Richard III discovered?

[mertle]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/bl...enet-king-live

seems its is him and some very interesting stuff come about the burial.

Buckley shows an image of the grave and an image of the skeleton. He says the hands may have been tied at the time of burial.

Makes me wondered was he alive before being bound raising questions was he murdered.

DNA been positively identified to the best they can

Geneticist Dr Turi King says both the individuals who helped with the DNA analysis are "the last of their line" – so in a generation this would not have been possible.
DNA analysis of the remains was difficult, but they did manage to get a sample of DNA to work with.
The DNA confirms this is a male.
She shows part of Michael Ibsen's DNA sequence, which verified the family tree Schürer set out.
There is a DNA match from the descendents of Richard III and the skeleton at Grey Friars.
The DNA evidence points to these being the remains of Richard III, she says.

What happens now. Was it common in those days to bound king chuck in unmarked grave.

Seems to me he may got wounded in battle bosworth. Whether those wounds was likely cause death who knows.

This definately adds more questions how and why was there fowl play involved in his death.

[denphone]

Yes as a follower of history this is indeed very fascinating as he was the last Plantagenet king of England.

Originally Posted by mertle

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/bl...enet-king-live

seems its is him and some very interesting stuff come about the burial.



Makes me wondered was he alive before being bound raising questions was he murdered.

DNA been positively identified to the best they can



What happens now. Was it common in those days to bound king chuck in unmarked grave.

Seems to me he may got wounded in battle bosworth. Whether those wounds was likely cause death who knows.

This definately adds more questions how and why was there fowl play involved in his death.

It was regicide at the hands of another Englishman, whether in battle or afterwards. Foul play is neither here nor there, really - though I have no doubt there will be endless reconstruction docu-dramas made of this for decades to come.

Originally Posted by mertle

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/bl...enet-king-live

seems its is him and some very interesting stuff come about the burial.



Makes me wondered was he alive before being bound raising questions was he murdered.

DNA been positively identified to the best they can



What happens now. Was it common in those days to bound king chuck in unmarked grave.

Seems to me he may got wounded in battle bosworth. Whether those wounds was likely cause death who knows.

This definately adds more questions how and why was there fowl play involved in his death.

it was a war people die Henry VI was a bit of a git so it would not be a surprise if Richard was killed after battle. A King in them days could do what he wanted so no matter how Richard died its not foul play its a casualty of war

[Uncle Peter]

Hopefully the scientists will see a willing volunteer come forward to provide a Y-DNA sample for completeness. They touched in this in not so many words in the press conference this morning. IIRC there are some living male descendents of the Plantagenets via an illegitimate relationship.

As it stands they have proved the link via two lines of descendency from Richard's sister: Anne of York.

[Chad]

The programme on Channel 4 tonight will be a great watch:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/r...n-the-car-park

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

the truth is there for those that can be bothered/ inclined to look for it, Shakespeare's hunchback wouldn't have been capable of what he did in battle.
.

I always wondered that,i also wonder if he was really the bad guy portrayed by Shakespeare ,given that Shakespeare lived under Elizabeth 1 (Tudor) who's family was responsible for ousting the Plantagenet dynasty from the throne so he couldn't really be seen to be bigging the ex King up any(even if it was the truth) could he or he could have found himself on the wrong end of an axe

Considering Richard was supposed to have a withered hand but the skeleton does not show any such deformity, I reckon we do need to rethink the Tudor propaganda about him.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Considering Richard was supposed to have a withered hand but the skeleton does not show any such deformity, I reckon we do need to rethink the Tudor propaganda about him.

Or just dismiss the propaganda, the only two Lancastrian nobles killed in that battle were by him and he very nearly did Henry tudor in to at the end. I have a lot of time for this much maligned figure regardless of his bad back and possible child killing.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by denphone

Archaeologists say skeleton belongs to King Richard III.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-the-king.html


Thats brilliant news.

Indeed it is.

[wwe]

Would Richard the 3rd not had have a Proper burial?

Originally Posted by wwe

Would Richard the 3rd not had have a Proper burial?

Dude, all of the questions you have asked today would be answered if you would only bother to read any of the news links that have already been posted in the thread. If you want to know why Richard III was buried in the way he was, then click this and spend a couple of minutes reading it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-19474848

[wwe]

Originally Posted by Chris

Dude, all of the questions you have asked today would be answered if you would only bother to read any of the news links that have already been posted in the thread. If you want to know why Richard III was buried in the way he was, then click this and spend a couple of minutes reading it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-19474848

I was just reading thought all the post. As this is very Interesting. Sorry

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Considering Richard was supposed to have a withered hand but the skeleton does not show any such deformity, I reckon we do need to rethink the Tudor propaganda about him.

Remember that history is often written by the victors and often portrays the loser in a negative light.

If any one here has seen the opening of Black adder 1 it say that history portrayed Richard III as an evil man who killed the princes, but he loved them and played games with them.

Whose not to say Black Adder was correct?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Dude, all of the questions you have asked today would be answered if you would only bother to read any of the news links that have already been posted in the thread. If you want to know why Richard III was buried in the way he was, then click this and spend a couple of minutes reading it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-19474848

Yeah, but a car park?