DNA Confirms Parking Lot Remains Belong To King Richard III

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."

Comments

Oh dear...

[magarity]

Oh dear, Richard the third.

Why?

[vlm]

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?"

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Why?

[lochnessie]

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."

Re:Why?

[SoTerrified]

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

Re:Why?

[Andrewkov]

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

Re:Why?

[beelsebob]

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

Re:Why?

[Narcocide]

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.

Re:Why?

[Vreejack]

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.

Re:Why?

[Motard]

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

Re:Why?

[Zephyn]

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.

Re:Why?

[Wansu]

"How do you know he's king?"

"He hasn't got shit all over him."

-- Monty Python, The Holy Grail

Re:Why?

[Sique]

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.

Re:Why?

[squiggleslash]

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?

Re:Why?

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Why?

[davidshewitt]

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

Now is the winter of our discontent

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

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

Do you take the Tudors as historians?

[tylikcat]

"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.

Re:Do you take the Tudors as historians?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

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.

Re:Do you take the Tudors as historians?

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Obligatory Blackadder quote

[SoTerrified]

Better Blackadder quote:

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

Title Ambiguity

[Chiller]

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

Re:Still no explanation

[Wovel]

Obviously someone hired Tony Soprano to take him out.