A great site

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.

Single Post Navigation

2 thoughts on “To be Richard III or not to be Richard III?

  1. To say nothing of the fact that even if, as old legends said, Richard’s bones had been thrown into the river, there would have been a nice big hole still sitting there in the choir at Greyfriars, waiting to be found by the archaeologists. Holes and pits, even infilled, can last thousands of years in the archaeological record.
    Or is Hicks saying that Richard was never buried there at all? In that case, surely Prof Hicks must start revising all his theories, as it would show the Tudor chroniclers to be outright liars, and then nothing they ever wrote about Richard can be taken seriously at all.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’ll just leave this here: Hicks didn’t run the numbers. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have said anything about the mtDNA.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: