Slashdot Mirror
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."
Oh dear, Richard the third.
"Validation! Validation! My kingdom for validated parking!"
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."
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."
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
Actual cause of death: Run over by a paving machine.
Because some countries have more than a couple of hundred years of history. Oddly, it wasn't always a parking lot.
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.
Good. Now we can clone him and open Plantagenet Park.
Hey, King Richard III, the DNA says the remains of this here parking lot are yours.
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.
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.
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.
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.