murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the category “Science”

Rei(g)ned in?

I don’t know how to tell you this but Dan Jones has made further appearances on our television screens this spring. Thankfully, both C5 three-part series have featured him as a sidekick to Suzannah Lipscomb, so his prejudices against various monarchs have had little exercise.
The first of these was about Elizabeth I, featured Lily Cole so the make-up bill was probably limited to a tin or two of Cuprinol. It covered Elizabeth’s life quite well although I learned much less than their series on Henry VIII.
The second series moved on to the Great Fire of London and Jones must be annoyed that he couldn’t vent his theory that Richard III came back to life and carelessly discarded a cigarette butt. By including Rob Bell, an engineer who explained the scientific details of the fire and its effects, in the presentation team makes it much more of a team affair and there was a lot more informative detail from that momentous week. Perhaps it could have been made nine months earlier and broadcast on the 350th anniversary?

 

Dunwich: Britain’s Medieval Atlantis….

Beach at Dunwich

This article by the Daily Mail is very interesting. I am always spooked by the thought of sunken towns and villages, ghostly church bells tolling mournfully beneath the waves and so on, but this is much more scientific than my over-active imagination.

Well worth reading.

 

‘RECENT INVESTIGATIONS REGARDING THE FATE OF THE PRINCES IN THE TOWER’ by L E Tanner and William Wright 1933

IMG_3896.JPG

Interior view of the Henry Vll Chapel by Giovanni Canaletto.  Henry’s tomb can be seen in the distance with the chapel housing the urn to the left.Tanner,-L.E.-after-Maundy-service-72.jpg

Lawrence E Tanner Keeper of the Muniments (1926-66)  Librarian, Westminster Abbey

Who could blame anyone, after reading Tanner and Wright’s report of their investigation into the infamous bones in the urn in the Henry Vll Chapel in Westminster Abbey,  for concluding that both the gentleman may have believed the bones in the urn were, indeed, those of Edward’s IVs sons, Edward Prince of Wales  and Richard of Shrewsbury.  Tanner was Keeper of the Muniments and Librarian of Westminster Abbey while Wright was a distinguished anatomist and president of the Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland.  Wright was assisted thoughout the investigation by Dr George Northcroft, a dental surgeon of wide experience especially in the dentition of children.

Tanner explains in his book – Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary –  that in July, 1933,  in an attempt to solve the questions and allegations that the urn was either empty or contained animal bones and not human bones,  the then  Dean of Westminster, Dr Foxley Norris, although not without considerable hesitation,  determined to have the urn opened.  This was done on the evening of 5 July by the Clerk of the Works and the urn then covered with a white tablecloth until the next day.  At 9 a.m. on July 6 1933 , with various dignitaries  present,  the cloth was removed, and voila!, the urn was to be seen full of bones.  On the examination commencing  ‘it soon became apparent that these bones were those of two children of about the right age for the Princes.    Parts of two skulls, two jawbones, two thigh bones were seen to be there and the thigh bones when placed side by side, demonstrated  that one was longer than the other'(1).  It was then decided that the matter ought to be pursued further and the chapel was closed so that Prof Wright, aided by Dr Northcroft, could work there undisturbed.  Lawrence Tanner was entrusted with the ‘historical’ side of the investigation, that  of  determining the ages of the ‘princes’.

Princes-in-the-Tower-Urn.jpg

Urn designed by Sir Christopher Wren to contain the bones of the two children

It  would seem that Prof Wright was on something of a roll, as they, say, concluding that from the evidence he saw, the bones were those of children of the same age as the princes and, besides that, he had ‘no doubt’  that the red/brown stain on the face of elder child ‘was a blood stain such as would have been caused by suffocation,  which is well known to be associated with intense congestion of the face…which of course  corresponds to the traditional account of the murders (2).  Before long Prof Wright is addressing the bones as Edward and Richard!  He opined ‘As to what happened after their death no-one can say, but I imagine that when placed in the elm chest in which they were found, Edward lay at the bottom on his back with a slight tilt to the left, that Richard lay above him face to face, and that when the chest was discovered in the 17th century the workmen broke into it from above and near its middle.  I am led to these conclusions from the fact that there was far more of Edward’s skeleton present than that of Richard’s, since presumably lying deeper it was less disturbed…ribs..no less than six have been found, and that of these,  three were of the left side and belonged to Edward and three of the right side belonged to Richard…and that similarly only the left clavicle of Edward and the right clavicle of Richard were present, strongly suggesting that the left shoulder of Edward had been in close contact with the right shoulder of Richard…’ …need I go on?

FullSizeRender.jpg

 Skulls of the  two children in the Urn..

FullSizeRender 2.jpg Lower jaw of the younger child                          Lower jaw of the older child

Later,  in his book, Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary,  Tanner wrote “It will be noted that Prof Wright for convenience assumed that the bones were those of  ‘Edward’ and ‘Richard’.  This was perhaps unfortunate for it has led some people to suppose that we definitely identified the bone as those of the princes.  No such claim was made, and I was, in fact particularly careful in the paper which we read before the Society of Antiquaries to make no such indentification , and to adopt a cautious and ‘not proven’ attitude throughout’.

Furthermore Tanner, who lived to the ripe old age of 80, and whose ashes are buried in the lower Islip  chapel, Westminster Abbey,  lived long enough to read Paul Murray Kendall’s biography of Richard and the conclusions drawn by that author,  that he had ascertained the opinions of various professionals and that  a) it was not possible to determine the sex of either child and b) that the stain on the skull was not a bloodstain.  Tanner, who was not without a sense of humour, seems to have kept an open mind on the whole,  although it does seem to have been mostly a toss up between Richard or Henry Tudor being the murderer..if there was one.  He quotes his friend,  Geoffrey H White,  who summed it  all up rather nicely when he remarked “that a strong case can be made out for either view if  the arguments on the other side are ignored”.

I would love to know  what Tanner would have thought, if he  had survived long enough, he died in 1979,   if he had  read Helen Maurer’s  excellent article  “Whodunit: The Suspects in the Case” written in 1983,  in which she made the comment in her notes “As for why the bones should have been discovered more or less where More said they would be, it might be profitable, in the interests of leaving no stone unturned, to forget about Richard, Henry and the last 15th century for the time being and concentrate upon Charles II and the political pressure and perceived necessities of the 1670s.  Any takers?”.  Anyone interested in going on to find out  what Maurer’s thoughts on this matter were,   can find them in her follow up article “Bones in the Tower Part 2.  I’m sure this marvellous and remarkable gentleman would have been very, very intrigued.

(1) Lawrence Tanner Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary p153.

(2) Lawrence Tanner Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary p156

 

A lesson in disposing of That Urn…!

Henry_VII_Chapel_Westminster_Abbey-1000x520

Here is an excellent account of That Urn at Westminster Abbey. It demolishes all the “Tudor” flimflam, and entertains as it does so. Read, enjoy and digest, in connection with this.

The elusive last Norman

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.

Just what is Richard III’s DNA telling us….?

DNA - family tree

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.”

References:

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631

http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Discussion Maclea.htm

https://figshare.com/articles/On_a_Question_Concerning_the_Littlewood_Violations_pdf/4240424

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:-

http://globalfamilyreunion.com/…/01/03/king-richard-iii-dna/

As the saying goes, the thot plickens. Just who is the father of who…? Our posts here and here may well have answered this.

A connection between Richard and the Ripper? Well, not really….

Jack the Ripper

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.

https://www.pressreader.com/…/york…/20170311/281569470529249
and
https://www.pressreader.com/…/the-…/20170311/281930247782625

More about the heights of Richard and George….

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….

 

THEY DON’T LIKE IT UP ‘EM

17352256_1249441015162799_715944247740527611_n.jpg

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:-

Unknown.jpeg

and I for one certainly felt like:-

jack cornwell as frank Salisbury.jpg

However,  it turned out more like:

IMG_3564.JPG

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 theIMG_3562.JPG

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

Unknown.jpeg?

Richard III, snooker and probability

One thing of which we can be certain is that Richard III never played snooker. It was not invesnookernted 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.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_snooker

(2) http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: