King Richard III's Body Found!?

[♫anna♫]

edition.cnn.com/2013/02/03/world/europe/richard-iii-search-announcement/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 QUOTE:
Body found under parking lot is King Richard III, scientists prove
Feb. 4, 2013
(CNN) -- DNA tests have confirmed that human remains found buried beneath an English car park are those of the country's King Richard III.

British scientists announced Monday they are convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" that a skeleton found during an archaeological dig in Leicester, central England, last August is that of the former king, who was killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.

Mitochondrial DNA extracted from the bones was matched to Michael Ibsen, a Canadian cabinetmaker and direct descendant of Richard III's sister, Anne of York.

Experts say other evidence -- including battle wounds and signs of scoliosis, or curvature of the spine, found during the search and the more than four months of tests since support the DNA findings.

The skeleton was discovered buried among the remains of what was once the city's Greyfriars friary, but is now a council car park.

Richard III's remains will be reburied in Leicester Cathedral, close to the site of his original grave, in a memorial service expected to be held early next year, once analysis of the bones is completed.

Read more: Richard III: The king and the car park?

Archaeologists say the man they found appears to have met a violent death: There is evidence of two severe blows to the skull, and it appears Richard's corpse may also have been mistreated.

Richard Buckley, the lead archaeologist on the project, said the unusual position of the skeleton's arms and hands suggested the king may have been buried with his hands tied.

Investigators from the University of Leicester had been examining the remains for months. Others got their first glimpse of the battle-scarred skull that may have once worn the English crown early Monday when the university released a photograph ahead of its announcement.

"The skull was in good condition, although fragile, and was able to give us detailed information," said Jo Appleby, a lecturer in human bioarchaeology at the university who led the exhumation of the remains last year.

Turi King, who carried out the DNA analysis, said it was a "real relief" when the results came through.

"I went really quiet. I was seeing all these matches coming back, thinking, 'That's a match, and that's a match, and that's a match.' At that point I did a little dance around the lab."

Michael Ibsen, whose DNA matched with that of the king's remains, said he reacted with "stunned silence" when told the closely-guarded results on Sunday.

"I never thought I'd be a match, and certainly not that it would be so close, but the results look like a carbon copy."

Supporters of the infamous king, including members of the Richard III Society, hoped the discovery would force academics to rewrite history, which they say has been tainted by exaggerations and false claims.

Screenwriter Philippa Langley, who championed the search for several years, told CNN she wanted "the establishment to look again at his story," saying she wanted to uncover the truth about "the real Richard, before the Tudor writers got to him."

"The trouble is we judge Richard by a pseudo-Victorian values system, but we judge others in the context of their time," she said.

"He was a medieval man. If you put him back into the 15th century, he's exactly as the others are -- princes, dukes, nobles, they're all doing exactly the same things, and he's better than some."

[sadie1263]

Where did they think his remains were?

[Deleted]

I don't understand how the DNA can be a "carbon copy" of living relatives, unless they had maintained some family tradition of intermarriage!

What they may mean is that they isolated a few unusual genes or gene patterns shared by those claiming to be relatives. But any one of us (well, anyone with British ancestors) could be descended from King Dick, couldn't we?

[sadie1263]

That is confusing............

A lot of the Kings had a habit of "spreading their genes" around.......so yeah.......how does that carbon copy thing work??!!!

[Deleted]

I smell a conspiracy

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2013 19:45:22 GMT sadie1263 said:

That is confusing............

A lot of the Kings had a habit of "spreading their genes" around.......so yeah.......how does that carbon copy thing work??!!!

The modern "descendants" aren't even descended from him, it seems, but his sister.

I'm really looking forward to reading more.

No-one has a "carbon copy" of anyone else's genes unless they have been cloned. All I can think of is that the "descendants" have one or more of an unusual gene that is shared with the skeleton. No doubt we will be told.

[sadie1263]

Why wasn't he given a regular burial in the kingly vaults?

[Deleted]

OK - i've found out a bit more about the DNA, and it seems there is something that is passed down unchanged through females:

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/04/richard-iii-skeleton-bone-dna

[jean]

Feb 4, 2013 19:45:22 GMT sadie1263 said:

That is confusing............

A lot of the Kings had a habit of "spreading their genes" around.......so yeah.......how does that carbon copy thing work??!!!

That's why they concentrate on the female line in this sort of enquiry.

There's no question about who your mother is.

[jean]

Feb 5, 2013 4:22:05 GMT sadie1263 said:

Why wasn't he given a regular burial in the kingly vaults?

Because the next king (Henry VII) was (arguably) a usurper, who had (definitely) beaten him in battle.

Burying him in the kingly vaults was the last thing he was going to do.

[Deleted]

I began to read what was done to the body, one hopes after death, but certainly not by his friends.



One can have too much information.

[sadie1263]

Well......what a sore winner........you kick his butt and then just toss him........what a rotten deal. Isn't this the one that maybe knocked off the two nephews though?

[♫anna♫]

It's suspected that Richard III may have been the victim of a slander campaign! The claim that he had his nephews killed so that he'd be king was never proven. Shakespeare in his play "Richard III" also portrays him as a villain, but Shakespeare wasn't really a historian.

Below is the 1st part of 16 YouTube videos presenting the 1955 film presentation of "Richard III"!

For movie and theatre fans only! [/b][/size]




Part 2:
tinyurl.com/blnvmfg
Part 3:
tinyurl.com/casxo6r
The remaining 13 youtube videos can be easily located with a Youtube search! Enter: "Richard III part 4", etc.

[Deleted]

Well, the thing is cos the Tudors won and were on the throne Shaikesepare couldn';t very well say anything else

[♫anna♫]

Feb 6, 2013 15:16:08 GMT @donna said:

Well, the thing is cos the Tudors won and were on the throne Shaikesepare couldn';t very well say anything else

I'm sure you're right Donna! Shakespeare probably would have ended up in the Tower of London, if he presented a play making Richard III look good and the Tudors look bad!

[OldHippieDude]

Feb 4, 2013 20:18:47 GMT Gibby said:

I smell a conspiracy

LGBT has long contended he was a homosexual, or rather "gay." Maybe you're onto something.

Peace,

OHD

[Deleted]

That's a new one on me. In his time he was considered a notorious womaniser and he certainly had bastard children all over the place.

[♫anna♫]

Mar 18, 2013 14:23:34 GMT @donna said:

That's a new one on me. In his time he was considered a notorious womaniser and he certainly had bastard children all over the place.

Recorded history confirms that Richard III was very much attracted to women. Perhaps the rumor of homosexuality comes from the Tudors or their supporters!