Although Richard was found in Leicester five years ago, exactly where he was buried, and Henry I is close to being identified in Reading, Kingfinding is not always successful. As this blog shows, the 1965 excavation of the Faversham Abbey site to find King Stephen was unsuccessful.
It seems that his bones really were moved during the Reformation. Sometimes, there is truth in such a legend.
The following link arrived in my box this morning.https://figshare.com/…/Richard_III_The_Livingstons_…/4764886 I quote:
“18.03.2017, 07:26 by John Smith
“A skeleton excavated at the presumed site of the Grey Friars friary in Leicester in 2012 is almost certainly that of the English king, Richard III (1452 -1485), and mtDNA (which is passed from mother to child) extracted from the skeleton matches mtDNA taken from descendants of Richard’s sister Anne of York. However Y-DNA (which is passed from father to son) extracted from the skeleton apparently doesn’t match Y-DNA taken from descendants of Henry Somerset the 5th Duke Of Beaufort, who according to history descended from Richard’s 2nd great grandfather Edward III (1312 – 1377).
“The implication according to geneticists, and the media, is that there is a ‘false paternity event’ somewhere between Edward and the Somersets. Also, the false paternity events don’t end there, for only 4 of these 5 Somerset descendants match each other. And it may be worse even than this: the patrilineal line of a Frenchman named Patrice de Warren apparently traces back to Richard III through the illegitimate son of Edward III’s 4th great grandfather, Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou (1113 – 1151).
“But de Warren’s Y-DNA doesn’t match that of either Richard III or any of the Somersets. In this note, a formula for calculating the time of the most recent common ancestor is introduced, and some of its consequences outlined. This formula arises from a mathematical framework within which it is possible that the traditional genealogy is correct, and that Geoffrey Plantagenet was the father of a male line incorporating Richard III, all 5 Somersets, and Patrice de Warren.”
Me again: The above prompted me to look back at some of the articles that abounded in 2015, when discussion about Richard’s DNA was rife. I selected the following, if only because of the eye-catching family tree:-
I suppose it was only a matter of time before ‘they’ made a link between Richard and Jack the Ripper. Nay, I jest! The articles below concern a search for the grave of one of the Ripper’s victim. And who is searching? Why, the same experts/scientists who found Richard. (Or should I say ‘helped to find’ Richard?) Writer Patricia Cornwell is funding the exercise.
The heights of the two younger York brothers has always been a mystery. Richard III had always been regarded as the smallest brother, both in height and build, and then Dr John Ashdown-Hill put forward his belief that the middle brother, George, Duke of Clarence, was the shortest brother. Read on….
Lance Corporal Jones – Dad’s Army – referring to his trusty bayonet.
When someone on a Ricardian group mentioned that John Ashdown-Hill was receiving a right bashing on the BBC History Magazine page, I and a few other intrepid Ricardian souls..you know who you are..trundled over there to take up the cudgel on said author’s behalf. It felt a bit like:-
and I for one certainly felt like:-
However, it turned out more like:
Insults rained down thick and fast..I haven’t had so much fun for a long time..it was hilarious and I thought I would never start laughing…but our little band held on steadfastly, ignoring the couple of sly digs made about Ricardians by the One who seems to be leader of the Cairo Dwellers..its not the first time we have been likened to fruit loops and we now take it in our stride.
When one of the Cairo Dwellers asked “Where is this ‘wealth of clear contemporary evidence?’ ” I pointed out to her there were “44 pages of notes and 11 pages of bibliography in the book” to which she replied “all I am asking is for citations”..mantra like..I then knew it wasn’t going to be the
I first envisaged but more like wading through a bowl of porridge and I rapidly begun to lose the will to live.
Insults such as “piffle”, “what tosh”, “utter nonsense IMO”, “Total Rubbish” “eyes rolling”?? etc., rained down hard and fast but were quickly batted away by Doughty Ricardian No.1. who informed them that the said author of the ” well researched article was a proper, qualified historian, with an open mind and a record of success”. Counter claims that Weir was the bestest historian since sliced bread..not the exact words but you get my drift..were swiftly tossed to one side by Doughty Ricardian No.2. who reminded them that it was Weir who was the ” ‘impartial’ person with the pink Henry VII Christmas ornament and cat memes saying ‘me no like Richard’ “..well.. it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in her being a good historian does it … or even a historian..and I use the term loosely.
The Cairo Dweller One who seems to be held in esteem by the other Cairoleans (I have made that word up..I hope it passes muster)..opined that “Richard did, indeed, probably murder his nephews”..I pointed out that to use the words ” did, indeed, probably” together made no sense and was illogical. He said I was a ‘little obsessed’ with the word ‘illogical’ but as it was he who looked the word up in his dictionary I felt that was a little bit of pot calling the kettle black. At that stage I think things began to feel a little surreal and I decided to go and do something more useful with my time. I believe they are still telling me off at this very moment. Oh well.
A great time was had, but, having said that, I don’t feel like I will be returning there any time soon…now.. where did I leave my
One thing of which we can be certain is that Richard III never played snooker. It was not invented until 1875 in Jabalpur by a Colonel Chamberlain (1). Nevertheless, it is an excellent vehicle for demonstrating the laws of probability with particular reference to the descent of the Plantagenet Y-chromosome from Edward III.
Imagine that you have walked into a snooker club where a member lends you four white balls and fifteen reds, the white balls obviously from more than one set, but in a drawstring bag. The cue balls represent the paternal links from Edward III to Richard III and the reds represent the descent from Edward III to Henry, 5th Duke of Beaufort (2). We already know that the 5th Duke’s living putative descendants have a different Y-haplogroup to Richard III, indicating that there is at least one “false paternity event” in one or both lines, but “Somerset 3” has a different Y-chromosome to his putative cousins, showing that another such has occurred at some time since 1760.
The bag is now held towards you and you are invited to insert your hand and withdraw a ball but you cannot discern its colour until you are holding it outside the bag – we are assuming randomness a priori. The probability of one random ball being red is 15/19 or approximately 79%. If you withdrew two balls, the probability of both being red is 15×14/19×18 or about 61%. The probability of three balls all being red is 15x14x13/19x18x17 or about 47%.
The probability of any paternal link in these chains being false is the same as stated above. We only know that there is one such event and it is 79% likely to have been in the descent to the 5th Duke but 21% to Richard. We cannot yet assume there to be more than one broken link in either chain and it would take three “milkmen” for the red ball (Beaufort) probability to fall below 50% and for a York false paternity event to be probable.
“A breakthrough in the search for Richard III’s remains was the fact that Dr Ashdown-Hill, who is a genealogist as well as historian, had used DNA science to trace a descendant of the king – Mrs Joy Ibsen who lived in Canada.
“He is now using that DNA sequencing to dispel the centuries-old myths surrounding the fate of the Princes in the Tower. Are the ‘bones in the urn’ in Westminster Abbey really those of the young princes? Dr Ashdown-Hill tempted students with the news that new evidence could be revealed later in the year.”
How exciting! I do not know what the news might be, but it seems that Dr Ashdown-Hill has something intriguing up his capacious sleeve, or so he has hinted in a talk at Brentwood School. Has he discovered something that might, at last, lead to the identification of the bones in the urn in Westminster Abbey?
We can but wait!
Leicester Cathedral and its project supporters (angels?) have done something wonderful and generous: they have digitized Richard III’s “Book of Hours” and posted it on the cathedral’s website.
What’s so wonderful and generous about that?
A Live Science article announced the digitization. Go thou and devour the beautiful tome Richard used (perhaps both before and after he was king), the Book of Hours he left behind in his tent before the Battle of Bosworth. Margaret Beaufort ended up with the book, as her husband ended up with the tent’s tapestries. Beaufort subsequently gave Richard’s book away.
Pages are missing from it — removed perhaps after the Reformation, as prayers to saints were involved. It is a miracle the book survived at all. It is a second miracle that the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Richard III Society, and the University of Leicester financially supported this project. A third miracle is that Richard’s personal prayer-book is now available to the world.