Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are king's

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882

by NickPollard • 13 years ago

71 39 13 years ago

bbc.co.uk

timthorn• 13 years ago

To add some context, the team had established roughly where the remains should be and discovered a skeleton in place; so while neither the DNA test nor the dating could be conclusive, when added to the contextual knowledge the level of confidence is (in the team's language) beyond reasonable doubt.

NickPollard• 13 years ago

Also (from the article) the state of the body - that it had wounds consistent with descriptions of Richard's death, that the wounds were confirmed to have been inflicted pre-mortem, and that the other general characteristics of the skeleton were consistent with our knowledge of Richard.

The confluence of factors is what allows such a high probability to be ascribed to the hypothesis.

hudibras2• 13 years ago

The University of Leicester website on the dig (http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/archaeology/wherewedug.html) shows that they were able to determine exactly where the remains should have been buried. Pretty amazing.

Svip• 13 years ago

Obligatory: A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!

shardling2• 13 years ago

The correct pun in this context would be hearse. :)

kingmanaz• 13 years ago

Eyewitnesses of the King's demise at Bosworth recorded him as having bellowed "traitors, traitors, traitors" while personally charging to within feet of Henry Tudor. Both Shakespeare and recorded history appear to be equally dramatic in this case. Richard's death ended the War of the Roses, and historians such as Norman Cantor would claim that also it marked the end of Medieval era and the beginning of the Renaissance.

"The Sunne in Splendour" retells Richard's life and also offers a fascinating look at his older brother Edward IV, a man who warred his entire life and never lost a battle.

jjjdjdjdjdjdj• 13 years ago

As you can see from the photo of the bones in the ground, kings look no different than peasants when they're eaten by the earth. Still, the hard working people of the UK are happy to sponsor their "princes" and their Vegas expenses.

EliRivers• 13 years ago

I believe the current propaganda term used for this sort of thing is "hard working families".

Tuna-Fish• 13 years ago

That's technically not correct. The UK royal house is paid an annuity that was given in exchange for them surrendering the revenues from their private holdings. These revenues are much larger than the annuity they are paid -- by some 5 times. Even if you take the most broad definition of the costs of the royal house, including the security provided to them and the lost revenues from the official properties they use, they still surrender more than £80M more to the state than they cost in upkeep.

There are many good arguments against the British royalty -- cost is not one of them. Were they a private family with private holdings, the people of the UK would pay more taxes than they do now.

The only way you can argue that abolishing the monarchy would save money is if you argue that they should be stripped from their private property. But if you start such land redistribution, just where should you end? Most of the land in the UK is held by aristocrats. And the US is not much better -- in the wealthy areas in the east, most of the land was originally acquired by means that would be less than reputable today.

shardling2• 13 years ago

>And the US is not much better -- in the wealthy areas in the east, most of the land was originally acquired by means that would be less than reputable today.

You could kind of argue that all of the land in the US was acquired by less than reputable means. :P

keithpeter• 13 years ago

"Were they a private family with private holdings, the people of the UK would pay more taxes than they do now."

Death duties? Capital gains tax?

Actually I have no strong feelings either way and tend to view the monarchy as part of the tourism industry.

zwischenzug• 13 years ago

If memory serves, the Vegas expenses were paid for by the (American) owner of the casino.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2192974/Prince-Har...

Thanks guys!

patrickgzill• 13 years ago

However, given Britain's often lousy climate, the royals probably pay for themselves in the value of the additional tourism dollars generated alone.

If there was nobody living at Buckingham Palace, far fewer people would go see it.

raverbashing• 13 years ago

Which is funny to mention

The Dutch royal family moved from Amsterdam to The Hague, still, their old palace is still a big tourist attraction.

Graham24• 13 years ago

what do you mean lousy climate? some of us quite like a nice bit of drizzle.

better than living in a 40c desert.

sbmassey• 13 years ago

Should one pay taxes based on how different the rulers look once they are dead? 'Cos if so, I don't think elected rulers look much different from peasants either.

hakaaaaak• 13 years ago

According to ancestry.com, and yes it has my relatives going back that far, I am a descendant of Richard III. Wonder how many others are here.

bazzargh• 13 years ago

One of the things missing from the BBC report there was that this was a mitochondrial DNA test. While many may (on paper) be a descendant of Richard III, illegitimacy is common and matrilineal heritage is the best bet.

gus_massa2• 13 years ago

It was a little annoying that from the description was clear that it was mitochondrial-DNA, but they didn't write "mitochondrial" even once.

joshuahedlund• 13 years ago

Perhaps almost everyone: " Some experts estimate that 80 percent of England's present population descends from Edward III." [1] There was an Economist article posted to HN several months back that explained the general principle better but I couldn't immediately find it.

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13662242/ns/technology_and_science...

nikcub• 13 years ago

Similar with French Canadians, since they are all descendants of a small group of immigrants, a lot of them claim to be related to Celine Dion.

eksith3• 13 years ago

One day you're king, next day you're a pile of bones under a car park.

Which makes it all the more worthwhile to be remembered for what you've done while you're alive (hopefully postive things) than where your bones rest even if you were born into privilege.

I don't know if this will keep going, but there are people to this day (usually mathematicians or someone with an affinity to that line) who tenderly care for the grave of Thomas Bayes. The man has been gone for almost 250 years.

tomjen3• 13 years ago

Honestly the whether we are remembered once we are dead or not doesn't really matter -- in no shape or form will we be around to care.

Same for the people who are found months after they have died -- the dead don't care (or do anything else).

eksith3• 13 years ago

That's rather nihilistic.

You're only partly right: The dead won't care. But if you're remembered for good things by others, then by default you've done good while you're alive. That's really the point of living don't you think?

We can all debate the metaphysical on what happens afterwards, but what's real, observable and true is the effect you had on those around you while you're alive and the legacy you leave behind. Bayes obviously won't care what happens today, he can't. But those alive today still do after so many years.

The fact that we won't be around to experience the merits of our actions doesn't mean our actions should be devoid of merit.

motters• 13 years ago

Too much to hope that the margin of error on such things will be properly explained

https://bristolclassics.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/bah-and-fur...

youngerdryas• 13 years ago

He doesn't give any info on the margin of error and just goes on a tirade about how we only care about artifacts when they are from famous people.

davidf18• 13 years ago

http://goo.gl/2CH7n from NYtimes: "One of the descendants, Michael Ibsen, is the son of a 16th-generation niece of King Richard’s" which means 18th generation descendant of the King. Each generation has roughly half the DNA of the ancestor (Y Chromosome and mitochondrial (female only) DNA excepted. Thus an 18th generation descendant would have just 1/2^18 or about 1/256,000 of the King's DNA. Of course this amount would actually be larger since other ancestors to the King would have been his ancestor as well.

In the Talmud there is a famous expression, "He who saves a life is as if he saves and entire world and he who destroys a life is as if he destroys an entire world." and this relates to the meaning of this statement.

gus_massa2• 13 years ago

In the BBC they explain that he is a direct descendant of the mother of the King, by an all female branch. They don't explain why they take all the trouble to find this kind of descendant, and why this detail is important.

But the only reasonable explanation is that they are using mitochondrial DNA. The advantage of the mitochondrial DNA is that it is not mixed so, ignoring a few random mutations, the mitochondrial DNA of this person and the king should be equal.

craig552uk• 13 years ago

We've put together a mini-site to further explain the history, archaeology and science of the discovery.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/

hudibras2• 13 years ago

The archaeology portion of this website makes for some exciting reading. Well done!

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/archaeology.html

mooze• 13 years ago

Now is an excellent time to be reading The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey.

Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are king's

Related Stories