Richard III's DNA throws up infidelity surprise

BBC ^ | 12-2-14 | Paul Rincon

[afraidfortherepublic]

Analysis of DNA from Richard III has thrown up a surprise: evidence of infidelity in his family tree.

Scientists who studied genetic material from remains found in a Leicester car park say the finding might have profound historical implications.

Depending on where in the family tree it occurred, it could cast doubt on the Tudor claim to the English throne or, indeed, on Richard's.

The study is published in the journal Nature Communications.

But the scientists would not be drawn on what meaning it might have - if any - for the current Royal Family, as it was still unknown when the break, or breaks, in the lineage occurred.

In 2012, scientists extracted genetic material from the remains discovered on the former site of Greyfriars Abbey, where Richard was interred after his death in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.

'Overwhelming evidence'

Their analysis shows that DNA passed down on the maternal side matches that of living relatives, but genetic information passed down on the male side does not.

[Verginius Rufus]

The Wittelsbachs have the best genealogical claim...but they are German too.

None of the kings of England have a legitimate claim since the usurpation in 1066 by William of Normandy.

[Charles Martel]

Yes, I'll never hear the end of *that* squabble.

However, kicking the Muslims out of Western Europe did buy me a bit of respect. It was short-lived, though. Just look at how they honor my memory these days... with a fencing tournament. Makes me wonder why I went to so much trouble.

[Verginius Rufus]

It was expected in an earlier age that a king would have mistresses...but that did not affect claims on the throne since any children born to the mistresses were excluded from the succession.

Infidelity by a queen would be a different matter...which is why Ann Boleyn and Catherine Howard were executed (although Ann was probably innocent). That risked putting on the throne a man who was unrelated to the earlier members of the dynasty.

Isn't there some speculation that Queen Victoria was the product of adultery and that that's how the hemophilia trait entered the British royal family?

[muir_redwoods]

I cannot now find the reference but I read somewhere a while ago that in everybody’s family there’s at least one “imported” bit of DNA every five generations on average. No one can vouch for his great, great grandmother.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

This explains Prince Charles perhaps...
Freegards
LEX

[morphing libertarian]

What type of car did he drive?

[5thGenTexan]

If this keeps Charles, Prince of All Things PC off the throne, then I am all for it!!!

[matginzac]

With respect, not so!
At the time of The Conquerer, the island was all divided. Edward had no direct heir and designatedWilliam as his heir. Harold took exception hence the Battle of Hastings. William consequently “united” most of the kingdom and founded the beginning of the modern day England.
Your argument could also be made to allow the kings of Denmark to have a greater claim too.

[GreyFriar]

That is the thought I had nibbling in the back of my head. However, the Daily Mail’s third paragraph reads:

“But it may have also exposed skeletons in the closet of the British aristocracy - undermining the Tudor dynasty - and could even raise a question mark over the current Queen’s royal heritage.”

and it is the last half that I was thinking of. But as others have said, there are the current Windsor’s who are from King George I of Hanover.

[madison10]

Obama. :-[ (I’m still thinking of the end times angle)

A Scot somewhere is really king.

[CARDINALRULES]

Yep. My ancestors liked to do that.

[kaehurowing]

We Merovingians will one day be revenged!

[CARDINALRULES]

The funny thing? I have both in my lineage.

[1010RD]

So you’re not a monarchist, eh?

[PGR88]

So Prince Charles wasn’t the first? That’s a surprise.

[publius911]

This explains Prince Charles perhaps...
Freegards

Prince Charles?
Oh... you mean

"Alfred E. 'Prince Charles?'"

That one?

[Ramius]

It's almost as if a group of inbreds better suited to selling postcards to tourists don't belong in an overpaid position of social stratification that has long been antiquated and repudiated.

Sadly, I can't say that hereditary monarchy was really any worse a way to select leaders that what we've managed. :-)

[gleeaikin]

fidelity ping

[bert]

unless of course the remains were not Richards

[Verginius Rufus]

Supposedly Edward the Confessor promised to make William his heir (under coercion) but the whole story could be a Norman invention.

Thomas Paine deals with it pretty well in Common Sense:

England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones, yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original.--It certainly hath no divinity in it.