Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNA Confirms Parking Lot Remains Belong To King Richard III

Posted by timothy on 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."

28 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Oh dear... by magarity · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh dear, Richard the third.

    1. Re:Oh dear... by pbjones · · Score: 3, Funny

      A cunning plan...

      --
      There was an unknown error in the submission.
  2. Why? by vlm · · 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 · · 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 lochnessie · · 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."

    3. Re:Why? by SoTerrified · · 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

    4. Re:Why? by Andrewkov · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actual cause of death: Run over by a paving machine.

    5. Re:Why? by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because some countries have more than a couple of hundred years of history. Oddly, it wasn't always a parking lot.

    6. Re:Why? by Narcocide · · 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.

    7. Re:Why? by Vreejack · · 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
    8. Re:Why? by Motard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good. Now we can clone him and open Plantagenet Park.

    9. Re:Why? by Zephyn · · 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.

    10. Re:Why? by Wansu · · 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
    11. Re:Why? by Sique · · 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*
    12. Re:Why? by squiggleslash · · 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.
    13. Re:Why? by MightyMartian · · 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.
    14. Re:Why? by davidshewitt · · Score: 4, Funny

      They weren't thinking 4th-dimensionally. ;-)

    15. Re:Why? by cusco · · 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
  3. Now is the winter of our discontent by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Validation! Validation! My kingdom for validated parking!"

  4. Do you take the Tudors as historians? by tylikcat · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.
  5. Re:Obligatory Blackadder quote by SoTerrified · · Score: 4, Funny

    Better Blackadder quote:

    Prince Edmund: "Well, frankly, everyone thought you were dead."
    Richard III: "Well, frankly, I am."

  6. Title Ambiguity by Chiller · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, King Richard III, the DNA says the remains of this here parking lot are yours.

  7. Re:Still no explanation by Wovel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously someone hired Tony Soprano to take him out.

  8. Re:Still no explanation by wjousts · · 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.

  9. Re:Richard III or a relative? by Dcnjoe60 · · 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.