Author Topic: Richard III and DNA testing  (Read 29297 times)

Offline davidft

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,209
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and DNA testing
« Reply #99 on: Monday 04 February 13 23:35 GMT (UK) »
they did a webchat on Channel 4 after the programme but it was pretty insipid and they weren't taking any questions that weren't of the "Isn't Richard great variety". Shame really as if they had been more open in their questions they might of had more of a discussion
James Stott c1775-1850. James was born in Yorkshire but where? He was a stonemason and married Elizabeth Archer (nee Nicholson) in 1794 at Ripon. They lived thereafter in Masham. If anyone has any suggestions or leads as to his birthplace I would be interested to know. I have searched for it for years without success. Thank you.

Offline LizzieW

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,959
  • I'm nearer to finding out who you are thanks DNA
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and DNA testing
« Reply #100 on: Monday 04 February 13 23:40 GMT (UK) »
Quote
"Two members of the university chaplaincy’s staff, one of them in the black-and-red robes of a Roman Catholic priest, sat beside the remains as reporters filed by, adding to the air of solemnity and reverence."

Erato - I've not read or heard anything about that in our media.  Has anyone else?  I didn't watch the programme this morning, although I watched the one on Channel 4 tonight and there was nothing about chaplain staff, one of them in black and red robes.

Offline XPhile2868

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,128
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and DNA testing
« Reply #101 on: Monday 04 February 13 23:41 GMT (UK) »


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21328380

He looks like a much warmer version of the paintings, in my opinion.

Stephen :)
Smith (Lancashire), McKenna (Ireland/Liverpool/Leyland), Maynard (Hertfordshire/London/Preston), Ricketts (Gloucestershire/Wigan/Preston), Scowcroft (Preston), Harling (N. Yorkshire/Lancashire), Willis (Preston), Clegg (Manchester/Preston), Dodd (Wigan/Cheshire), Alston (Lancashire), Hulks (Hertfordshire), Nicholson (Lancashire/Cumbria), Russell (Lancashire), Wilson (Cumbria), Bracewell (Lancashire), Moxham (Lancashire0

Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline mlrfn448

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and DNA testing
« Reply #102 on: Monday 04 February 13 23:43 GMT (UK) »
From what I understand there is a continuous line of MALE descent to the Duke of Somerset, but male dna is harder to extract, and if there was no match, one might assume there was an illegitimate birth along the way. (obviously not from R III, who had no living descendants)
I am not aware of whether this test has been undertaken as well as the mtDNA. (in the TV program, it was revealed they also had a lock of hair from one of the plantanganets, but they were unable to extract the dna from it)
The original genealogy to trace Joy Ibsen was done in 2004, and took about 2 years, and was not undertaken with this recent dig in mind.
Since the discovery of the skeleton, Leicester University have traced another person for the mt DNA, and well as Joy Ibsen's son, Michael Ibsen.
To be honest, I really thought they were going to say it was inconclusive, so I was delighted to hear the dna tests gave a positive result.

Regards


Offline davidft

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,209
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and DNA testing
« Reply #103 on: Monday 04 February 13 23:49 GMT (UK) »
From what I understand there is a continuous line of MALE descent to the Duke of Somerset, but male dna is harder to extract, and if there was no match,............

the team have actually done three DNA tests and all show a match. There is Michael Ibsen's and another one that are down the female line and then there is one that goes down the male line to the Dukes of Beaufortg as they and Richard III are both descendants of Edward III
James Stott c1775-1850. James was born in Yorkshire but where? He was a stonemason and married Elizabeth Archer (nee Nicholson) in 1794 at Ripon. They lived thereafter in Masham. If anyone has any suggestions or leads as to his birthplace I would be interested to know. I have searched for it for years without success. Thank you.

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,199
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and DNA testing
« Reply #104 on: Monday 04 February 13 23:50 GMT (UK) »
Can anyone tell me what are the plans for the site if the discovery? Will more of the car park be excavated?

Apparently the Council have already bought a nearby building to be used as a future visitor centre

Thank you David. I felt certain that something would be set up 'on the spot'. I think they should keep digging to unearth more of the building where he was found and perhaps reinter a model of the skeleton exactly as it was found. THis would put the discovery in (physical) context and the tourists would flock to see it.  ;D
I think I should work for Leicester Council. 8)


"Two members of the university chaplaincy’s staff, one of them in the black-and-red robes of a Roman Catholic priest, sat beside the remains as reporters filed by, adding to the air of solemnity and reverence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-the-third-bones.html?_r=0

It seems a bit over the top.  Human remains are removed from archaeological sites every day of the week without such pious hoopla.  I've seen quite a few myself.  True they probably weren't kings and they definitely weren't Christians but they were treated as human beings deserving of respect.  Still, there was never any requirement to remain silent in their presence or to station clergymen around the work table where they were laid out.

Erato, I completely agree. I can't stand this kind of mawkishness. Not sure I'd like to see too much pomp and ceremony with the burial.

I expect we will also see him intered in a full size coffin too .... why?

And ... is it wrong of me to prefer him to be on display rather than reburied? Probably.

Offline LizzieW

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,959
  • I'm nearer to finding out who you are thanks DNA
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and DNA testing
« Reply #105 on: Monday 04 February 13 23:54 GMT (UK) »
I've done a google search and the only reference as reported  by Erato 
Quote
The sense of an important watershed in Britain’s royal story was underscored when reporters were escorted to a viewing of the skeletal remains, laid out in a locked room on the third floor of the university’s library, lying on a black velvet cushion inside a glass case.

No cameras were permitted, in accordance with an agreement reached with Britain’s Justice Ministry when it issued a permit for the skeleton’s exhumation, and, university officials said, with the dignity due to a king.
seems to be in American press.

This report about no cameras being permitted, etc. etc. is a load of rubbish.  Cameras were there at the dig, at the time the bones were put in plastic bags and into a cardboard box.  They were there frequently in the lab, and when the body was put through an MRI scanner, so what difference would it make if journalists saw the remains, even if they had to look through glass to do it and why would it need chaplain staff sitting nearby.  There were no members of the chaplain staff in the labs.


Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,199
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and DNA testing
« Reply #106 on: Monday 04 February 13 23:58 GMT (UK) »
I've done a google search and the only reference as reported  by Erato 
Quote
The sense of an important watershed in Britain’s royal story was underscored when reporters were escorted to a viewing of the skeletal remains, laid out in a locked room on the third floor of the university’s library, lying on a black velvet cushion inside a glass case.

\
seems to be in American press.

\

That's a relief.

So it seems that they knew that the skeleton was Richard III some time ago. Enough time to create the reconstruction, make the TV programmes  .... enough time to get the PR wheels in motion to take greatest advantage of this. Understandable I suppose. The hundreds of people involved in this must have been sworn to secrecy until the official 'reveal'.  :)

Online Erato

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,811
  • Old Powder House, 1703
    • View Profile
Re: Richard III and DNA testing
« Reply #107 on: Tuesday 05 February 13 00:04 GMT (UK) »
"I completely agree. I can't stand this kind of mawkishness."

It's not just the mawkishness.  They've had, probably, hundreds of excavated human skeletons go through their lab but the others were just regular British peasants and were consequently treated as specimens.  No one felt there was any need for a clerical honor guard until they got the body of a king.
Wiltshire:  Banks, Taylor
Somerset:  Duddridge, Richards, Barnard, Pillinger
Gloucestershire:  Barnard, Marsh, Crossman
Bristol:  Banks, Duddridge, Barnard
Down:  Ennis, McGee
Wicklow:  Chapman, Pepper
Wigtownshire:  Logan, Conning
Wisconsin:  Ennis, Chapman, Logan, Ware
Maine:  Ware, Mitchell, Tarr, Davis