DNA Confirms Parking Lot Remains Belong To King Richard III

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNA Confirms Parking Lot Remains Belong To King Richard III

Posted by timothy on Monday February 4, 2013 @03:20AM from the it's-just-like-poltergeist-for-drivers dept.

An anonymous reader writes "It turns out that the remains found in a parking lot in Leicester, England belong to none other than King Richard III, one of the most reviled monarchs of English history. Scientists announced on Monday that they were able to confirm the identity of the skeleton through DNA testing."

154 of 212 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oh dear... by magarity · 2013-02-04 03:22 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh dear, Richard the third.
1. Re:Oh dear... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-04 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes its Richard III.. not my ex-wife
  Dear Mr Researcher,
  The donation to your research fund has been paid.
2. Re:Oh dear... by wjousts · 2013-02-04 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody clearly hasn't seen Black Adder.
3. Re:Oh dear... by Chemisor · 2013-02-04 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Poor Richard...
4. Re:Oh dear... by pbjones · 2013-02-04 09:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  A cunning plan...
  
  --
  There was an unknown error in the submission.
5. Re:Oh dear... by bfandreas · 2013-02-04 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  This day has been- a mighty stew in which the beef of victory was mixed with the vile turnip of sweet Richard slain, and the grisly dumpling of his killer fled. But we must eat the yellow wobbly parts the good Lord serves. In life each man gets what he deserves...
  
  --
  20 minutes into the future
actually... by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-02-04 03:22 · Score: 1

the hump is what gave it away.
1. Re:actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-04 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  the hump is what gave it away.
  What hump?
  Walk this way.
2. Re:actually... by jamiesan · 2013-02-04 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  If I could walk that way...
3. Re:actually... by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2013-02-04 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  >>the hump is what gave it away.
  
  Scoliosis AND the fact that his feet (or at least the bones of his feet) were missing.
  Maybe the coffin that was ordered was a little bit to small and someone took off the feet.
  Yet another mystery that needs to be solved by future time-travellers!
  
  --
  rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
4. Re:actually... by hamburger+lady · 2013-02-04 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  this researcher is going to get quite rich off guessing the location of the remains. he'll say "the hunch paid off!"
  
  --
  
  ---
  Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
5. Re:actually... by denvergeek · 2013-02-04 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you, didn't you use to have that on the other side?
6. Re:actually... by tbird81 · 2013-02-04 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Whoosh...
7. Re:actually... by gmhowell · 2013-02-04 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  Help me with the bags.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
8. Re:actually... by gmhowell · 2013-02-04 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  Abby something or other.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Why? by vlm · 2013-02-04 03:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

I haven't gotten a straight answer from MSM accounts as to why they even suspected this might be KR3.
Certainly, every time someone is dug up they don't say, "Oh look we found a body, better test it to see if this one is King Richard III maybe its him this time?"

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-04 03:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  From TFA
  "but the location of his grave was lost when the building was demolished in the 16th century.
  A team of historians, though, were determined to find the body. Archaeologists used ground-penetrating radar on the site of the former priory, and were able to locate the skeleton beneath a parking lot after only a few days of digging."
2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-04 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Don't let reading the article stand in the way of your ignorance.
  From the article:
  ...with his death on the battlefield at Bosworth in 1485. He was given a low-key burial in the church of Greyfriars in the center of Leicester, but the location of his grave was lost when the building was demolished in the 16th century.
  A team of historians, though, were determined to find the body. Archaeologists used ground-penetrating radar on the site of the former priory, and were able to locate the skeleton beneath a parking lot after only a few days of digging.
3. Re:Why? by GiMP · 2013-02-04 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  The suspicion was based on where they were digging and the presence of a humpback. Interestingly, many believed the hump was a fabrication by his enemies and used a tool of propaganda. Turns out: he really did have one.
4. Re:Why? by lochnessie · 2013-02-04 03:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  From TFA: "...his reign lasted just 26 months and ended with his death on the battlefield at Bosworth in 1485. He was given a low-key burial in the church of Greyfriars in the center of Leicester, but the location of his grave was lost when the building was demolished in the 16th century. A team of historians, though, were determined to find the body. Archaeologists used ground-penetrating radar on the site of the former priory, and were able to locate the skeleton beneath a parking lot after only a few days of digging."
5. Re:Why? by sumdumass · 2013-02-04 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  More then likely, he was found with jewelry or something that gave the hint.
  My question is, why would he be buried under a parking lot? I mean without looking up how he met his end, I would assume royalty, whether hated or not, would have been buried somewhere that we knew of and could simply say, permit to build X denied because it's on a grave yard.
6. Re:Why? by SoTerrified · 2013-02-04 03:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I haven't gotten a straight answer from MSM accounts as to why they even suspected this might be KR3.
  1) They have DNA from a descendant of King Richard III. They were able to get a DNA sample from the skeleton. It's a match.
  2) Skeleton is a man in his early 30s. King Richard III died at 32.
  3) History indicated King Richard III suffered from scoliosis. Skeleton has curved back consistent with scoliosis.
  4) Skeleton was killed by blows to the head, then suffered a sword thrust upward through the buttock. King Richard III died due to a head wound, and as a war leader, it is consistent that his body would've been subject to 'humiliation wounds'.
  5) They knew King Richard had been buried beneath the church of Greyfriars in the centre of Leicester. However that building was destroyed so the exact location was unknown. However the place the body was found was one of the potential sites of that structure.
  6) Bone analysis showed a high protein diet, consistent with nobility of the era.
  
  Why it might not be King Richard III?
  1) History indicates he had a withered right arm. The skeleton shows the right arm to be completely normal.
  
  But really, the DNA match is the smoking gun. It proves that the skeleton must've shared a maternal ancestor with King Richard III, and combined with the other evidence, it seems very likely that it's certainly King Richard III
7. Re:Why? by Andrewkov · 2013-02-04 03:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Actual cause of death: Run over by a paving machine.
8. Re:Why? by beelsebob · 2013-02-04 03:46 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Because some countries have more than a couple of hundred years of history. Oddly, it wasn't always a parking lot.
9. Re:Why? by Narcocide · 2013-02-04 03:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The article answers this question; he was buried under a church which was destroyed around a century later and the knowledge of the location was lost to time. They knew he had to be buried somewhere in town but no longer knew where.
10. Re:Why? by Vreejack · 2013-02-04 03:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  He would have been buried under a large paving stone in the floor of the church. It would have been engraved with his name, but was probably lost when the church was demolished. The Tudors had no interest in preserving his memory, which was a threat to their legitimacy.
  
  --
  "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
11. Re:Why? by Motard · 2013-02-04 03:58 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Good. Now we can clone him and open Plantagenet Park.
12. Re:Why? by Zephyn · 2013-02-04 04:01 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  More then likely, he was found with jewelry or something that gave the hint.
  My question is, why would he be buried under a parking lot?
  Because fate loves irony. He died shortly after offering his kingdom for a horse, and he was found under the wheels of a Mustang.
13. Re:Why? by Wansu · 2013-02-04 04:06 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "How do you know he's king?"
  "He hasn't got shit all over him."
  -- Monty Python, The Holy Grail
  
  --
  Wansu, th' chinese sailor
14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-04 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The withered right arm was contrived by Shakespeare. Many historians never believed it to be the case.
15. Re:Why? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2013-02-04 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Why should he have had a withered right arm?
  There was a tennis player around 50 years ago called Rod Laver. He played and practiced so much that his right arm was twice as thick as his left. Richard was similar - except that it was because of sword use. I don't know about tennis players but a lot of the nobility back then trained that much. Richard was an excellent general and led from the front. That approach pretty much died with Richard. Henry VII was a politician whose army was provided by relatives and the King of France. He relied on bodyguards and keeping well away from the fighting.
  
  --
  Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
16. Re:Why? by hedwards · 2013-02-04 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that wouldn't be surprising. Shakespeare was writing after that had happened when the Tudors were running things. So, making Richard III worse than he was probably was a good career move. But, until now, we didn't really know for sure as anybody writing during Richard III time would probably omit that for the same reasons that people afterwards would be more inclined to concoct something like that.
  But, now that the body has been located, the truth is revealed.
17. Re:Why? by jimicus · 2013-02-04 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure that 16th Century England had particularly strong planning law.
18. Re:Why? by Sique · 2013-02-04 04:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The difference being that in the case of Richard III, they didn't just dig everywhere and submitted each found corpse for testing, they were digging where ground radar were indicating the foundations of a destroyed abbey in the vincinity of exactly the place where documents and history books were saying Richard III was buried in an abbey. With Jimmy Hoffa, there is no single account of his end and no indication of a place where his remainings are buried.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
19. Re:Why? by squiggleslash · 2013-02-04 04:22 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  My question is, why would he be buried under a parking lot?
  
  I don't know, but I'm always amazed that the ancient Romans insisted on building their villas below 20th Century office blocks. I mean, what gives?
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
20. Re:Why? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-02-04 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  He didn't have a withered arm. He made guests touch his "funny arm", which back then was referred to as the whither arm.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
21. Re:Why? by milkmage · 2013-02-04 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
  However, a team of enthusiasts and historians managed to trace the likely area - and, crucially, after painstaking genealogical research, they found a 17th-generation descendant of Richard's sister with whose DNA they could compare any remains.
  Joy Ibsen, from Canada, died several years ago but her son, Michael, who now works in London, provided a sample.
22. Re:Why? by michelcolman · 2013-02-04 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I was thinking too. How do you prove his identity using the DNA of a descendant 20 generations later? If each child gets half the DNA of each parent, that works out to one millionth in the end. And since this DNA is inherited with whole chromosomes at a time, chances are pretty low of even a single chromosome being inherited. On the other hand, there's a million other ancestors who could match just as well as Richard the third. So how exactly did they "prove" they were dealing with the real Richard the Third?
23. Re:Why? by Andyvan · 2013-02-04 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  Rod Laver was/is left-handed.
24. Re:Why? by arth1 · 2013-02-04 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Scoliosis, while not exactly common, was just like any other disease at that time, impossible to cure.
  Which is not much different from today. I'd welcome a cure, but there isn't one.
25. Re:Why? by MightyMartian · 2013-02-04 04:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Many scholars over the past few centuries have come to the conclusion that all of Shakespeare's historical plays of English kings were largely Tudor propaganda. Remember that Henry VII's claim to the throne was somewhat dubious and that even in his granddaughter Elizabeth's time, there was some sensitivity over how the Tudors had come to the throne. Building up the grandeur of Henry VII's ancestors whilst simultaneously making Richard III into almost the most loathsome creature in the history of the the theater was all part and parcel of the Tudor's solidifying their claim to the throne.
  Of course the ultimate irony is that after Henry VII, the Tudor line just withered away and Henry VIII had no legitimate grandchildren, and thus the crown got passed on to the Stuarts.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
26. Re:Why? by MightyMartian · 2013-02-04 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  The DNA is but one link. The location of the grave near the battle sight, the account that Richard had been buried by Fransiscans in a place of honor, these all make a pretty compelling case that the skeleton that was discovered was Richard III's.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
27. Re:Why? by bob_jordan · 2013-02-04 04:56 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe it was just a hunch.
  Bob.
28. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-04 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I was thinking too. How do you prove his identity using the DNA of a descendant 20 generations later? If each child gets half the DNA of each parent, that works out to one millionth in the end. And since this DNA is inherited with whole chromosomes at a time, chances are pretty low of even a single chromosome being inherited. On the other hand, there's a million other ancestors who could match just as well as Richard the third. So how exactly did they "prove" they were dealing with the real Richard the Third?
  Mitochondrial DNA, it requires the person to be his sisters [daughters, daughters, ..., daughters, child].
  however, that might also fit a fair few people.
29. Re:Why? by davidshewitt · 2013-02-04 05:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They weren't thinking 4th-dimensionally. ;-)
30. Re:Why? by milkmage · 2013-02-04 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  my other comment was a cut/paste failure
  basically, they had a pretty good idea the location they were digging was the church where he was buried
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
  "In August 2012, an excavation began in a city council car park - the only open space remaining in the likely area - which quickly identified buildings connected to the church."
31. Re:Why? by X0563511 · 2013-02-04 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  NPR was talking about it on the radio on my commute this morning.
  The skeleton also had the humped back and lots of evidence of battle wounds, and the nearby location, all matched up with what we understand historically. Finally, DNA testing with ancestors at least strongly indicates a relation.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
32. Re:Why? by dave420 · 2013-02-04 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you didn't find the answer, you were not looking very hard! It's been thoroughly discussed on the BBC for ages, for example. Don't blame the "MSM" for your laziness! The fact they matched the DNA of this body to a living relative of the king means they clearly had some clue as to what they were doing...
33. Re:Why? by Joce640k · 2013-02-04 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't gotten a straight answer from MSM accounts as to why they even suspected this might be KR3.
  Did you, ummmm, try reading the article?
  Radical, I know...
  
  --
  No sig today...
34. Re:Why? by sjames · 2013-02-04 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still trying to figure out how all of ancient Scotland got shoved under that parking garage in NY.
35. Re:Why? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-02-04 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Because fate loves irony. He died shortly after offering his kingdom for a horse, and he was found under the wheels of a Mustang.
  Also, it's an idiocy to ask for a horse in a parking lot. It's like going to a mosque and ask for a bible. It seems that he got what he deserved!
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
36. Re:Why? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-02-04 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  They weren't thinking 4th-dimensionally. ;-)
  Actually, they were doing just that. I mean, they were amazingly prescient as to how their land would rise in property value, right? Now, the natives selling *the whole effing Manhattan* for 60 guilders, *that* is not thinking four-dimensionally!
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
37. Re:Why? by samkass · 2013-02-04 08:07 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Ah I see. I clicked on the article and video started playing so I closed it. I hate that. The MSM infotainment providers I saw the story on this morning either didn't go into the "why" or they went all crazy about value judgments about monarchies as a political system blah blah blah.
  Your use of "MSM" and inability to relay facts in the article you're actually discussing -- facts that are also included in every other news account I've read -- leads me to believe you probably get your news from one particular (in fact, the MOST "mainstream" and popular of them) cable news service, and should probably just stick to that instead of coming here to post...
  
  --
  E pluribus unum
38. Re:Why? by wjousts · 2013-02-04 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  Really, the natives were the real villains here. They had no concept of how anybody could "own" land and yet the happily took 60 guilders of some poor Dutch traders anyway.
39. Re:Why? by wjousts · 2013-02-04 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  According to one report I read, he had a particularly rare mutation in his mitochondrial DNA. So no, there aren't too many people who share it.
40. Re:Why? by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-02-04 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Funny mod, wither is thy sting?
41. Re:Why? by nedlohs · 2013-02-04 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Which is irrelevant since this is about neither geography or genealogy.
42. Re:Why? by Swamp · 2013-02-04 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  7) Carbon dating shows the individual died in the late 15th century. KR3 died in 1485.
43. Re:Why? by coma_bug · 2013-02-04 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Of course the ultimate irony is that after Henry VII, the Tudor line just withered away and Henry VIII had no legitimate grandchildren, and thus the crown got passed on to the Stuarts.
  James I was the great-great-grandchild of Henry VII.
44. Re:Why? by cusco · 2013-02-04 10:29 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Friend of mine grew up in South Chicago. He says that when Jimmy Hoffa died everyone in Chicago stopped buying sausage for a week.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
45. Re:Why? by Nefarious+Wheel · 2013-02-04 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Could simply have been the way he held his arm. Severe scoliosis (and the skeletal remains show it as about as severe as it gets) might have had him holding his arm cranked way in.
  Also there is some speculation (from the longbows salvaged from the Mary Rose) that growing up and training under heavier and heavier longbows could have caused asymmetric development of one's arms. Those longbows were 150 lb draw! Modern sporting longbows are generally 50-70lb draw. Those 150lb longbows must have had amazing armor penetration(1), and the effort would have had some effects on a continuous user's physique. Also (2) an Englishman bent the bow rather than drew it, so the arm holding the nock would have been in a fixed position while left hand pushed the bow outward. All of the above could have given the effect of a "whithered right arm", although it could have been, in actuality, fully developed.
  (1) Even a 30 pound SCA combat bow (pretty lightweight) can put a target sharp through 2mm mild steel -- I've done it myself. Medieval armor was generally pretty thin, designed to distribute the force of a sword blow.
  (2) Gervaise Markham, "The Art of Archyerie" c.1634
  
  --
  Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
46. Re:Why? by MightyMartian · 2013-02-04 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Henry VII had several offspring, and James I/VI was a descendant of Henry VII's oldest child, Margaret Tudor. Henry VIII, the only of Henry VII's sons to survive to adulthood, had only three legitimate children survive him; Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I. Edward VI died at 15, before he could produce an heir, and neither Mary or Elizabeth produced heirs.
  Henry VIII did have some illegitimate heirs, and there was an attempt made in his last years to legitimize Henry VIII's bastard, Henry FitzRoy, but FitzRoy died before Henry VIII, and that seems to have been the end of any attempts to legitimize any of Henry VIII's bastards. Henry VIII didn't even have that many bastards to survive to adulthood; his two bastards with Mary Boleyn; Catherine and Henry did survive to adulthood and did have children, but as they were never even acknowledged by Henry VIII, neither they or there descendants could have been legitimized.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
47. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-02-04 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Finally, DNA testing with ancestors at least strongly indicates a relation.
  
  They dug up Edward III?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
48. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-02-04 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  What's odd is that there's a painting of him where the hump was clearly added afterwards.
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726816/
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
49. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-02-04 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  How does that contradict the GP's point, you imbecile?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
50. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-02-04 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure he has any descendants. His two legitimate children died in infancy.
  The living guy they tested is descended from R3's sister, and it's mitochondrial DNA which is only passed down the maternal line.
  Finally, even if he did have thousands of descendants, it's unlikely that they all died roughly around 1485, were all male, had wounds consistent with a medieval battle, were buried near a church in Leicester (as described in contemporary accounts) that was later destroyed...
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
51. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-02-04 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Nope the history says his body was dragged from the battlefield and then buried without any ceremony, don't forget the people who buried him were the opposing side and they hated him
  
  Garbage. According to contemporary accounts he was buried by monks who would have been neutral or even friendly. He was popular among the common people, especially in the North which he'd run efficiently almost as a sub-kingdom while his brother was alive.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
52. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-02-04 13:00 · Score: 2
  
  Also, it's an idiocy to ask for a horse in a parking lot.
  
  Unless it's outside Tesco's.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
53. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-02-04 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  The older it is, the lower down it is, right?
  Does that mean the Earth is getting bigger? If so, where's all the extra muck coming from?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
54. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-02-04 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  I take it by MSM you mean USMSM? It's been covered perfectly well on the BBC, but you probably think they're comminusts or something.
  And no, they usually assume it's Lord Lucan, unless it's in a freezer at Tesco's when Shergar is the prime suspect.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
55. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-02-04 13:14 · Score: 2
  
  Out by us we have projects regularly delayed by finding Indian remains from the times before white people arrived.
  So stop trying to build a call center on top of the Taj Mahal, you silly bastard.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
56. Re:Why? by KingAlanI · 2013-02-04 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  supposedly it was 'sold' by people who didn't really live there anyway.
  
  --
  I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
57. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-02-04 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  Most men died in battle between young teens and their 30s
  Medieval armies were really small, so even in sporadically violent times like tWotR most men would have died of disease or natural causes.
  
  A confirmed 100% accurate DNA match from over 500 years ago to a descendant? Eh, unlikely. 500 years affords quite a lot of DNA and gene swapping unless they are all inbred.
  Mitochondrial DNA. It's not what causes the force.
  
  Scoliosis is HIGHLY common in those days.
  
  [citation needed]
  If so, why did people (contemporary & subsequent chroniclers, Shakespeare) mention that he had it?; they never explicitly refer to him as a biped. Why don't they mention that anyone else did? If it was that common, surely if anyone was upright that would be noteworthy.
  
  Hell Im only 35 and we had 3 kids with back braces from it when I was a kid in school.
  
  I have met one person with scoliosis, one with marginal kyphosis and one with a very slight case of lordosis in my entire life.
  Perhaps there's something in the water where you come from?
  
  The further back you go the more common it was.
  Are you talking about Australopithicus? You don't strike me as someone who believes in evolution.
  
  In battle then blows to head were again VERY common. You basically either were stabbed by a sword or your head bashed in with any number of weapons. Thats like saying now "Oh it was definitely him because he was shot in the chest". When probally 80% of people killed in battle had their head bashed in saying he had his bashed so it must be him is stupid.
  [citation needed]
  Excavations of mass graves from the Battle of Visby suggest leg injuries were the most common.
  While excavations from Towton show many head wounds, the sheer number of those - more than enough to kill the victims four times over - suggest that these were a massacre rather than in an actual battle; you wouldn't stop to pulp a felled opponent if his mates were still fighting on.
  
  High protein diet? He could have been a chicken farmer. They would have a higher than average citizen protein diet due to their own supply of chickens. The majority of people were broke ass poor people living off scraps. So yes a person with an actual farm would have had an abnormally high protein diet.
  Ah ha. I'm sure these high-falutin' experts haven't worked out the protein levels in the common people of the time, and they mean high relative to that. And I'm also sure independent specialist farmers were really common in feudal Europe, and went off fighting in battles for the lulz rather than pay scutage or hire a substitute.
  We'll leave aside that according to contemporary accounts he was buried near a monastery that later disappeared, and this body was found next to remains of a monastery, and that it was buried singly rather than in a mass pit which would have been the fate of a common soldier.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
58. Re:Why? by coma_bug · 2013-02-04 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  The Tudor line didn't "wither away". The Stuart monarchs were descendants of Henry Tudor, you imbecile.
59. Re:Why? by formfeed · 2013-02-04 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  My question is, why would he be buried under a parking lot? .
  After he had killed Richard III, Henry - his Tutor - took over as king. He took the dead king and everyone could look at him naked. With his hands bound, he then buried the dead king. The place was known as the Alley of the Great Fries, but they torn down the place and build a car park over it, so everyone could drive over the dead king. (A car park is like a parking lot, but with a king underneath.)
60. Re:Why? by bfandreas · 2013-02-04 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, possibly. But if the portrait had been painted during Richard the III's life then they will have romanticized it. Painted him like he wanted to look.
  ...I hear art critics had very pointy daggers in those days.
  So it is quite possible they omitted his deformity and somebody put the hunchback back on.
  
  Mind you, the Tudors were quite good at propaganda. They had to be since their legitimacy was a bit sketchy at best. But so was Henry Bolingbrokes, so the only lesson to be taken away from that s:
  FOR GODS SAKE! IF YOU INSIST ON BEING KING(or queen as a matter of fact) OF ENGLAND MAKE SURE YOUR NAME ISN'T RICHARD. It's bound to end poorly.
  
  --
  20 minutes into the future
61. Re:Why? by bfandreas · 2013-02-04 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  ...given where he was found I'd say he rather was buried under the wheels of a dodgy Rover.
  Sounds like a good premises for a sequel. They could have Ian McKellen again for it.
  Richard IV: This time he's pissed!
  
  They could also make the prequels of the Richard people.
  
  I'm torn between making Eddie Izzard quotes and rummaging through Blackadder. There's bound to be some League of Gentlemen in there aswell.
  
  --
  20 minutes into the future
62. Re:Why? by gmhowell · 2013-02-04 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  The older it is, the lower down it is, right?
  Does that mean the Earth is getting bigger? If so, where's all the extra muck coming from?
  All the bullshit spewed from the Internet.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
63. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-02-05 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  He said legitimate offspring of Henry VIII, not his third nephews four times removed born over the brush.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
64. Re:Why? by coma_bug · 2013-02-05 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  He said legitimate offspring of Henry VIII, not his third nephews four times removed born over the brush.
  You fail reading comprehension. MightyMartian's entire comment was about Henry VII's claim and the "irony that after Henry VII, the Tudor line just withered away". But the Tudor line didn't "wither away". In fact all monarchs since Henry VII are descended from him. Henry VIII is not even relevant.
65. Re:Why? by jonadab · 2013-02-05 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  > Because some countries have more than a couple of hundred years of history.
  
  Now, if only they had more than a couple hundred miles of geography...
  
  (Yeah, yeah, I know it's an old joke. So was yours, though.)
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
66. Re:Why? by Reziac · 2013-02-05 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm thinking the skeleton could be normal but the musculature withered... what does history say about it?
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
67. Re:Why? by jonadab · 2013-02-05 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  > happily took 60 guilders of some poor Dutch traders anyway
  
  Well, yes, but only after the Dutch offered. It's not like the locals deliberately set out to *exploit* the hapless Dutch tourists. They were just the people who happened to be there at the time. If the Dutch were determined to give away their fortune in exchange for the cultural equivalent of a phony title deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, the natives could either accept their offer, or they could tell the Dutch to go find someone else to give their money to. Obviously, if these European "traders" were loony enough to want to buy a worthless deed to something that was obviously public property, they would've found *somebody* to buy one from -- or else they would've turned violet, which would be worse.
  
  So while the locals were not as noble as they could have been, they weren't malicious and out to get anybody either. They were just making the best of a poor situation. And to their credit, they didn't run off and hide afterward. They stuck around and continued to be friendly for a while. (That all went to pot later, but that was later.)
  
  If the European immigrants had continued to negotiate with the locals to purchase whatever land they needed throughout the remainder of our history, relations would have gone better. If the locals had caught on to what was happening a lot sooner and quickly drafted up some title deeds and offered to sell land by the acre for a reasonable price (reserving some for each of their own families and also some "public land" for each village and tribe, but selling individual farm-sized plots to the Europeans), relations probably would have gone better.
  
  (Admittedly, there would still have been some problems. There always are. There was a substantial technology differential, plus language barriers and the usual levels of cultural misunderstanding, all of which would have caused issues.)
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
68. Re:Why? by darkonc · 2013-02-05 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  I always think that should have been 'getting laid' on your wedding day, and her business analyst forced her to change the line.
  
  --
  Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Re:My name by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-04 03:28 · Score: 1

Shut up, you Dick.
Now is the winter of our discontent by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-02-04 03:30 · Score: 5, Funny

"Validation! Validation! My kingdom for validated parking!"
Purebred KR the Third? by BoRegardless · 2013-02-04 03:37 · Score: 1

Well at least today, we have inbred royals who don't pose the same sort of threat.
Wrong: all your (DNA) base are belong to us by Liquid+Len · 2013-02-04 03:38 · Score: 1

n/t
Car Park by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-04 03:38 · Score: 1, Informative

This is England, we don't have parking lots. We have car parks
1. Re:Car Park by wonkey_monkey · 2013-02-04 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  So what's Richard III doing in a car park?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:Car Park by tom17 · 2013-02-04 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  Parking cars, what else does one do in a car park?
3. Re:Car Park by mfraz74 · 2013-02-04 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, it is where we park cars. What do you do in a parking lot, bid on cars?
4. Re:Car Park by DrXym · 2013-02-04 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  Huff glue.
5. Re:Car Park by jitterman · 2013-02-04 05:41 · Score: 2
  
  No, but we park on "driveways" and drive on "parkways" - t'is a silly place.
  
  --
  For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
6. Re:Car Park by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-04 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  A car park is a green grassy area where cars can play together while waiting for their owners. Everyone knows that.
He may have been the most reviled... by tippe · 2013-02-04 03:40 · Score: 2

but surely he deserved better than to be buried in a parking lot!
*ducks*
Reburial Where? by kiehlster · 2013-02-04 03:43 · Score: 1

"Currently, plans are underway for a reburial ceremony for the remains."
Well yeah, but where? Back under the parking lot where he's been resting comfortably for centuries? Another outlying low-key area where he'll be lost again until the 28th century?
1. Re:Reburial Where? by SternisheFan · 2013-02-04 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  "Currently, plans are underway for a reburial ceremony for the remains."
  Well yeah, but where? Back under the parking lot where he's been resting comfortably for centuries? Another outlying low-key area where he'll be lost again until the 28th century?
  That's right British people, make sure this murderer of the true heir to the English throne gets a royal burial with all the pomp and ceremony due him. In other words, dump his body in the nearest sewer.
2. Re:Reburial Where? by wjousts · 2013-02-04 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  Leicester Cathedral. Which I'm assuming they are not likely to lose track of.
3. Re:Reburial Where? by m.ducharme · 2013-02-04 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not likely. Of course they did lose track of the church he was buried under the first time....
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
4. Re:Reburial Where? by wjousts · 2013-02-04 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't have Google Maps then.
  Also, it seems unlikely that the current or future government of England will actively try and erase him from history again.
5. Re:Reburial Where? by Nefarious+Wheel · 2013-02-04 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  Not likely. Of course they did lose track of the church he was buried under the first time....
  I don't think the current crop of Windsors quite as concerned about a threat from the Archbishop as the Tudors were of the Pope. They're unlikely to dissolve Leicester Cathedral. (Acid Rain might, but the Windsors won't).
  
  --
  Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
6. Re:Reburial Where? by EdgePenguin · 2013-02-05 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  1. Most people in England are, at best, ambivalent to the monarchy. The fans are generally old, conservative, and stupid. Public support is slightly in the majority, although as I said not very enthusiastic, largely because people see the Queen as better than the past few Prime Ministers. Both Thatcher and Blair were slammed for being 'presidential' - they are heads of government, not heads of state, and are only elected by their parliamentary constituents. Imagine if ~20,000 people elected your president (I'm assuming you are American). Likely the Monarchy dies shortly after Elizabeth II does.
  2. Most people in England who know a bit about Richard III don't buy into the 'dick the shit' stuff pushed by Shakespeare. As brilliant a writer he was, anyone reading him is aware he is a shameless Tudor propagandist.
7. Re:Reburial Where? by SternisheFan · 2013-02-05 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I've read up.on him a.bit more now (yes, I'm an American), and he, for the most part, seemed to be a nice person, until he got a taste for power. That's when we get 'tested' in life. Age old story that still gets played out in this present day time. To what lengths will we go to seize power, money, etc. Sounds like he got a quick shot at power, only two years. Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. Hopefully democracy by the people will eventually become the norm, and the need for rulers will be history. All part of humanitys evolution.
A parking lot, a parking lot... by ctrl-alt-canc · 2013-02-04 03:44 · Score: 1

...my kingdom for a parking lot!
Do you take the Tudors as historians? by tylikcat · 2013-02-04 03:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Most reviled"... but also among the most defended (though the former lead to the latter).
Not that I'm particular thrilled with the idea of kings in general, but most everything bad about him was written by people with a vested interest in running him down.
1. Re:Do you take the Tudors as historians? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2013-02-04 04:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  He was responsible for the North of England while his brother was king. There were laws protecting the weak from the strong, laws which were habitually ignored. He changed that and as the king's brother had the muscle to make it stick. When the French persuaded the Scottish king to distract the English by conducting raids in the border areas, he took an army to Edinburgh and did some serious damage there. The people in the north loved him. Unfortunately the Duke of Northumberland did not like the competition and betrayed Richard. The City of York tried to provide an army to support Richard but Northumberland was the one who should have led it and he simply left those soldiers behind so he could change sides.
  The new king Henry sent Northumberland out to raise taxes. His bodyguard left him unprotected. Commoners dragged him from his horse and killed him. Two generations after Richard's death, the king's reprasentative in the North was complaining that he was being measured against Richard and no-one could live up to that example.
  Who killed the Princes in the Tower? It may have been Richard, it was most certainly not the knight who subsequently confessed to it but it was probably Lord Buckingham. He was Richard's must trusted subordinate, had access and seems to have done the deed immediately before he rebelled against Richard and tried to become king himself. He was utterly outclassed as a general and his army was no match for Richard's.
  
  --
  Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
2. Re:Do you take the Tudors as historians? by MightyMartian · 2013-02-04 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The killing of the princes was a dark deed, and while some suggest that perhaps Henry VII might have had a hand in it, it does seem largely to point to Richard. But all in all, Richard was, by the standards of the 15th century, a pretty enlightened man, and most certainly in the North his name was far more honored than it was in the rest of England.
  Richard probably did some pretty awful things, but a survey of Medieval kings will show anyone interested in history that Richard was no worse than many and a good deal better than some.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Do you take the Tudors as historians? by MightyMartian · 2013-02-04 07:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  My understanding is that the shadow of the Princes' disappearance and likely murder still hangs heaviest over Richard III. While some have accused Henry VII of the crime, the timing does not quite work out, even though Henry VII would likely have been as quick to dispatch the Princes as Richard III, as they would have represented a substantial threat to his pretty weak claim to the throne.
  People have to put themselves in the time and place. In essence it was in the closing years of a civil war that would not be put to bed until Henry Tudor was victorious at the Battle of Bosworth Field. In such times, those seeking power will do some pretty awful things. You don't have to go back 500 years to find examples of murder to get rid of inconvenient rivals. Lenin ordered the deaths of the Romanovs for fear that they would undermine the young Soviet state. Napoleon had the duc d'Enghien, Louis Antoine, tried and executed on trumped up charges over fears that he might be the focus of Bourbon plotters seeking to overthrow him.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:Do you take the Tudors as historians? by Xtifr · 2013-02-04 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  When I was a kid, I knew some people that wrote a pro-RIII propoganda song (yes, my parents hung out with some strange folk). I still remember the beginning:
  "When goodly King Richard--that's Richard of Glouster--
  Ascended the throne, did he;
  He made good his promise to lower the taxes,
  And set all the debtors free."
5. Re:Do you take the Tudors as historians? by terjeber · 2013-02-04 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  Not that I'm particular thrilled with the idea of kings in general
  I love Diederot's statement in that regard: "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest".
  Sadly for Diederot, there will always be Kings, no matter what we call them. At least we could start on the priests and see where that leads us.
Re:Obligatory Blackadder quote by SoTerrified · 2013-02-04 03:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Better Blackadder quote:

Prince Edmund: "Well, frankly, everyone thought you were dead."
Richard III: "Well, frankly, I am."
King of Parking Lot Castle by WilyCoder · 2013-02-04 03:48 · Score: 2

King of Parking Lot Castle III: When I first came here, this was all parking lot. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a parking lot, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the parking lot. So I built a second one. That sank into the parking lot. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the parking lot. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.
A corpse, a corpse, my kingdom for a corpse! by Anonymous+Meoward · 2013-02-04 03:48 · Score: 1

A corpse is a corpse, of course of course..

--
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Re:Reserved Parking Lot? by DrXym · 2013-02-04 03:56 · Score: 2

Didn't you know? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
Still no explanation by fredrated · 2013-02-04 03:58 · Score: 2, Funny

as to why he was buried in a parking lot.
1. Re:Still no explanation by Wovel · 2013-02-04 04:13 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Obviously someone hired Tony Soprano to take him out.
2. Re:Still no explanation by jimicus · 2013-02-04 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yes there is. It used to be a church about five hundred years ago.
3. Re:Still no explanation by wjousts · 2013-02-04 04:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  He wasn't. He was buried at a chapel. A chapel that was later knocked down and replaced with a house. A house that was later bought by the council, knocked down and replaced with a car park.
4. Re: Still no explanation by multi+io · 2013-02-04 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Suffocation in the cement mixer?
5. Re:Still no explanation by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-02-04 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  as to why he was buried in a parking lot.
  There's some history to that location. I believe that before it was a parking lot, there was a supermarket there, built where there had been old bowling alley that stood on the site of the Palais, which is where Richard would come dancing on Saturday nights.
  That's just my theory, there may be some kinks to work out.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
6. Re:Still no explanation by Rudisaurus · 2013-02-04 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Wish I had mod points.
  
  --
  licet differant, aequabitur
I came here for Hoffa by kdogg73 · 2013-02-04 03:59 · Score: 1

But all I got was this lousy king.

--
Let's face it, most of us are scoffers. But moments before zero hour, it does not pay to take chances.
Title Ambiguity by Chiller · 2013-02-04 04:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Hey, King Richard III, the DNA says the remains of this here parking lot are yours.
1. Re:Title Ambiguity by Grand+Facade · 2013-02-04 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  "his remains were found in a parking lot"
  I'm thinking "WTF who dumped KR3 in a parking lot"
  Title should read "lost remains of KR3 found under parking lot"
  Then I could have come to the appropriate conclusion without having to read the article, "Oh, BFD..."
  
  --
  Rick B.
Re:My name by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-04 04:03 · Score: 1

He might mean this
http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/slang/richard_the_third_1
So by conscarcdr · 2013-02-04 04:16 · Score: 1

he was the victim of a botched parking stunt?
Shoot?? by Art+Challenor · 2013-02-04 04:25 · Score: 1

On the BBC website when I looked at it a few minutes ago, underneath the teaser for:

Richard III - Bones found in Car Park

was the headline:

Man arrested in shooting death
1. Re:Shoot?? by Megane · 2013-02-04 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Man arrested in shooting death
  And I can tell you that it hurt very much when the bullet chipped my femur. But fortunately, I don't have any flesh there, so I'm quite all right and back to scything souls into the afterlife.*
  *boldface used because we all know how much /. loves ALL CAPS
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Richard III or a relative? by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-02-04 04:41 · Score: 1

From the article:

With the new evidence, though, researchers were able to find a DNA match between the maternal DNA of the descendants and the remains. It turned out that the skeleton had indeed once been Richard III.
How does the maternal DNA match "prove" it is Richard III versus a relative?
1. Re:Richard III or a relative? by bobbied · 2013-02-04 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't, it just says that the corpse was closely related to someone who is known to be a descendant of Richard III.
  It's all the other evidence that starts cutting down the odds that it might be somebody else... Obvious injury consistent with accepted cause of death. Evidence that indicates medical conditions consistent with known medical conditions of Richard III. Location consistent with the accepted possible burial locations. And most of all, no other known possible bodies that match DNA and what we know about this guy from history.
  Of course, one can always argue the possibility that this is not Richard III, just like they argue other silly stuff...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Richard III or a relative? by corbettw · 2013-02-04 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  My guess would be that anyone in his maternal line or born from either of his sisters have known gravesites. Since his was the only unknown one, a simple process of elimination would prove it's him.
  This is merely postulating, but seems reasonable.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
3. Re:Richard III or a relative? by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-02-04 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  My guess would be that anyone in his maternal line or born from either of his sisters have known gravesites. Since his was the only unknown one, a simple process of elimination would prove it's him.
  This is merely postulating, but seems reasonable.
  I don't doubt that it is probably him. I doubt that they can prove it is him by maternal DNA unless it was a case of we know that he is one of these corpses and only one of them had the maternal DNA. However that is not the case here. What they have is the skeletal remains of a man that is related through a common ancestor (mother). It isn't proof. It less the probability that it is not him. Proof would be if we had a known sample of his DNA, say a lock of hair and the skeletal remains matched the known sample.
  You could not prove identity, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law, based on maternal DNA. How can scientists profess to do it in the court of public opinion? If science is supposed to be about facts, then the reporting of science should be factual, too.
4. Re:Richard III or a relative? by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-02-04 06:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It doesn't, it just says that the corpse was closely related to someone who is known to be a descendant of Richard III.
  It's all the other evidence that starts cutting down the odds that it might be somebody else... Obvious injury consistent with accepted cause of death. Evidence that indicates medical conditions consistent with known medical conditions of Richard III. Location consistent with the accepted possible burial locations. And most of all, no other known possible bodies that match DNA and what we know about this guy from history.
  Of course, one can always argue the possibility that this is not Richard III, just like they argue other silly stuff...
  I don't doubt that it isn't Richard III, I am taking exception with the media saying the DNA proves it is Richard the III. As you point out, the DNA, since it is maternal DNA, is one more piece of evidence, that when taken as a whole show the probability of this being somebody else is unlikely, but it is not proof. As I stated in a different post, science is about facts, then the reporting of science should be factual, too.
5. Re:Richard III or a relative? by bobbied · 2013-02-04 07:09 · Score: 2
  
  You have a good point, but in this case, the DNA evidence was the last bit of evidence that folks have been waiting for. Where the DNA evidence is not proof alone, it is the last piece of the proof. Often we say "Well that proves it!" about a single fact when really there is a whole series of facts which must be true before the final fact removes doubt. So I don't see the statement that the DNA test proves it is Richard III to be false or worthy of critique.
  Now if you wish to take on the DNA proves *everything* mystique, then you need to really dig further into the methods and facts about how DNA (in its various forms) are inherited and why various forms of genetic testing might or might not be usable in situations like this. I'm afraid you are taking on a huge task in this CSI one hour (less commercials) to solve a crime world of scientific knowledge and Hollywood misinformation for dramatic license. I wish you luck, because I'm pretty tired of that kind of thing myself.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
6. Re:Richard III or a relative? by tbird81 · 2013-02-04 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  How do we do the devil didn't put it there to trick us?
7. Re:Richard III or a relative? by cusco · 2013-02-04 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  science is about facts, then the reporting of science should be factual, too.
  
  Unfortunately the court stenographers who pass for journalists these days wouldn't know a scientific theory from a bible quote. It's really sad what passes for science reporting today. I was going through the garage and came across a pile of Scientific American magazines from the late '80s. Big, thick magazine with lots of in-depth articles written by the people who actually did the research, with tons of charts, piles of data, and the techniques used to generate and analyze it. The current issue on my counter right now is a sad shadow.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
8. Re:Richard III or a relative? by Nefarious+Wheel · 2013-02-04 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Now if you wish to take on the DNA proves *everything* mystique,
  Yes -- once you get past the "anything of science is magical" point and into the actual science it's okay to challenge things, to accept that a good result is "mostly sure" and that you don't need absolute philosophical certainty to get excited about a fact.
  
  --
  Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Ground-penetrating radar operator quote by paiute · 2013-02-04 05:23 · Score: 1

"I think we have spotted Dick!"

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Science evidence on the Uni of Leicester site by fantomas · 2013-02-04 06:13 · Score: 2

Scientific thinking for how the mtDNA proves who the skeleton is can be found on the University of Leicester dedicated website.
1. Re:Science evidence on the Uni of Leicester site by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-02-04 06:46 · Score: 2
  
  Scientific thinking for how the mtDNA proves who the skeleton is can be found on the University of Leicester dedicated website.
  From the link you posted:
  
  This means that Richard III, Edward IV and Anne of York all had the same mtDNA – from their mother, Cecily Neville – and as long as Anne’s daughters continued to produce daughters of their own (highly likely in an age when eight to ten children was common!), the mtDNA will have been passed down those lines of descent.
  Another advantage of mtDNA is that there are many mitochondria within each cell. DNA starts to degrade after death but with so many copies of the mtDNA, there is a good chance of being able to sequence it – even after 527 years.
  Consequently, if the remains found at Greyfriars are indeed Cecily Neville’s son Richard III, the mtDNA present should match that of her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson Michael Ibsen – because there are no males in the line of descent from Cecily to Michael.
  I understand the science very well, I am not questioning it. But, if you notice in the last sentence, the one beginning with "Consequently..." the proof relies on their not being any males in the line of descent from Cecily to Michael. I don't have a problem with that since we know that there were such accurate records kept for children born out of wedlock and illicit unions back in those times As such, even though there are no males between Richard III and Michael Ibsen, is it not possible that Cecily Neville had another male offspring? If so, would not the mtDNA also match? I know that this is unlikely, but it is not outside the realm of possibility, history is filled with such stories.
  What the science actually shows is that whomever was buried there is a descendent of Cecily Neville. No more or no less. That piece of information taken together with all the other information such as the location of the burial and the former church site, the wounds, etc. gives the probability that this skeleton is indeed Richard III, but it is only when taken together as a whole. The mtDNA, by itself does not prove that, nor does the other evidence, by itself.
  Each piece of evidence is used to support the hypothesis that this is Richard III. That is how the scientific method works. If there is overwhelming pieces of evidence so that the probability of the hypothesis being false is so improbable, then we conclude that it is proved. Again, I think that standard has been met, but it is not met solely by the mtDNA because without the supporting evidence, all the mtDNA tells us is that this person is in the family tree (on the other hand, if the mtDNA showed they weren't in the family tree, it could be used to disprove the hypothesis, no matter how overwhelming the other evidence was).
Joni Mitchell by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-02-04 06:37 · Score: 1

"They paved Plantagenet and put up a parking lot."
Of Magic and Legend by abuelos84 · 2013-02-04 07:48 · Score: 1

So that's where the Arcturian Myth started...
King Richard and the Knights of Parking-lot..
(yeah, I know, awful, just awful...)

--
-- Counting backwards since 1984!
Not quite how it played out... by zooblethorpe · 2013-02-04 11:15 · Score: 1

One account I read explained that the natives were selling hunting rights for one season, which was worth something in exchange. When the Dutch then decided that they'd bought the entire island in perpetuity, it might better be described as a reverse bait-and-switch.
:-P

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Prescient by mattack2 · 2013-02-04 11:59 · Score: 1

They really did pave paradise and put up a parking lot.
1. Re:Prescient by Alioth · 2013-02-05 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  I've heard Leicester called lots of things, but "paradise" ain't one of them!
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
His grandad shagged Emma Thompson by Hognoxious · 2013-02-04 12:07 · Score: 1

Remember that Henry VII's claim to the throne was somewhat dubious

He had quite a good claim.
Hang on, you mean the English throne, not the French one?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
How strong is DNA evidence after 18 generations? by kleinesRaedchen · 2013-02-04 21:15 · Score: 1

There are at least 18 generations between the remains found and the existing potential relative. So they probably only share a 2^(-18)th of DNA. That's roughly 4 in a million parts. Admittedly, DNA isn't inherited randomly at the level of nuclear bases. Instead inheritance works on the level of genes (in my understanding). But those are only around 25,000. So, how many matching genes where found here? How much is this above random level?
Re:My name by michelcolman · 2013-02-04 22:41 · Score: 1

O, now I get it! I was wondering how they could use DNA from someone separated by 20 generations to "prove" the identity, but now the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. This is not about the old king at all.
Someone left a "Richard the Third" (the slang version) in a parking lot, DNA testing was used to find the perpetrator, and then some prankster decided to write a cleverly worded press release which was predictably misinterpreted and spread by all the news outlets. Those Brits haven't lost their sense of humour...
Time Team? by lemur3 · 2013-02-04 23:18 · Score: 1

From TFA
"but the location of his grave was lost when the building was demolished in the 16th century.
A team of historians, though, were determined to find the body. Archaeologists used ground-penetrating radar on the site of the former priory, and were able to locate the skeleton beneath a parking lot after only a few days of digging."
THEY DID THE GEOPHYS, did they?
This sounds awfully like the setup to every episode of TIME TEAM ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Team
1. Re:Time Team? by heefeneet · 2013-02-05 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA
  "but the location of his grave was lost when the building was demolished in the 16th century. A team of historians, though, were determined to find the body. Archaeologists used ground-penetrating radar on the site of the former priory, and were able to locate the skeleton beneath a parking lot after only a few days of digging."
  THEY DID THE GEOPHYS, did they?
  This sounds awfully like the setup to every episode of TIME TEAM ever.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Team
  Yeah, but these guys actually found something other than a series of small walls.
Parking Fine by Bitzer2 · 2013-02-05 05:28 · Score: 1

Richard the III has been occupying the parking space since 1485. The crown are expected to pay £4,768,422 in overdue parking tickets.
Re:Found You! by evansvillelinux · 2013-02-05 07:43 · Score: 1

Speaking of records: http://img.viame-cdn.com/photos/bed88380-51f7-0130-3026-1231381563be/r600x600.jpg

--
IMHO, IANAL, TINLA, etc...
Headlines do not an abstract make. by darkonc · 2013-02-05 19:48 · Score: 1

To just read the headlines and then complain that they were abit misleading is stupid.
Headlines are way less detailed than the actual article which provides the caveats... even though the artiicle is the length of an oversized abstract, the headlines are an abstract of that. That there are crucial details left out of the headlines shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.