BBC News: Richard III found!

[Guest Anonymous]

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

I did a double take when I saw the headline on the telly. How exciting! :D

[OkToBeTakei]

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

I did a double take when I saw the headline on the telly. How exciting! :D

I heard this in the car. I thought it was a joke at first. Pretty cool!

[Irishy]

This is remarkable. I keep thinking how far we have come with science. It's just wow.

[Guest Anonymous]

I heard this in the car. I thought it was a joke at first. Pretty cool!

And how fab if you are studying that period in history lessons right now. The most exciting thing we got to discuss when studying the monarchy in school was whether we thought Charles and Di had ever been in love. :lol: DNA analysis was not a thing that factored into history lessons. Science did not cross over in anything like the same way.

[DrPusey]

And one other remarkable thing, according to the BBC article, is that they found someone at the right moment with the right DNA marker to confirm Richard's identity. That particular marker only descends through the female line, and the Canadian family whom they found to test it doesn't have any more daughters to carry on the line. So if the body had been found in another thirty years or so, there wouldn't have been any descendants left to test.

[StacyW]

I read the subject line too quickly and at first I thought this was referring to the princes in the tower. I'd rather have then found.

[Claddagh]

I heard about that on the news.

It's really facinating!

[crazyforkate]

That is a really neat story. Amazing the things we can do with DNA these days. I know several countries have identified their Unknown Soldiers from it (from the World Wars), but to identify someone who lived many centuries ago? Unbelievable.

[laura oz]

Thank you so much for posting this. I'm American but have always been fascinated by English history and this is just too cool. Thanks again :D

[ADoyle90815]

I'm also an American who is into history, especially British history, so this discovery is really interesting.

[Bethella]

I read the subject line too quickly and at first I thought this was referring to the princes in the tower. I'd rather have then found.

Well they did find two skeletons at the Tower of London- from Wikipedia

In 1674, the skeletons of two children were discovered under the staircase leading to the chapel, during the course of renovations to the White Tower. At that time, these were believed to have been the remains of the two princes, and on the orders of Charles II the remains were reburied in Westminster Abbey. In 1933, the grave was opened to see if modern science could cast any light on the issues, and the skeletons were determined to be those of two young children, one aged around seven to eleven and the other around eleven to thirteen.

I wonder if they will do any DNA testing on these skeletons now that they have Richard's DNA (and the other DNA used to confirm his identity) to see if they really are the missing princes. And it would be interesting to have a modern anthropologist/osteo-archaeologist look at the skeletons to determine more about them and how they died.

[redhotmess]

I really hope they do, do DNA testing on the two children that were found. I love history and especially royal English history. This is all so fascinating.

[Jhirun]

They've done a facial reconstruction of Richard based on the CT scans:

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-richard-ii ... years.html

Has anyone else read Josephine Tey's 'Daughter of Time' about who was responsible for the death of the Princes in the Tower? It's very interesting and well researched.

[StacyW]

They've done a facial reconstruction of Richard based on the CT scans:

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-richard-ii ... years.html

Has anyone else read Josephine Tey's 'Daughter of Time' about who was responsible for the death of the Princes in the Tower? It's very interesting and well researched.

I read Daughter of Time when I was a kid. It was the first I'd heard of the princes in the tower.

[Izzybee]

I was interested to see that the skeleton did indeed have signs of scoliosis with one shoulder much higher than the other. I had been told for ages that the "hunchback" thing was myth to make him appear more evil.

[Mela99]

If there is a place with more interesting history, I have yet to find it. Love England. I also wonder if they will test the bodies of the two little boys now. Anybody know offhand where they are buried?

[Loveday]

If there is a place with more interesting history, I have yet to find it. Love England. I also wonder if they will test the bodies of the two little boys now. Anybody know offhand where they are buried?

According to some news source I read this week (can't remember where, I've been reading a lot on the Richard III story!), they're buried at Westminster Abbey, in an urn designed by Sir Christopher Wren. And apparently there will be no DNA testing as the Church of England has said no, and the Queen has backed them up. I can understand why they don't want to suddenly start testing bones all over the country, but in this particular case, I really wish they would.

ETA that Bethella above already answered the question of where they were buried; I missed that in scanning this thread. :oops:

[turquoise]

I see a resemblance between the reconstruction and his descendant, especially in the shape of the mouth and the jaw. The whole story is amazing.

[wildflower]

I'm actually struck by the fact that the facial reconstruction bears a resemblance to Olivier in his portrayal of Richard III. Wishful thinking on the part of the artist? As a longtime fan of Richard III (he was framed!!!), I am ridiculously excited by this and have been torturing family/friends/acquaintances for the past few days.

[NeonJungle]

I was fascinated in reading news accounts about this! Amazing.