Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 14th, 2012, 12:51 AM   #41

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,016

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Paul View Post
1933 Sicknero ;-) ...
Thanks John Paul, I was just being lazy There's also a description at the bottom of this page - Edward V - the Princes in the Tower - of the 1933 examination.

Maybe the possible discovery of Richard III will give the Palace cause to rethink the bones in the urn, you never know.
Sicknero is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 14th, 2012, 03:56 AM   #42

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,897
Blog Entries: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
Thanks John Paul, I was just being lazy There's also a description at the bottom of this page - Edward V - the Princes in the Tower - of the 1933 examination.

Maybe the possible discovery of Richard III will give the Palace cause to rethink the bones in the urn, you never know.
They say they will find out if it's Richard or not early next year, but what ever those experts say so, I do not think they can find out if those bones are Richard's. I had mentioned this in the Richard III dig thread. Its to do with Radio data carbon from pre 1950. Those experts said when they first found those bones that they would have those results by last month and they seems like they having some sort of delay. I'm not that optimistic that they will tell us anything of the truth
Radiocarbon Date calculation

Even if it was possible to find out, I would not trust that information.
Crystal Rainbow is online now  
Old December 14th, 2012, 04:11 AM   #43

Clemmie's Avatar
Ye olde librarian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Florida
Posts: 3,357

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Rainbow View Post
I hope I don't come across as a know it all. I have seem some European accounts that Margaret Beaufort had some powerful people doing PR on Henry Tudor's behalf.
No you're not. I appreciate your sharing what you know.
Clemmie is offline  
Old December 14th, 2012, 04:18 AM   #44

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Rainbow View Post
They say they will find out if it's Richard or not early next year, but what ever those experts say so, I do not think they can find out if those bones are Richard's. I had mentioned this in the Richard III dig thread. Its to do with Radio data carbon from pre 1950. Those experts said when they first found those bones that they would have those results by last month and they seems like they having some sort of delay. I'm not that optimistic that they will tell us anything of the truth
Radiocarbon Date calculation

Even if it was possible to find out, I would not trust that information.
Good points, but carbon dating would only show the age anyway even if accurate, not the identity.
Sicknero is offline  
Old December 14th, 2012, 06:26 AM   #45
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 243

i must admit to being somewhat cautious about the DNA match - or not. the test is to see whether the bones recovered share mitocondrial DNA with some Canadian bloke and his mum - problem is that it only takes one clerical error in the family tree, or one drunken christmas party for this chap to not have the DNA link to the DNA stream he should have.

the science is sound - if they say its a match then its a match (it being fabulously unlikely that this chap has a relative buried in Leicester Abbey, at the right time, with the right physicality, but who isn't Richard III), but i'm worried that a 'no, its not Richard' result is not based on who the remains belong to, its who the tester thinks this Canadian bloke is...

i don't know as much about DNA transmission as i'd like - could those who do explain whether, while the mitrocondial DNA only transmits through the mother, other DNA from anyone related to Elizabeth of York, or Margart Pole, or anyone from the York family could tell, if not exactly who the remains belong to, at least if they have York DNA?

even if there's no specific DNA match, a 'York' buried in the Choir of the Abbey, with the right skeletal markers, and at the right date is going to make the list possible owners a pretty short one...
Dried Fruit is offline  
Old December 15th, 2012, 01:44 PM   #46

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,897
Blog Entries: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dried Fruit View Post
i must admit to being somewhat cautious about the DNA match - or not. the test is to see whether the bones recovered share mitocondrial DNA with some Canadian bloke and his mum - problem is that it only takes one clerical error in the family tree, or one drunken christmas party for this chap to not have the DNA link to the DNA stream he should have.

the science is sound - if they say its a match then its a match (it being fabulously unlikely that this chap has a relative buried in Leicester Abbey, at the right time, with the right physicality, but who isn't Richard III), but i'm worried that a 'no, its not Richard' result is not based on who the remains belong to, its who the tester thinks this Canadian bloke is...

i don't know as much about DNA transmission as i'd like - could those who do explain whether, while the mitrocondial DNA only transmits through the mother, other DNA from anyone related to Elizabeth of York, or Margart Pole, or anyone from the York family could tell, if not exactly who the remains belong to, at least if they have York DNA?

even if there's no specific DNA match, a 'York' buried in the Choir of the Abbey, with the right skeletal markers, and at the right date is going to make the list possible owners a pretty short one...
I share your concerns and reservations as well.
Crystal Rainbow is online now  
Old December 15th, 2012, 04:55 PM   #47

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dried Fruit View Post
i must admit to being somewhat cautious about the DNA match - or not. the test is to see whether the bones recovered share mitocondrial DNA with some Canadian bloke and his mum - problem is that it only takes one clerical error in the family tree, or one drunken christmas party for this chap to not have the DNA link to the DNA stream he should have.
The DNA link is through the female line, so who the fathers are is irrelevant.
Fiver is offline  
Old December 19th, 2012, 09:35 AM   #48
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,749

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dried Fruit View Post
i must admit to being somewhat cautious about the DNA match - or not. the test is to see whether the bones recovered share mitocondrial DNA with some Canadian bloke and his mum - problem is that it only takes one clerical error in the family tree, or one drunken christmas party for this chap to not have the DNA link to the DNA stream he should have.

the science is sound - if they say its a match then its a match (it being fabulously unlikely that this chap has a relative buried in Leicester Abbey, at the right time, with the right physicality, but who isn't Richard III), but i'm worried that a 'no, its not Richard' result is not based on who the remains belong to, its who the tester thinks this Canadian bloke is...

i don't know as much about DNA transmission as i'd like - could those who do explain whether, while the mitrocondial DNA only transmits through the mother, other DNA from anyone related to Elizabeth of York, or Margart Pole, or anyone from the York family could tell, if not exactly who the remains belong to, at least if they have York DNA?

even if there's no specific DNA match, a 'York' buried in the Choir of the Abbey, with the right skeletal markers, and at the right date is going to make the list possible owners a pretty short one...
Experts believe they should accurately be able to determine within an 80-year range of when the individual uncovered died.

“We are looking at many different lines of enquiry, the evidence from which all add up to give us more assurance about the identity of the individual. As well as the DNA testing, we have to take in all of the other pieces of evidence which tell us about the person’s lifestyle – including his health and where he grew up," said Richard Buckley, Lead Archeologist, of the University of Leicester’s Archaeological Services.

“There are many specialists involved in the process, and so we have to coordinate all of the tests so the analysis is done in a specific order," Buckley explained. "The ancient DNA testing in particular takes time and we need to work in partnership with specialist facilities. It is not like in CSI, where DNA testing can be done almost immediately, anywhere – we are reliant on the specialist process and facilities to successfully extract ancient DNA.”

Read more: The search for King Richard III: Test results expected in January

***************************

Dr Turi King, leading the DNA analysis and academic in the University's Department of Genetics:

In terms of what happens next, our plan has been to extract DNA from the skeletal material and compare the DNA with a known living relative of Richard III and see if it matches. Discussions are underway to enable this. In reality this will be a long process.

In the first instance we will be hoping that we can extract mitochondrial DNA of sufficient quality to be able to sequence it. Mitochondrial DNA is the piece of DNA of choice for this particular project for two reasons. Mitochondrial DNA is found in hundreds to thousands of copies in our cells so it's mitochondrial DNA that is the easiest to retrieve from ancient material. Whether we will be able to retrieve any DNA depends on the conditions of the burial - cold and dry is best for DNA preservation.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed down through the female line (in the ovum). As it's being copied to be passed down through the generations, little typos happen in the DNA sequence such that not everyone has the same mtDNA type. Siblings will all have the same mtDNA type that their mother gave them, which is the mtDNA that her mother gave her. Daughters will pass on their mtDNA type but sons will not. This means that if we have any female-line relatives we can test them to see if they match one another. Fortunately, we have this in the form of Michael Ibsen whose genealogy –it has been claimed -makes him the 17th great grand-nephew of Richard III. We hope to use the latest technologies to sequence the DNA from these skeletal remains and compare them with those of Michael Ibsen to see if the results are consistent with them being related.

Needless to say this is an extremely exciting project to be involved with and I'm very hopeful that we can bring DNA evidence to bear on the question as to whether or not this is indeed Richard III.

******************************

Dr Jo Appleby, Lecturer in Human Bioarchaeology in the University's School of Archaeology and Ancient History

It was evident during the process of excavation that the skeleton exhibited several pathological features. The skull had a minimum of two injuries. The first was a small penetrating wound to the top of the head that had dislodged two small flaps of bone on the skull interior. The second was a much larger wound to the occipital bone (or base of the skull): a slice had been cut off the skull at the side and back. This is consistent with a bladed implement of some sort, but further laboratory-based analysis of the bones once clean will be needed to fully understand the nature of this injury. It should be noted that this did not cut through the neck and that the skull was still in its correct anatomical position when excavated. In addition to the injuries to the skull, there was evidence of an abnormality of the spinal column. This took the form of scoliosis, or a major sideways 'kink' in the area of the ribcage. A small piece of iron (as yet unidentified) was recovered behind and between two vertebrae towards the top of the ribcage.

The skeleton itself was mostly complete, although the feet had been destroyed at an unknown point in the past. The condition of the bone is moderately good. From the position of the bones on excavation it is possible to see that the body has not been moved, and it appears that it was originally buried in a shroud, although no physical traces of this remain.

Of course, we don't know that we've found Richard: he is not the only individual in history to have had scoliosis and not the only medieval man to have received head injuries. We won't be able to be certain until DNA analysis has been carried out, and perhaps not even then. What we do know is that we have excavated the skeleton of a man who bears a close resemblance to the historical accounts that we have been given of Richard and this is hugely exciting.
********************************

Dr Sarah Knight and Dr Mary Ann Lund, scholars of C16 & C17 English literature and academic in the University's School of English, on why the Tudors appear to have been right in describing Richard III as looking like a hunchback:

The Tudor historians Thomas More, Polydore Vergil, Edward Hall and Raphael Holinshed wrote highly critical accounts of Richard III: for More, he was 'ill fetured of limmes, croke backed, his left shoulder much higher then his right', and Holinshed also mentions that he was 'of a readie, pregnant, and quicke wit'. Shakespeare wove these sources into his charismatic anti-hero who plots, seduces and murders his way to the crown, boasting that 'I am determined to prove a villain'. This find could make us re-assess the Richard III bequeathed to us by Tudor historians and dramatists and look again at their narratives in the light of the material remains.

King Richard III search in new phase after 'discovery has potential to rewrite history'

Last edited by Brunel; December 19th, 2012 at 09:44 AM.
Brunel is offline  
Old December 19th, 2012, 11:06 AM   #49

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,897
Blog Entries: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dried Fruit View Post
i must admit to being somewhat cautious about the DNA match - or not. the test is to see whether the bones recovered share mitocondrial DNA with some Canadian bloke and his mum - problem is that it only takes one clerical error in the family tree, or one drunken christmas party for this chap to not have the DNA link to the DNA stream he should have.

the science is sound - if they say its a match then its a match (it being fabulously unlikely that this chap has a relative buried in Leicester Abbey, at the right time, with the right physicality, but who isn't Richard III), but i'm worried that a 'no, its not Richard' result is not based on who the remains belong to, its who the tester thinks this Canadian bloke is...

i don't know as much about DNA transmission as i'd like - could those who do explain whether, while the mitrocondial DNA only transmits through the mother, other DNA from anyone related to Elizabeth of York, or Margart Pole, or anyone from the York family could tell, if not exactly who the remains belong to, at least if they have York DNA?

even if there's no specific DNA match, a 'York' buried in the Choir of the Abbey, with the right skeletal markers, and at the right date is going to make the list possible owners a pretty short one...
I do share your concerns.
Crystal Rainbow is online now  
Old December 19th, 2012, 02:06 PM   #50

SPERRO's Avatar
Ex Cold War Warrior
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: North East England
Posts: 3,319

Time to own up.

AS A LONG TERM BELIEVER IN THE RICHARD III/ ROYAL PRINCES MURDER SCENARIO, I AM NOW WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT HENRY VII MIGHT,JUST MIGHT BE RESPONSIBLE.

Now thats off my chest, i can honestly say that my years of sleepless nights are over because, either way, they were both murdered to deny their birthright, and we will still be none the wiser
SPERRO is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
princes, tower


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Princes in the Tower Tudor chick Medieval and Byzantine History 78 November 21st, 2013 03:48 PM
Who killed the Princes in the Tower? Bismarck European History 90 March 15th, 2013 05:06 PM
The Tower of London popstar21 General History 18 September 8th, 2011 03:11 AM
What happened to the princes in the tower Crystal Rainbow Medieval and Byzantine History 124 August 11th, 2011 08:20 AM
Princes in the Tower Crystal Rainbow Medieval and Byzantine History 40 March 15th, 2011 08:10 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.