To be Richard III or not to be Richard III?
So Professor Michael Hicks is of the view that the male Greyfriars skeleton is possibly not the remains of Richard III. Well, apart from the precise location in which he was recorded as being buried, the exact mitochondrial DNA match (and we don’t even know his great-great-grandmother), the scoliosis, the age at death and era in which he lived together with the dietary evidence, there is nothing to contradict him.
Still, this is the same Hicks who dropped hints of paedophilia against Richard over his marriage to Anne – they were about twenty and sixteen when the ages of consent were fourteen and twelve, whilst she was already a widow – and the “passion” for the illegitimate Elizabeth of York that no impartial writer would credit, coinciding with Richard’s proven negotiations to marry a Portuguese princess. The same Hicks who wrote that Richard and Anne had insufficient dispensations for a valid marriage, before Barnfield holed him below the waterline on that one. The same Hicks who takes every posthumous gossip or spin against Richard as gospel whilst other historians seek original sources. It is approaching a monomania because his views on any Richard-free topic are quite reliable.
His alternative lacks any credibility because there was only one “Roses” battle so close to Leicester. How ever many of Joan Beaufort’s descendants fought from 1455-87, if they were descended partially in the male line they will have different mtDNA and if they died at Wakefield or St. Alban’s, they would not be buried in the Leicester Greyfriars. Most of Richard’s maternal first cousins were much older.