After reading all of this, I'm still wondering how the hell do you lose the body of a King of England and forget where the grave site is?
They've had rather a lot of kings . . . even keeping them numbered, it's hard to keep track of them all.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
After reading all of this, I'm still wondering how the hell do you lose the body of a King of England and forget where the grave site is?
It's not too far fetched. The had a guy who has genealogical information that says he's a decedent, and his DNA "matches" that of the remains they believe to be Richard III.This actually strikes me as a bit of a stretch though I suppose if you have legitimate decendants and enough matches you could reach a pretty tight conclusion. All things considered it probably is him, though I don't think "proof" really applies here.
An F-350 hay wagon?What kind of car did he drive?
They didn't know what dementia was back then, did they?They've had rather a lot of kings . . . even keeping them numbered, it's hard to keep track of them all.
The guy has been dead for twice as long as your country has existed.
After reading all of this, I'm still wondering how the hell do you lose the body of a King of England and forget where the grave site is?
Well he did not reign long and may not have been popular wih he locals, or anyone else for that matter.
If the grave was not "honoured" it might well disappear from public memory. It seems it did in this case.
I did not even know the body was missing until this story broke.
‘Intolerance to uncertainty’ (IU) is a recognised condition occurring to varying degrees in many people. Richard was born into a world of conflict, a world where decisions were made and orders given, a world where execution, exile or imprisonment – or death in battle – could change the political landscape at a stroke.
IU is often characterised by rigid moral values, a strong belief in justice and the law, and a general view of the world as ‘black and white’. This is reflected in the changes Richard made to the legal system in his twenty-six months on the throne and is consistent with his actions as Lord Protector and King right up to his final ill-fated charge on Bosworth Field
Without the usual evidence available to forensic psychologists, Dr Boon and Professor Lansdale’s analysis of Richard’s personality is perforce limited and cautious. Richard III undoubtedly lived in interesting times, but he was a complex human being and consideration of him as such, rather than as a monstrous caricature, takes us a few small steps closer to understanding the motivations behind the actions by which history remembers him.
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/psychology.html
It's not too far fetched. The had a guy who has genealogical information that says he's a decedent, and his DNA "matches" that of the remains they believe to be Richard III.
It wasn't not like it was just a totally random search of DNA, found a match, then tried to tie the person back to Richard III.
Because his successor wanted him and his memory obliterated. The winner's propaganda, which extended into Shakespeare's play, made that defeated King wholly evil. That sort of postmortem character assassination wasn't new. The Egyptian Pharoahs practised it and so did the Roman Emperors. All tried to destroy all records of the 'evil' ones.
It was known that Richard III was buried at that monastery, but the monastery was destroyed by me (as Henry VIII) and the graveyard was built over.
He was the only 'missing' monarch in England's history.
That's some intriguing and interesting history.
Was Henry VIII trying to destroy evidence of Richard III or keep his legacy alive? Sorry, I haven't read any links on it. My knowledge of England's history is rusty.
...
True. I think it is just the fact that I am not an expert on genetics that makes me hesitate. Put together with the rest of the evidence I think the identification could be considered conclusive.
‘Intolerance to uncertainty’ (IU) is a recognised condition occurring to varying degrees in many people. Richard was born into a world of conflict, a world where decisions were made and orders given, a world where execution, exile or imprisonment – or death in battle – could change the political landscape at a stroke.
IU is often characterised by rigid moral values, a strong belief in justice and the law, and a general view of the world as ‘black and white’. This is reflected in the changes Richard made to the legal system in his twenty-six months on the throne and is consistent with his actions as Lord Protector and King right up to his final ill-fated charge on Bosworth Field.
Without the usual evidence available to forensic psychologists, Dr Boon and Professor Lansdale’s analysis of Richard’s personality is perforce limited and cautious. Richard III undoubtedly lived in interesting times, but he was a complex human being and consideration of him as such, rather than as a monstrous caricature, takes us a few small steps closer to understanding the motivations behind the actions by which history remembers him.
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/psychology.html
In other words proven as well as possible under the circumstances. I wonder here if the DNA evidence is compelling in the simple fact that there are no obvios disjoints between his sample and the decendant or it is some kind of Y chromosome trace.It was known that Richard III was buried in that area. The deformity of the skeleton, the indications of how that person was killed, and the DNA make it almost, but not completely, certain that this skeleton is Richard III.
In other words proven as well as possible under the circumstances. I wonder here if the DNA evidence is compelling in the simple fact that there are no obvios disjoints between his sample and the decendant or it is some kind of Y chromosome trace.
In any case if the searchers are convinced they will stop looking and no competeing specimen will be found. Good to go.
My wife is from Northumberland, now I know why she enjoys dallying with me It's genetic.Were it not for Northumberland's dallying and Stanley playing false, Richard would have easily prevailed.
The descendant's DNA is from Richard's sister.
It was known that Richard III was buried at that monastery, but the monastery was destroyed by me (as Henry VIII) and the graveyard was built over.
QUOTE]
you really are convinced that you are henry viii
you really are convinced that you are henry viii
Of course. And King Og of Bashan.
Just as you are a Hobbit.
In Richard III's position in history (thanks to Shakespeare), buried under a car park seems about right.
Well, yes, he's three feet tall, never wears shoes, and eats six meals a day.
But unlike Hobbit, I have appeared in character as Henry VIII - on stage, TV, in the local press, and on tourist information leaflets.
No one yet has asked me to appear as King Og of Bashan.