Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Richard III. I don't think so.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 41 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 10 Feb 2013 20:26:08 GMT
Charlieost says:
I am getting a Hitlers Diaries, Piltdown Man vibe about this Richard III discovery.

Lets start off with the supposed DNA proof. This presumed descendent of Richard is said to share his mitochondrial (female line) DNA. No one seems to have pointed out that the DNA would also be found in all his grandmothers sisters, great grandmothers sisters and so on back through time. You could have the supposed Richard III's DNA and so could I. So this proves nothing.

The body has a twisted spine. Josephine Tey in her book, Daughter of Time proves that the hunchback story, the twisted man is Tudor propaganda so out goes that little gem.

Finally (perhaps), would not the body have been bought back to London to show the people that he was dead. That was the way they did things back then?

This is a handy little story to get the University of Leicester some publicity particularly handy with education cuts abounding and also gets the royals some welcome publicity as surely the Queen must be by now thinking of stepping down to allow her moronic son to get on the throne.

Opinions and counter arguements welcome. C

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 20:38:54 GMT
Although I wouldn't read Shakespeare as history exactly, his depiction of Richard III, and that of Lawrence Olivier seems authentic to me. In medieval times, many soldiers became deformed by their training such as in archery for instance. We were informed of this in a presentation at Chester castle on one occasion.

Mind you, Richard is shown as being hunchback on his left side, whereas an archer would have become deformed on his right side usually I think!

However, and although Shakespeare did kow-tow to royalty in terms of his interpretation of history, the idea of the tortured soul that is shown is believable to me as someone who perhaps was implicated in the murder of the two princes.

Posted on 10 Feb 2013 21:00:47 GMT
phjhervey says:
It does not prove anything on its own. The question is how commonly is that mDNA found in male 15 th C burials in Leicester? That is multiplied by the respective probabilities of The carbon dating, a male skeleton with a back deformity, that R3 actually had a back deformity ( which is more than zero), a man with a rich diet buried without ceremony in too short a grave but a relatively honoured place in a church where several early sources say R3 was buried and who died of battlewounds to the head and was also stabbed after death in his buttocks with a skull whose facial reconstruction match R3 portraits which were probably based on contemporary portraits . If you do a Bayesian analysis using this series of probabilities then while not certain the chances are high that it was R3 in the grave. It is certainly a lot higher than the chance that QE2 is involved in an historical fraud. Cui bono?

Posted on 10 Feb 2013 21:02:32 GMT
Additionally, in medieval times anything left-handed was termed sinister, and they really did think that way. So Olivier's character showing Richard as tortured would reflect on the fact that he was viewed as being evil because of being left-handed (?). I've only just thought of that.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 21:03:48 GMT
phjhervey says:
It does not prove anything on its own. The question is how commonly is that mDNA found in male 15 th C burials in Leicester? That is multiplied by the respective probabilities of The carbon dating, a male skeleton with a back deformity, that R3 actually had a back deformity ( which is more than zero), a man with a rich diet buried without ceremony in too short a grave but a relatively honoured place in a church where several early sources say R3 was buried and who died of battlewounds to the head and was also stabbed after death in his buttocks with a skull whose facial reconstruction match R3 portraits which were probably based on contemporary portraits . If you do a Bayesian analysis using this series of probabilities then while not certain the chances are high that it was R3 in the grave. It is certainly a lot higher than the chance that QE2 is involved in an historical fraud. Cui bono?

Posted on 10 Feb 2013 21:54:27 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Feb 2013 22:50:43 GMT
Midge Noon says:
I must confess little knowledge in regard to the transmission of DNA in terms of what little "wrinkles" may or may not have been pulled in the reported Richard find. I do however tend to believe the old adage that if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. Also did anyone notice that the facial reconstruction of Richie bore a striking resemblance to Lord Farquaad from Shrek :)
What I do know a little about is archery, having for many years shot a longbow and having an interest in its history etc. Prolonged use of a bow (with a decent draw weight) over many years as was common in Richie's time does not "deform" the body and certainly does not deform the spine which is held straight (ish) during the draw and loose. What it does do is increase the bone density and thickness of the draw arm and makes the tendon attachment points on those bones more developed; as well as obviously developing increased muscle mass. So you can get some asymmetry but only of the kind you see in tennis players, like Rafael Nadal.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 12:21:34 GMT
Yes, as wags are saying, the remains dug up in the car park were those of a two door hatchback not a Tudor hunchback.

Posted on 11 Feb 2013 12:27:18 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Feb 2013 15:58:58 GMT
I saw a 'show' about this on C4 and a woman from The RIII Was a Very, Very nice Man Society got all OTT and emotional about dem bones. She had the cardboard box containing them draped with RIII's standard. I was rolling with laughter. My wife said, "she should have been an actress". I said, "I can't give a toss whose bones they are".

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 12:31:03 GMT
Ian says:
She did come across as a bit of a loon - I'm surprised she managed to get the university to take her seriously.

However, there does seem to a number of pieces of evidence each of which is pretty weak in its own but together they do seem to point to this being Richard III.

Even if it isn't him, it'll make a good tourist attraction for a few years until it is shown to be a hoax or a mistake, and then then it'll continue to make a great tourist attraction for an entirely different reason.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 15:58:29 GMT
Yes it's as good as any evidence offered of any holy relics being the 'true bones of......'

Posted on 11 Feb 2013 16:07:58 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 18:39:02 GMT
CES says

<<Although I wouldn't read Shakespeare as history exactly, his depiction of Richard III, and that of Lawrence Olivier seems authentic to me>>

On what grounds?

Perhaps Larry was in touch with RIII on the 'other side'?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 18:47:22 GMT
Well, I find it fascinating and, leaving aside the fact as Midge Noon has said, the reconstruction of RIII's face looks like Lord Farquaar from Shrek (I was trying to place it), it's like history coming to life. Perhaps he's here to help us?

Sir Lawrence's portrayal of Richard in a clip from the tv programme displays great sensitivity, and I personally can see maybe hovering on the verge of madness, and not necessarily evil as such.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 21:02:44 GMT
The computer reconstruction based on the car park skull looks quite a bit like the portraits of him we have. This could be because it is RIII's skull and because those portraits were reasonably accurate; it could also be the reconstruction sculpter was influenced by these portraits. The technique of reconstructing a face from a skull does seem to produce results that are passable likenesses of the person. I recall seeing a programme about reconstructing the face of an unknown woman from her skull, the result was good enough for relations to identify her

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 21:05:38 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Feb 2013 21:06:01 GMT
CES,

As for Shakespeare's take on history, it was baloney mostly. And I thought Larry's rendition was hammy but entertaining in the 'great actor' tradition.

Posted on 11 Feb 2013 22:07:09 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 23:10:44 GMT
Ian says:
I'm always suspicious of finding similarities between 2 faces where you expect. A school friend of mine was always told she looked very like her father and her brother. As both she and her brother were adopted any similarities were entirely coincidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 23:18:15 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 11 Feb 2013 23:59:11 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 08:37:23 GMT
Eh?

An artist in New York is 'reconstructing' the owners face from their DNA.

Posted on 12 Feb 2013 10:19:19 GMT
Not knowing how these things work, so excuse my ignorance - could they not check the DNA of (suspected) Richard III against the remains of his father whose skeleton is in the Church of Saint Mary and All Saints ?

And on a side note - my dense friend came out with a gem of a comment after the discovery. 'Ohh .. imagine being buried in a car park'. He wasn't buried in a car park it would have been a field or church or something 500 years ago. 'But still, being buried in a car park, that's a bit weird isn't it'. *sigh*

Posted on 13 Feb 2013 13:38:43 GMT
easytiger says:
Always thought royals should be buried in concrete on the A40 flyover.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Feb 2013 13:39:53 GMT
StoneLord1 says:
Yes, if they had permission to exhume. Getting the male y-dna is harder thanthe mtdna also; you have to go down to nuclear level. As it turns out there are males of the same lineage who will be giving samples, so they are going to try for the y-dna as well. Richard's mtdna was a sub clade of J (Jasmine) and pretty rare in Britain (I would estimate maybe 1 0r 2% of the British population with his particular mutations), and I presume they not only tested for the group but also studied the HVR1 and HVR2 markers; if they match you know the shared ancestry is within fairly recent times and not,say, in the stone age.
Speaking of dna and the identification of those long dead...remember the Tsar of Russia and his family who were murdered and the rumours that princess Anastasia survived and how a woman said she was Anastasia? Well, dna showed that the woman WAS in the same haplogroup T as the Tsar....but she wasn't his daughter as the kids would have had mtdna H from their mother. Her T also had vastly different mutations from the Tsar's. I myself am T,so will sshare a common ancestor somewhere with the Tsar but our markers are so different it is probably in extremely remore antiquity. I have a better match to a family found in Pompeii--they are missing one common set of numbers in their HVR1 mutations, as am I.

Posted on 14 Feb 2013 17:18:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Feb 2013 17:21:07 GMT
James Smith says:
Behave yourselves, you world weary sceptics - we East Midlanders are entitled to our day in the sun, 15 minutes of fame, or whatever applies. Just sour grapes because our last legitimate monarch's mortal remains belong to us.

Posted on 15 Feb 2013 10:21:40 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Someone texted into to Radio5 the other day to say they'd been stuck in a car park in Leeds for 2 hours due to the snow. Someone else texted in saying 'How do you think Richard III feels?'
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
ARRAY(0xafbe34f8)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  41
Initial post:  10 Feb 2013
Latest post:  22 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions