“….Dr. Willerslev said it was possible, for example, that the methodology could help solve one of England’s most confounding cold cases: the fate of the two young nephews of Richard III, who was accused of ordering them killed so he could assume the throne in 1483. The boys disappeared that year….”
I won’t quibble about the wording – Richard certainly didn’t need them dead in order to assume the throne – he had every right to the crown and they didn’t.
And I wonder about any direct descendants of Henry V. Is there any record of him having illegitimate children? Perhaps in his wild youth as Prince Hal….? But then, his known legitimate son, Henry VI, supposedly fathered Edward of Westminster (it’s debatable where Henry VI had anything to do with Edward’s conception) who died at the Battle of Tewkesbury in1471. Did Edward father anyone? Another thing, I suppose, is that Henry Tudor claimed to be the heir of the House of Lancaster, and he certainly fathered children through Elizabeth of York. But how much truly Lancastrian blood did Tudor and his descendants possess? He didn’t claim the throne by right of blood, but by right of conquest. Same with Henry IV before him. Choosing the wording was something that had to be approached with great delicacy. Neither Henry IV nor Tudor had a right to the throne, they took it by force.
Anyway, the article is interesting.