died at the age of 14; both had predeceased the King.[16] During the excavation for the royal tomb house for King George III under the Wolsey tomb-house in 1810-1813 two lead coffins clearly labelled as George Plantagenet and Mary Plantagenet were discovered and moved into the adjoining vault of Edward IV's but at the time no effort was made to identify the two lead coffins already in the vault.[17]

It goes on to say this area was being worked on again in the late 1990s and a request was put in to open the vault and examine the two unknown occupants, but the royal household turned it down. I wonder if (assuming the Leicester skeleton is Richard) another request will be made again now?

I can see why this kind of thing is only done very occasionally though, the royal household has a duty of care and it's not massively respectful is it, digging up skellies to test every time we have a scientific advance! Would be a very interesting one though.

kerrygrey