Posted on 12/02/2014 4:36:01 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Ping
Infidelity in the royal family??????L!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not possible!!!!!!!
Freeeedooooommmmmmmm!
In what way is infidelity a “surprise” in a royal family?
Reporters write such stupid things some times.
I think the number of monarchs of the UK/England that were faithful could be counted on less than 10 digits. And that takes into account that it was expect of the Kings to have mistresses.
Perhaps it means the body is not Richard III.
A black knight in the wood pile?
I don’t think so. I just watched a whole program on this on the Smithsonian Channel, and I think the evidence is pretty clear. The body is a match genetically to Richar III’s female ancestral line, the scoliosis of the spine fits, the age of the bones, the location of the skeleton, the wounds, etc. Even the forensic reconstruction of the face matches known paintings of him.
I’m pretty sure they did a programming with Tony Robinson that stated their mother had an affair with a French Arthur and couldn’t have been conceived by his purported Royal father because he was elswhere at the time he would have been conceived. Maybe it was the same with the other two brothers, including Richard III. The true heir was the late Michael Abney Hastings, a Scottish aristocrat and Australian citizen...
Now for the continuing saga: Who is the true king or queen of Great Britain, since Richard III’s descendants are not blood royalty?
Richard III’s descendants are not on the British throne. Richard’s cousin took the throne and his line ended with Elizabeth I who had no descendents.
Meh, they need to check out the Hanoverians....
The throne should be occupied by the Jacobites, not the present German usurpers.....me thinks.
Different program. I saw that one too.
I was referring to a new program about the discovery and identification of Richard III’s bones in a car park in Britain and the location of living relatives.
This all started when the Carolinians usurped the throne from the Merovingians.
Thanks afraidfortherepublic. Gosh, no Tudor claim to the throne? How surprising. 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.
Come now, don’t be so logical. :’)
None of the kings of England have a legitimate claim since the usurpation in 1066 by William of Normandy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.