RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: davidft on Wednesday 12 September 12 14:11 BST (UK)
-
Archaeologists are currently digging up a car park in Leicester in search of the remains of Richard III of Bosworth fame. They have now found some bones which are going to be DNA tested.
According to the news this lunch time they are going to compare the DNA from the bones with that of a 17th generation descendant of Richard III’s sister. How is that going to work? It cannot be a Y-DNA comparison as Richard’s sister won’t have any. If it’s a mitochondrial DNA (maternal line) test will that provide any conclusive results? Mitochondrial DNA analysis as I understand it is much less precise and cannot conclusively prove a connection between Richard III and this 17th generation from Canada. All it can do is rule out a non connection.
Have I got it right or am I missing something in this DNA testing malarkey?
-
They dont have to use mitochondrial or just Y chromosome DNA - other DNA is available from cell nuclei i.e. the other 22 pairs of chromosomes. Even small fragments can be amplified using PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) or similar and analyzed using Electrophoresis to produce to DNA results like those you see on CSI etc
see : PCR - example of Electrophoresis results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction#Amplification_and_quantification_of_DNA)
Shane
-
Though they could use autosomal DNA, it would be extremely difficult to prove a relationship since there are so many generations between Richard III and his 17th great nephew. They would only share a microscopic percentage of autosomal DNA (something like 0.517 = 0.000763%).
Fortunately, Richard III's 17th great nephew is a direct descendant of his sister on the maternal line, meaning that they can use mitochondrial DNA. A benefit of this is that there's lots of mtDNA in our cells, so it's more easy to extract from ancient skeletons than nuclear DNA.
I'm sure they will do a very high level test (many more markers than you can easily test through a commercial company). While it is impossible to prove that two people were related using DNA, and there certainly will be differences in their mtDNA because of the 16 intervening generations, the test should be able to show whether there is a chance that the remains are related to the descendant. As you say, DNA is very good at disproving relationships, but not so good at proving them (because there is always the possibility that sequences could match by chance).
Alexander
-
Fortunately, Richard III's 17th great nephew is a direct descendant of his sister on the maternal line, meaning that they can use mitochondrial DNA. A benefit of this is that there's lots of mtDNA in our cells, so it's more easy to extract from ancient skeletons than nuclear DNA.
I'm sure they will do a very high level test (many more markers than you can easily test through a commercial company). While it is impossible to prove that two people were related using DNA, and there certainly will be differences in their mtDNA because of the 16 intervening generations, the test should be able to show whether there is a chance that the remains are related to the descendant. As you say, DNA is very good at disproving relationships, but not so good at proving them (because there is always the possibility that sequences could match by chance).
Alexander
BIB - Thank you. That was what I was thinking. They can't actually prove it, they can say there is a high possibility or say there is no possibility.
-
see : PCR - example of Electrophoresis results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction#Amplification_and_quantification_of_DNA)
thank you for the link, which I have read - if not fully understood.
i can see that technique working with close relatives eg son, mother or grandparent, grandchild and believe that was possibly the techniques use on the recent channel 5 series identifying some of the close relatives of Tutankhamen.
However i didn't think it was a reliable technique for comparing say over 17 generations when multiple natural variations in the DNA could occur. So at best it would give an inconclusive result.
(I think Freckneales post has explained the position I was trying to get to)
-
They could do a Y-DNA comparison.
The Duke of Beaufort is a direct male line descendant of Edward III as was Richard III so there would be male candidates out there to compare Richard III's Y-DNA with (assuming its him and that the reputed fathers of all the Beaufort heirs are correct)
-
I heard that the skeleton they are testing also had a somewhat curved spinal deformity .... or is that just Shakespeare ?? ;D ??? ;D
-
Yes that is true which is a bit ironic as for years the Richard III society have said he wasn't a hunchback and that was all Tudor propaganda ......
-
He wasn't a hunchback, as Shakespeare alleged, but he did have scoliosis, which is a sideways curvature of the spine. Apparently the skeleton also has scoliosis.
-
Interesting, I didn't know it had been decided he had scoliosis. In respect to the hunchback a year or so ago a programme looked at the famous picture of Richard with the hunchback. The painting was x-rayed and it was determined (don't recall exactly how) that the hunch was a later addition and that the original painting showed a much more normal posture (on Channel 4 I think).
-
I was thinking of starting a post on this subject so I'm glad to have found this one.
I also wondered about the Canadian nephew and if he is the only descendant they will test. Surely if there are others, they would test them all? Does anyone know?
Fascinating stuff.
-
I agree with you it would be silly to test just one supposed relative - afterall can the canadian vouch for the integrity of all his tree - of course he cannot.
As I have now established there are actually a far few male line descendants of Edward III (who would share the same Y-DNA with Richard III) it would be good if they could persuade some of them to be tested.
Perhaps one to watch ......
-
I wait with bated breath for the results. I suspect the answer to the DNA test will be 'inconclusive', which will be a shame - it would be nice to know if the skeleton is Richard III.
-
I'm sure there's another English king under a car-park in Stirling!
Skoosh.
-
I also heard on the radio that the skeleton had an arrow head in its back, and the back of its skull broken ....
-
They had the bloke (Michael Ibsen I think) who they are going to DNA test to compare with the bones on the local news. He was all a bit non plussed and the announcer wrongly said he is one of Richard III's closest living descendants. He is descended from Richard's sister Anne but there is no indication if this is in a female line, a male line or a mixed line - all of which could have implications for the DNA analysis.
Apparently he is a carpenter, all I can say is he made a complete hash of trying to shave some wood with the plane he had ::)
-
They had the bloke (Michael Ibsen I think) who they are going to DNA test to compare with the bones on the local news. He was all a bit non plussed and the announcer wrongly said he is one of Richard III's closest living descendants. He is descended from Richard's sister Anne but there is no indication if this is in a female line, a male line or a mixed line - all of which could have implications for the DNA analysis.
It is his direct female line - otherwise the mitochondrial DNA would not work (and his DNA would be almost no use).
I imagine the Y-DNA test would be more tricky, not only in obtaining the DNA from the skeleton, but also finding willing test subjects (most of whom have titles, baronies, duchies, etc.). Could you imagine if at some point in the future they were told that they had no rights to their title because at just one point in their ancestry someone had been a little...um...unfaithful!
-
Is there a thread anywhere on Rootschat that explains, in simple terms, what the various DNA tests do and why some are more useful than others? A link to a recommended website would be useful.
-
Just a quick overview for you:
There are basically three types of DNA tests useful for genealogical purposes:
- Y-DNA - DNA from the Y chromosome (found in cell nucleus) which only males have, and is passed from father to son with very few changes. Useful for direct paternal lines.
- mtDNA - Mitochondial DNA found in mitochondria, passed from mother to all children (male and female) through the generations. Useful for direct maternal lines.
- Autosomal DNA - Autosomes are your chromosomes in your cell nuclei that are not sex chromosomes (that is, not X or Y). When reproduction occurs, mitosis and meiosis take place which mix up (recombine) the DNA of the parents, to make a unique offspring. For this reason, unlike Y-DNA or mtDNA, it is not traceable along one single line. This means that it is only useful for determining rough relationships between people (eg. Second cousins), but it will not tell you on which lines you are second cousins. Autosomal DNA is only really useful for showing relationships in the last five or so generations, and general information about your ethnic ancestry.
You can look in the RootsChat Lexicon under DNA Testing for more threads on the subject:
http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/reflib-lexicon.php?letter=D&lang=EN&input_form=
-
Many thanks for that Freckneale. It is exactly what I wanted: concise, clear and containing everything I wanted to know.
-
He wasn't a hunchback, as Shakespeare alleged, but he did have scoliosis, which is a sideways curvature of the spine. Apparently the skeleton also has scoliosis.
Apparently the skeleton also had an arrowhead lodged in the back (as Lydart said) :o
-
Perhaps they ought to get the team in from History Cold Case ;D they did a good job on the skelton that had been buried in a Scottish castle - think it was Stirling Castle but not sure without watching the programme again.
Jean
-
The article I saw said Ibsen was the end of a direct female line - can't remember if his mother had no daughters or whether there were no sisters with children. Also said that for old samples mtDNA is easier to recover and analyse than Y-DNA.
-
Perhaps they ought to get the team in from History Cold Case ;D they did a good job on the skelton that had been buried in a Scottish castle - think it was Stirling Castle but not sure without watching the programme again.
Jean
The dig at Leicester is being filmed for a TV "special" which a cynic may say has shades of we know the result we want now how do we get there about it ::)
What surprised me is that reading articles on the dig there was allegedly a stone pillar on the site until at least Victorian times saying it was the burial place of Richard III. If so one wonders why it was destroyed ......
-
The article I saw said Ibsen was the end of a direct female line - can't remember if his mother had no daughters or whether there were no sisters with children. Also said that for old samples mtDNA is easier to recover and analyse than Y-DNA.
Seeing Mr Ibsen being interviewed yesterday he did talk very much as if his mother was still alive. That being the case one wonders why they didn't test her as he said she was quite excited about the Richard III connection
(Unfortunately the news report is not on the ITVplayer)
-
Autosomal DNA Would seem to be inherited thus, You are 50% of each of your parents, 25% of your grandparents, 12.5% great grandparents, 6.25% of your 2Xgreat grandparents, and 3.125% of your 3Xgreat grandparents. Obviously therefore unless you have a high level of inbreeding in your tree then this seems to be little use in determining your ancestral line beyond your great grandparents.
-
Found the article re Ibsen. His mother died 4 years ago, his only sister had no children. So he is the end of the line.
A further though on mtDNA versus Y-DNA. If a Y test didn't match, there would be a question about paternity down the male line as a possible reason for a mismatch. An mtDNA mismatch would prove it's the wrong person.
And finally don't forget DNA profiling originated at Lecester University with Alec Jeffreys in the 1980s, so presumably they have some good expertise on hand.
-
thanks for confirming the status of Mr Ibsen's mother. shame she didn't live so see the current events unfold.
-
He wasn't a hunchback, as Shakespeare alleged, but he did have scoliosis, which is a sideways curvature of the spine. Apparently the skeleton also has scoliosis.
This is intriguing as I'm one of those who believe that the hunchback, withered armed, limping Richard was an invention of Tudor propaganda as no contemporary reports mention that he had any deformity. But the fact that the skeleton appears to have scoliosis lends credibility, if it is indeed Richard, to him having a spine deformity, perhaps not a hunchback but maybe one shoulder higher than the other.
This did not however prevent him being an accomplished soldier from the age of 14 until his death on the battlefield at Bosworth - the last English king to die in battle. Difficult to conceive he could have achieved this with all the physical handicaps that Shakespeare gives him.
Maggie - slightly off topic :)
-
I too am fascinated by this discovery and the associated research, and particularly that the skeleton suffered from scoliosis. I am awaiting further information with bated breath!
-
Autosomal DNA Would seem to be inherited thus, You are 50% of each of your parents, 25% of your grandparents, 12.5% great grandparents, 6.25% of your 2Xgreat grandparents, and 3.125% of your 3Xgreat grandparents. Obviously therefore unless you have a high level of inbreeding in your tree then this seems to be little use in determining your ancestral line beyond your great grandparents.
It doesn't work like that! The 50% that you get from each parent can contain any mix of what they got from their parents.
-
Autosomal DNA Would seem to be inherited thus, You are 50% of each of your parents, 25% of your grandparents, 12.5% great grandparents, 6.25% of your 2Xgreat grandparents, and 3.125% of your 3Xgreat grandparents. Obviously therefore unless you have a high level of inbreeding in your tree then this seems to be little use in determining your ancestral line beyond your great grandparents.
It doesn't work like that! The 50% that you get from each parent can contain any mix of what they got from their parents.
Does that affect the argument and the proportions. Please explain in more depth if possible.
-
Is inadequate exit signage in these car parks to blame for buried bodies?
-
Does that affect the argument and the proportions. Please explain in more depth if possible.
If anything it strengthens the argument that autosomal DNA is of little use to determine your ancestral line beyond a couple of generations.
It certainly affects the proportions of DNA that you inherit - those from generations before your parents are indeterminable. Here's a little illustration - take a pack of cards, separate the suits and discard the aces - the twelves spades represent your paternal grandfather's DNA, hearts your paternal grandmother's, etc. Deal six spades and six hearts to your father, then six clubs and six diamonds to your mother. Now shuffle your father's cards and deal six to yourself, likewise with your mother's cards. Now look at your cards - it's unlikely that you'll have exactly three cards (25%) from each suit (grandparent).
-
I'm following this thread with interest. pbmartin - thank you for that lucid illustration of how DNA inhertitance works.
Maggie :)
-
They had a little section at the end of today's Daily Politics programme (last 5 minutes - you can watch it on the BBC iplayer) on Richard III.
They were talking to a Professor (Lin Foxall ?) at Leicester University about this. She does not underestimate the difficulties involved in making a genetic connection and pointed out that archaeologists don't normally try to link back to named people. Still they reckon its about 12 weeks until they get the DNA results. What I want an interviewer to ask is why are you only doing one DNA test - why not test against a number of "living descendants" - or is that going to be phase II ?
-
my understanding is that even though the proportion of DNA in common with a potential living descendant will be very small - there can be distinctive sequences intact in these chains that can help confirm, or rule out, likely connections.
Shane
-
I have been reading a history forum and there is a great deal of sceptism on there about the whole dig and how its being media managed. Still here is a link to the Richard III society
http://www.richardiii.net/
if you go to the what's new section you can see the full report on the dig under the title
Issued by University of Leicester Press Office
Issue date: 12 September 2012
SEARCH FOR KING RICHARD III ENTERS NEW PHASE AFTER ‘MOMENTOUS DISCOVERY HAS POTENTIAL TO REWRITE HISTORY’
which includes a bit about the DNA testing
-
It certainly affects the proportions of DNA that you inherit - those from generations before your parents are indeterminable. Here's a little illustration - take a pack of cards, separate the suits and discard the aces - the twelves spades represent your paternal grandfather's DNA, hearts your paternal grandmother's, etc. Deal six spades and six hearts to your father, then six clubs and six diamonds to your mother. Now shuffle your father's cards and deal six to yourself, likewise with your mother's cards. Now look at your cards - it's unlikely that you'll have exactly three cards (25%) from each suit (grandparent).
While it is true that it is unlikely one will inherit in exact proportions as Redroger described, they will not be very far off in most cases. I think the analogy is slightly misleading - you have to keep in mind the vast amount of DNA in our cells. So take a thousand packs of cards rather than just one. If you repeat the experiment with a large sample size, the probability is very high that you will receive close to 25% from each suit (grandparent). Of course, as you get many generations back, a larger margin of error creeps in.
Alexander
-
Thanks for the explanations, Freckneale, I think the point you make about larger statistical populations is extremely valid.
-
I think pbmartins anology is quite good, the selection of proportions of Autosomal DNA inherited are random ; http://www.smgf.org/education/animations/autosomal.jspx
-
I like this animation - if I'd seen it before I'd have used it in teaching. But inevitably it has rather simplified things: please forgive me if I get geeky biological at this point.
The reshuffling of genetic material between chromosomes in the process of meiosis occurs because, as the animation shows, parts of matching (homologous) chromosomes are exchanged. These crossover points are called chiasmata; there are likely to be a handful of chiasmata between larger chromosomes and one or two between smaller chromosomes. Now even the shortest chromosome is about 51 million base pairs long, so the deduction is that the reshuffling is of large chunks rather than small sections, even over several generations, and that specific DNA sequences will be conserved. The very large size of the genome and the small number of chiasmata makes the card-shuffling analogy quite limited (would be a great teaching/discussion point!); perhaps it's better viewed as the small child shuffling cards, where he merely swaps three large handfuls of cards rather than shuffling individual cards. That's why DNA testing for STRs - short tandem repeats - can work as the repeated sequence is inherited as a block unless it's very unlucky and ends up with a chiasma.
-
The Channel 4 programme on Richard III and whether he is the "King in the Car Park" is on Channel 4 on Monday at 9pm
-
Thank you David. That looks interesting - will try to download it. :)
-
They are just about to reveal whether the body in the car park really IS Richard III
-
Watching it live on the BBC website now - it's fascinating.
-
Ancestry have just announced it is Richard the 3rd
-
'Tis he ......... fascinating. :)
-
Poor Richard it waits 500 years to be rediscovered and then his press conference is interrupted by a lying politician pleading guilty ::)
Still I am pleased for the academics involved as this is one of those events that they only get once in a lifetime if lucky. I am grateful to all those who gave their DNA to be tested, three separate lines in the end, and one of them a male line.
I did find the press conference a bit dry and hope the documentary tonight has a bit more life in it.
Still nevertheless well done to all involved
-
only saw half the conference - but fascinating
I saw the summary of the analysis on the bones, but think I missed some details before this - what were the earlier experts fields of expertise ?
-
Well it's been confirmed, they are indeed his remains http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
How exciting. Well done Leicester University :)
Jane
merged with existing thread
-
The interruptions for Chris Huhne were annoying as they came at vital times. There was at least a genealogist, a DNA analyst, and a forensic scientist I think.
-
thanks, might have seen most of the main details then .. I dropped in during the details on the skull and rib wounds
p.s. wasn't there a historic documents expert / historian also ?
-
I'm intrigued by the fact that history is now being re-written to show it was not Richard III who was the villain but Henry VII. How anyone would ever know the truth I don't know. History is written by people who weren't there at the time and they make the facts fit their desired version of events.
-
Probably, Shane. I missed quite a bit as I was trying to get my PC to load the live BBC coverage on their website, which wasn't interrupted by the political stuff.
I must re-read Josephine Tey's 'Daughter Of Time'.
-
I see he's going to be reinterred at Leicester Cathedral. I wonder why not at Westminster Abbey? That's going to be a wonderful historic moment :)
Jane
-
Fascinating stuff! Apparently Richard III is to be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral in accordance with archaeological practice which is to reinter disturbed human remains in consecrated ground nearest to where they were dug up. Will be good for Leicester certainly - already they are announcing the opening of a visitor centre to coincide with the reinterrment ceremony.
-
Going to watch Channel 4 tonight.Huhne or his ex wife or both deserve to be brought to justice, but it does seem to me that the entire Political Judicial Establishment is sistemically corrupt! Pity, as there is no real alternative was it not Churchill who described democracy as the "least worst system available"?
-
I would be interested to see how they traced the genealogical line from Richard's sister Jane down to the Canadian carpenter, Ibsen. Has that been published?
-
Some of the evidence revealed how brutally his body had been treated after being killed. For example, it sounds as though after his body had been slung over the back of a horse, somebody had thrust a dagger deep into his backside. Other stab wounds in his chest had been inflicted after his armour was removed. Sounds very like ritual humiliation of a dead leader. It couldn't happen now of course....
-
I would be interested to see how they traced the genealogical line from Richard's sister Jane down to the Canadian carpenter, Ibsen. Has that been published?
http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/press-conference-4-february/key-scientific-information/evidence-from-the-genealogical-study
-
That sounds like a good practice Greensleeves.....burying remains nearest to where they were found....
Now, if only Leicester University would turn their attentions to my research... ;D
Jane
-
I would be interested to see how they traced the genealogical line from Richard's sister Jane down to the Canadian carpenter, Ibsen. Has that been published?
I've just heard on the radio that someone else, independently of the link we'd all heard about, had traced another descendant and this "new" descendant and the Canadian man are also linked by DNA.
Lizzie.
Modified - reading the link groom posted, it seems that the Leicester researchers set out to find another female link, so not independently as related on the radio. ::)
-
Some of the evidence revealed how brutally his body had been treated after being killed. For example, it sounds as though after his body had been slung over the back of a horse, somebody had thrust a dagger deep into his backside. Other stab wounds in his chest had been inflicted after his armour was removed. Sounds very like ritual humiliation of a dead leader. It couldn't happen now of course....
The injuries revealed on the skeleton fit perfectly with historical sources that Richard was stripped after death and attacked, then slung over a horse, and further abused. Also the injuries indicative of wounds inflicted during the battle before death confirm that he died fighting valiantly to the end. Wasn't his horse killed from under him? Then Lord Stanley changed his allegience and Richard was left helpless on the battlefield.
-
Will Mr. Ibsen now be considered some sort of 'para-royal?' Will he be invited to take tea with the Queen? They must be some kind of cousins, right?
-
Since Henry VII had such a weak claim to the throne, clearly he would want Richard III's remains buried somewhere anonymous so that he could not become a martyr. Henry's claim to the throne is incredibly weak, as it is through his mother who was descended from John of Gaunt and his mistress, Katherine Swynford. The pair were married shortly before John of Gaunt's death and the children of the union were subsequently legitimised, but nevertheless, it does explain why the Tudors were always so touchy about their right to rule. And it also explains Henry VII's need to marry Elizabeth of York, in order to give his offspring the credibility his claim to the throne lacked.
-
How exciting! It is him! I thought an announcement was imminent as there has been
some coverage of this in our media (Australia) over the past couple of days.
Can anyone tell me what are the plans for the site if the discovery? Will more of the car park be excavated?
It is quite thrilling! And what a boon for tourism in Leicester. A great result all round especially for whoever suggested digging the carpark for the remains. I'm so pleased at the outcome.
-
"Richard spent his winter of discontent,
buried beneath three feet of cement"
Isn't todays announcement exciting !! So .... us Richard III fans have something else to discuss !! Well done to the archaeologists, the DNA experts, and everyone else involved in this project.
I'm interested in what sort of burial he will have. He was a Roman Catholic, so is the Anglican Leicester Cathedral the right place for a Catholic king ? Will he be re-buried there with catholic rites, performed by a Roman Catholic priest ?
Will any members of the current royal family, although not of Richards 'line' be present ?
Or perhaps modern descendents of him will want to take him to Canada for burial .... perish the thought !!
Some good news today for historians; pity it wasn't the number one item on the news broadcasts, a king ousted by a corrupt politician ! Huh !!
-
My daughter showed me this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfb_jAh6eFk
(Horrible Histories - Richard the Third)
[love Horrible Histories ;D]
-
A thought. As the suppliers of the DNA are each the end of their own family lines, had this research not been done during their lifetimes then this particular line of investigation would not have been possible.
-
How exciting! It is him! I thought an announcement was imminent as there has been
some coverage of this in our media (Australia) over the past couple of days.
Can anyone tell me what are the plans for the site if the discovery? Will more of the car park be excavated?
It is quite thrilling! And what a boon for tourism in Leicester. A great result all round especially for whoever suggested digging the carpark for the remains. I'm so pleased at the outcome.
Apparently the Council have already bought a nearby building to be used as a future visitor centre
-
Any idea what type of funeral will Richard have - normal pomp and circumstance or somewhat modified ?
-
Apparently to be re-interred in Leicester Cathedral and I would guess Leicester will make it a big event to attract the tourists and why not. It isn't every day you find a King.
Buzancy18
-
I'm interested in what sort of burial he will have. He was a Roman Catholic, so is the Anglican Leicester Cathedral the right place for a Catholic king ? Will he be re-buried there with catholic rites, performed by a Roman Catholic priest ?
Well - the current Cathedral was a Catholic church in Richard's lifetime!
-
Since Henry VII had such a weak claim to the throne, clearly he would want Richard III's remains buried somewhere anonymous so that he could not become a martyr. Henry's claim to the throne is incredibly weak, as it is through his mother who was descended from John of Gaunt and his mistress, Katherine Swynford. The pair were married shortly before John of Gaunt's death and the children of the union were subsequently legitimised, but nevertheless, it does explain why the Tudors were always so touchy about their right to rule. And it also explains Henry VII's need to marry Elizabeth of York, in order to give his offspring the credibility his claim to the throne lacked.
There is no evidence Henry had Richard buried secretly; indeed there is a wardrobe account dated 1495 of a payment of £10 1s to a James Keyley for "King Richard Tombe" and a possible contract which was the subject of a hearing in the Chancery Court regarding an alabaster monument. Speed claimed that Richard's tomb had an alabaster effigy. Whatever Henry thought of Richard, he was an anointed king, and kings tended to respect their own (Richard himself had ordered the reburial of Henry VI at Windsor.
Henry's claim was tenuous but he emphasized his right by inheritance and conquest - he deliberately did not marry Elizabeth for some time to show his rights did not come from his marriage
Steve
-
Sorry about the format of the previous post - the first paragraph was meant to be a quote from Greensleeves previous one - I haven't got the hang of "quoting" obviously!
Steve
-
Sorry about the format of the previous post - the first paragraph was meant to be a quote from Greensleeves previous one - I haven't got the hang of "quoting" obviously!
Steve
If you click on the "quote" button you get the passage you want to quote, followed by the html instruction to end the quote. Looks like this:
Steve
[/quote]
Underneath that, you can write what you have to say, and it will be separate.
Cheers,
China
-
I'm intrigued by the fact that history is now being re-written to show it was not Richard III who was the villain but Henry VII.
Why can't it be that history was rewritten at the time to show Richard as the villain when he wasn't?
Read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey. It will give you quite a bit of information about contemporary writers and what they had to say....and what they didn't say, including accusations against Richard. It's a good read, good detective story.
Cheers,
China
-
Oh, and Richard's my third cousin apparently. Nineteen times removed, but hey, details...details ;D
-
Congratulations ! Is that why your cat wears a crown ??
Daughter of Time is an excellent story. First read it as a teenager, and have been hooked on R III ever since, and have read masses of books since, for and against him.
-
Oh, and Richard's my third cousin apparently. Nineteen times removed, but hey, details...details ;D
Hope you're appearing in the TV programme tonight ;)
-
Read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey. It will give you quite a bit of information about contemporary writers and what they had to say....and what they didn't say, including accusations against Richard. It's a good read, good detective story.
Cheers,
China
I mentioned that book earlier, China - it's a marvellous detective story and a real eye opener regarding what was actually said and done at the time.
-
So you did...and yes, it is :)
Yeah, maybe they'll fly me to London for a DNA swab and tea with the Queen. At long last :P :P ;D
-
My cat wears a crown because he's a King, Lyds ;D
-
Are our royal family actually related at all to Richard 3rd? If they are why didn't they take a DNA sample from one of them?
-
This might explain it:-
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/extractionofdna.html
Seems the link is through the mitochondrial DNA passed mother to daughter until it got to the Canadian man. You'd think our Royals were related in some distant way but perhaps not in the right way. Didn't Prince Philip donate a sample to help with the identification of the Romanov remains? Presumably in that case the link was much stronger, and certainly more recent.
-
Not sure but I don't think that the Plantagenet line had any connection to the Sax-Coburg and Gotha line
-
Apparently it was the Richard III Society who pushed for the archaeological dig of the car park to take place but at the time they felt it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. However, the skeleton of Richard III was found in the first trench excavated.
Interesting that the evidence appears to show that the body had been more or less dumped in a grave too small for it, and that there was no coffin. This seems at variance with the version cited by Ruskie earlier.
-
I don't know whether scoliosis of the spine is hereditary or not but the youngest daughter of Prince Andrew suffered from it. It was corrected by surgery a few years ago. Mind you - it's rather a long gap between sufferers :o
-
"Two members of the university chaplaincy’s staff, one of them in the black-and-red robes of a Roman Catholic priest, sat beside the remains as reporters filed by, adding to the air of solemnity and reverence."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-the-third-bones.html?_r=0
It seems a bit over the top. Human remains are removed from archaeological sites every day of the week without such pious hoopla. I've seen quite a few myself. True they probably weren't kings and they definitely weren't Christians but they were treated as human beings deserving of respect. Still, there was never any requirement to remain silent in their presence or to station clergymen around the work table where they were laid out.
-
Just a reminder that the programme starts on Channel Four in just over fifteen minutes.
Stephen :)
-
Thanks for the reminder, Stephen - have just put the television on.
-
No doubt it will go very quiet in here.
-
Are our royal family actually related at all to Richard 3rd? If they are why didn't they take a DNA sample from one of them?
The Queen's 16x great grandfather was Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York according to her genealogy page. Richard's sons were Edward IV of England and his brother....Richard III.
So it would seem so. Perhaps one just doesn't ask the Queen for this sort of thing :P
-
there are several lines of descent from Richard Duke of York and C Neville to the Queen but none of them, that I can see, are pure male or pure female lines so as I understand it you could not do a DNA match
-
I may be wrong here but didn't the DNA have to be mitochondrial passed mother to daughter down the generations? If the Queen is related via the paternal side then her DNA would not provide the necessary info.
-
"Perhaps one just doesn't ask the Queen for this sort of thing"
Yes, but they need a straight shot down the female line for mitochondrial DNA or down the male line for Y-chromosome DNA. According to the LA Times, they have already identified a living person for a Y chromosome comparison if they can extract usable DNA from Richard's bones.
"In coming months, the University of Leicester team said it will attempt to analyze the skeleton's Y-chromosome -- passed down from fathers to sons -- in a similar manner. The team said it already has identified a "consensus Y-chromosome type" in living descendants of King Edward III, who would have the same Y-chromosome as Richard."
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-richard-iii-mitochondrial-dna-20130104,0,5536883.story
-
I may be wrong here but didn't the DNA have to be mitochondrial passed mother to daughter down the generations? If the Queen is related via the paternal side then her DNA would not provide the necessary info.
If the Queen (or rather her father) had had a pure male line of descent they could do a comparison much as they have done with the Dukes of Beaufort. However as far as I can see this does not escist
-
This is from that link I posted earlier:-
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/extractionofdna.html
Mitochondrial DNA
Most of our DNA exists within the cell nucleus but a small amount exists within mitochondria, small organelles whose function is to convert chemical energy (from food) into a form that the body can use. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is a small loop of DNA which is transmitted from mother to child and is therefore very useful in tracing female lines of descent.
The mitochondria in sperm cells are destroyed as part of the fertilisation process so there is no combination and mtDNA is transmitted unchanged from mother to child. As long as the female line remains unbroken, the mtDNA remains constant, barring small naturally occurring mutations. This means that Richard III, Edward IV and Anne of York all had the same mtDNA – from their mother, Cecily Neville – and as long as Anne’s daughters continued to produce daughters of their own (highly likely in an age when eight to ten children was common!), the mtDNA will have been passed down those lines of descent.Another advantage of mtDNA is that there are many mitochondria within each cell. DNA starts to degrade after death but with so many copies of the mtDNA, there is a good chance of being able to sequence it – even after 527 years.
Consequently, if the remains found at Greyfriars are indeed Cecily Neville’s son Richard III, the mtDNA present should match that of her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson Michael Ibsen – because there are no males in the line of descent from Cecily to Michael.
-
they did a webchat on Channel 4 after the programme but it was pretty insipid and they weren't taking any questions that weren't of the "Isn't Richard great variety". Shame really as if they had been more open in their questions they might of had more of a discussion
-
"Two members of the university chaplaincy’s staff, one of them in the black-and-red robes of a Roman Catholic priest, sat beside the remains as reporters filed by, adding to the air of solemnity and reverence."
Erato - I've not read or heard anything about that in our media. Has anyone else? I didn't watch the programme this morning, although I watched the one on Channel 4 tonight and there was nothing about chaplain staff, one of them in black and red robes.
-
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65700000/jpg/_65700812_87f13eaf-9ab0-4dc0-89ed-9db0af3eaebd.jpg)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21328380
He looks like a much warmer version of the paintings, in my opinion.
Stephen :)
-
From what I understand there is a continuous line of MALE descent to the Duke of Somerset, but male dna is harder to extract, and if there was no match, one might assume there was an illegitimate birth along the way. (obviously not from R III, who had no living descendants)
I am not aware of whether this test has been undertaken as well as the mtDNA. (in the TV program, it was revealed they also had a lock of hair from one of the plantanganets, but they were unable to extract the dna from it)
The original genealogy to trace Joy Ibsen was done in 2004, and took about 2 years, and was not undertaken with this recent dig in mind.
Since the discovery of the skeleton, Leicester University have traced another person for the mt DNA, and well as Joy Ibsen's son, Michael Ibsen.
To be honest, I really thought they were going to say it was inconclusive, so I was delighted to hear the dna tests gave a positive result.
Regards
-
From what I understand there is a continuous line of MALE descent to the Duke of Somerset, but male dna is harder to extract, and if there was no match,............
the team have actually done three DNA tests and all show a match. There is Michael Ibsen's and another one that are down the female line and then there is one that goes down the male line to the Dukes of Beaufortg as they and Richard III are both descendants of Edward III
-
Can anyone tell me what are the plans for the site if the discovery? Will more of the car park be excavated?
Apparently the Council have already bought a nearby building to be used as a future visitor centre
Thank you David. I felt certain that something would be set up 'on the spot'. I think they should keep digging to unearth more of the building where he was found and perhaps reinter a model of the skeleton exactly as it was found. THis would put the discovery in (physical) context and the tourists would flock to see it. ;D
I think I should work for Leicester Council. 8)
"Two members of the university chaplaincy’s staff, one of them in the black-and-red robes of a Roman Catholic priest, sat beside the remains as reporters filed by, adding to the air of solemnity and reverence."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-the-third-bones.html?_r=0
It seems a bit over the top. Human remains are removed from archaeological sites every day of the week without such pious hoopla. I've seen quite a few myself. True they probably weren't kings and they definitely weren't Christians but they were treated as human beings deserving of respect. Still, there was never any requirement to remain silent in their presence or to station clergymen around the work table where they were laid out.
Erato, I completely agree. I can't stand this kind of mawkishness. Not sure I'd like to see too much pomp and ceremony with the burial.
I expect we will also see him intered in a full size coffin too .... why?
And ... is it wrong of me to prefer him to be on display rather than reburied? Probably.
-
I've done a google search and the only reference as reported by Erato
The sense of an important watershed in Britain’s royal story was underscored when reporters were escorted to a viewing of the skeletal remains, laid out in a locked room on the third floor of the university’s library, lying on a black velvet cushion inside a glass case.
No cameras were permitted, in accordance with an agreement reached with Britain’s Justice Ministry when it issued a permit for the skeleton’s exhumation, and, university officials said, with the dignity due to a king.
seems to be in American press.
This report about no cameras being permitted, etc. etc. is a load of rubbish. Cameras were there at the dig, at the time the bones were put in plastic bags and into a cardboard box. They were there frequently in the lab, and when the body was put through an MRI scanner, so what difference would it make if journalists saw the remains, even if they had to look through glass to do it and why would it need chaplain staff sitting nearby. There were no members of the chaplain staff in the labs.
-
I've done a google search and the only reference as reported by Erato The sense of an important watershed in Britain’s royal story was underscored when reporters were escorted to a viewing of the skeletal remains, laid out in a locked room on the third floor of the university’s library, lying on a black velvet cushion inside a glass case.
\
seems to be in American press.
\
That's a relief.
So it seems that they knew that the skeleton was Richard III some time ago. Enough time to create the reconstruction, make the TV programmes .... enough time to get the PR wheels in motion to take greatest advantage of this. Understandable I suppose. The hundreds of people involved in this must have been sworn to secrecy until the official 'reveal'. :)
-
"I completely agree. I can't stand this kind of mawkishness."
It's not just the mawkishness. They've had, probably, hundreds of excavated human skeletons go through their lab but the others were just regular British peasants and were consequently treated as specimens. No one felt there was any need for a clerical honor guard until they got the body of a king.
-
Erato - Until someone else from the UK confirms the US press story, I'm not convinced that there was any clerical honour guard for the remains of Richard III. I've heard absolutely nothing on the BBC or UK Independent Radio and TV to confirm that story.
-
Erato - Until someone else from the UK confirms the US press story, I'm not convinced that there was any clerical honour guard for the remains of Richard III. I've heard absolutely nothing on the BBC or UK Independent Radio and TV to confirm that story.
The NYT is not infallible, of course, but it's hard to believe they could have made that up. Maybe the foreign press got a separate tour and the clerics were present then but not when the British reporters got their tour.
-
"I completely agree. I can't stand this kind of mawkishness."
It's not just the mawkishness. They've had, probably, hundreds of excavated human skeletons go through their lab but the others were just regular British peasants and were consequently treated as specimens. No one felt there was any need for a clerical honor guard until they got the body of a king.
Agreed. But there will be a different attitude (rightly or wrongly) when a King is unearthed. I see it as historically and archaeologically interesting, but no need for ott pomp and ceremony. :)
-
My son just emailed his take:
A horse, a horse, my carpark for a horse.
-
Just doing a bit of reading and apparently there is talk of testing the bones of his two nephews, now interred at Westminster Abbey, as there is no real proof of who they are. I hope they do it!
This has been mooted before but permission has never been granted. I wonder why?
-
From what I understand there is a continuous line of MALE descent to the Duke of Somerset, but male dna is harder to extract, and if there was no match, one might assume there was an illegitimate birth along the way.
Regards
The problem with yDNA - and this answers in first post in the thread - is that if anything it's less certain than mtDNA, because (so-called) illegitimacy was (and still is) a significant factor, with rates higher than is often acknowledged. As a recorded mother-child relationship, in other words, is more certain than a father-child relationship, so historians and archeaologists prefer to use mtDNA for that reason.
The other problem is that, because it's DNA, there is a certain prestige to the evidence, as if it's somehow "proved" the link. It hasn't, as far as I can tell. The findings are consistent with the other evidence that points to the identity of the skeleton - but by itself it means little. My understanding is that "only" about 30 base pairs have been published to the media and we've no idea how rare the mtDNA is that we're talking about; the rarer it is, obviously, the better, but again, archeaologists and historians would want to see a lot more base-pairs. Answers to those questions will no doubt come when published a proper, peer-reviewed paper, rather than a media news conference, though.
But I do think the detail of the how the DNA was tested, and why, is revealing with respect to the current commerical DNA packages for genealogists (discussed ad nauseaum on this site) and the usefulness of the information derived from living descendents about a putative ancestor more than 3 or 4 generations back.
-
Interesting site:
http://plantagenetdna.webs.com/
-
As a recorded mother-child relationship, in other words, is more certain than a father-child relationship, so historians and archeaologists prefer to use mtDNA for that reason.
While what you say about relative certainty is true, mtDNA prevails in ancient DNA studies because everyone has it but only males have Y-DNA. It is also easier to recover from degraded sources (Y-DNA has 50 million base pairs while mtDNA has only about 17 thousand).
-
Very interesting -loved the discoveries :D
Its a wonder they didnt check my DNA though !!! I am descendant of the Yorks of Shenton, a little village next to the Bosworth field. :-X :-X Surely there must be a link ::)
Joking aside and thinking about how History is written.. It makes me realise that maybe in 500 yrs the lying Politician will always be associated with the event of this discovery. Therefore will achieve more than his 15mins ... I think I will come back in 500yrs just to read the History books.
:P :-[ ;D ;D
xin
-
The English were very careless with their dead kings. The exiled Richard II is supposed to be buried under a council car-park in Stirling, site of a Dominican Friary.
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England
Skoosh.
-
Next stop Winchester to dig up King Arthur. ::)
-
I am watching this tread with interest, I am a decendant of a family of a brother of a lady/Dame and husband Sir from stories of families past. This tree still needs some clarifaction. Maybe a swab of me to the lady will link me with this person. This person is very hard to trace even though I have some ??? records of possibility. Floozy
-
There is a well known story of a 'Richard Plantagenet' being buried in the grounds of Eastwell Church ( ruin ) in Kent. Apparently he does appear in the burial records there in 1550, died at the age of 81.
He was supposedly the illegitmate son of Richard III, who maintained a secret regarding his identity until much later in life when his employer at Eastwell Manor was curious to find the man who worked for him as a labourer, being able to read Latin. He then gained his confidence, and had a cottage built for him on the estate of Eastwell Manor. There is a tomb in the grounds of the ruined church yard reputed to be his, with a 19th century name plaque attached.
It would be interesting to know the truth of this story.....
-
"A hearse, a hearse, my kingdom for a hearse!" ;D
Skoosh.
-
There is a well known story of a 'Richard Plantagenet' being buried in the grounds of Eastwell Church ( ruin ) in Kent. Apparently he does appear in the burial records there in 1550, died at the age of 81.
He was supposedly the illegitmate son of Richard III, who maintained a secret regarding his identity until much later in life when his employer at Eastwell Manor was curious to find the man who worked for him as a labourer, being able to read Latin. He then gained his confidence, and had a cottage built for him on the estate of Eastwell Manor. There is a tomb in the grounds of the ruined church yard reputed to be his, with a 19th century name plaque attached.
It would be interesting to know the truth of this story.....
Richard did indeed have an illegitimate son, John of Gloucester (possibly also called John of Pontefract) whom he made Captain of Calais - Henry relieved him of the post and no further mention of him occurs post c1490. Richard also had an illegitimate daughter named Katherine
Steve
-
Steve, the son I am referring to was called Richard.
He apparently had a very simple upbringing, later on, being apprenticed to a bricklayer or carpenter, I forget which. Before the battle of Bosworth legend has it that he was taken to the King ( Richard ) and told he was his son, but was never to reveal this fact unless Richard won the battle of Bosworth.
Richard ( jnr ) never revealed his true identity until prompted to by his employer much later in life.
How much truth there is in this story I do not know, but this is a well documented story in many Kent history books, and much reference to it online by searching for 'Richard Plantagent, Eastwell'
I guess as a King he probably had many illegitimate children ;D
-
That is strange if he did have an illegitimate son called Richard who wasn't acknowledged, as his other two illegitimate children were brought up as part of the family by Richard 3rd and his wife, who accepted them, and, according to some accounts, loved them as if they were her own. If this child, Richard, was born in 1469, this was 3 years before Richard 3rd married Anne Neville and when he was only about 17. Perhaps they will now try and use DNA to see if this story is true.
-
That is strange if he did have an illegitimate son called Richard who wasn't acknowledged, as his other two illegitimate children were brought up as part of the family by Richard 3rd and his wife, who accepted them, and, according to some accounts, loved them as if they were her own. If this child, Richard, was born in 1469, this was 3 years before Richard 3rd married Anne Neville and when he was only about 17. Perhaps they will now try and use DNA to see if this story is true.
Apparently David Baldwin in his book The Lost Prince claims that Richard of Eastwell is in fact the younger of the two princes in the tower. He Claims that Edward V died and his younger brother, Richard is Richard of Eastwell. He asserts that Henry VII knew about this Richard and it was an arrangement he came to with Elizabeth Woodville as long as the boy's identity was kept secret he would be safe. He further argues that nothing is know of Richard of Eastwell before 1483 and nothing of Richard of York after 1483. Richard of Eastwell did not marry or have children which if you are a Prince in hiding is probably a good thing if you want to protect your life.
This theory could also explain why we know of Richard III's other children but not "Richard of Eastwell" as in fact he wasn't his
-
Thats very interesting, I had not heard that theory before, but would be interested to read the book now.
This story has always held a fascination for me, I loved this little ruined church by the lake in Eastwell when I went there, it is such a lovely peaceful place.
Gill
-
That's interesting David. If that is the case, presumably DNA testing wouldn't prove whether he was Richard of York or Richard of Eastwell?
-
Thats very interesting, I had not heard that theory before, but would be interested to read the book now.
This story has always held a fascination for me, I loved this little ruined church by the lake in Eastwell when I went there, it is such a lovely peaceful place.
Gill
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Prince-David-Baldwin/dp/075094336X/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360092318&sr=1-5
The author has also written other books on the period including on Richard III and Elizabeth woodville
-
That's interesting David. If that is the case, presumably DNA testing wouldn't prove whether he was Richard of York or Richard of Eastwell?
True, unless they can test Richard of Eastwell and Elizabeth Woodville and see if he has a match to her mtDNA
-
Thanks for link David, I may have to treat myself to a copy of this book, as had not heard this theory before. It would seem to make more sense if this were so.
Gill
-
Hey, look what I just found....you can read Daughter of Time free online, here:
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tey/josephine/daughter_of_time/contents.html
Cheers,
China
-
My daughter showed me this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfb_jAh6eFk
(Horrible Histories - Richard the Third)
[love Horrible Histories ;D]
Enjoyed that. Sandra
-
Perhaps not relevant to the title of the thread but I've been wondering about that facial reconstruction that's been done of the skull. Do you think that the reconstruction expert had no idea to whom the skull may belong, in which case the result was remarkable, or did she have prior knowledge of who it might be, in which case she could have been influenced by existing portraits?
-
I wondered the same thing, Maggie. I think she must have known, in which case she must have had an idea about the finished face from portraits.
-
Do you think that the reconstruction expert had no idea to whom the skull may belong, in which case the result was remarkable, or did she have prior knowledge of who it might be, in which case she could have been influenced by existing portraits?
I would have imagined that the person who reconstructed the facial features of the face would have done so in a clinical impartial way. They would obviously have known who the scull was suspected to be, but I imagine that the true professional would have the integrity to make sure that their work was done in a thorough scientific way.
Trystan
-
the reconstruction was done by Professor Caroline Wilkinson (http://www.lifesci.dundee.ac.uk/people/caroline-wilkinson)
-
It always occurs to me that with these facial reconstructions, the bone structure would be true, but there are always a variety of possibilities regarding the set of the eyes, the lavishness of the eyebrows, the thickness of the lips etc - things which cannot be determined by the skeletal remains.
-
Perkin Warbeck, a Fleming, claimed to be one of the Princes in the Tower,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkin_Warbeck
Skoosh.
P.S, Professor Wilkinson of Dundee Uni's reconstruction of Robert Burns face had some recourse to portraiture as the lower jaw was left in the tomb when it was opened for Burns wife and the skull was cast in plaster for phrenology purposes.
-
I'm sure you are right Trystan and the professional that Caroline Wilkinson is would not let the knowledge of who it was purported to be influence her in any way. But it still begs the question.
Forensic facial reconstruction is a career I would love to have followed but sadly in my far off days of career choices it did not exist.
-
GS, I understand that the skeletal remains reveal attachment points of muscles and ligaments that can give a fair indication of the lie of muscles, set of eyes etc. thereby giving shape of the face. Things like hair thickness and colour are more difficult.
-
re facial reconstruction:
I always wondered about the accuracy of facial reconstructions and never found them very 'lifelike'. I could never understand, like greensleeves, how they could estimate what the fleshy parts of the face would look like. Perhaps just a best guess? I can see how the bones are used to put down the muscle layer, but beyond that I think it must come down to interpretation.
Caroline Wilkinson does the facial reconstructions for History Cold Case. I was never particularly impressed by her reconstructions and found that they all looked quite similar. However the one of Richard III was coloured and 'dressed', so I think that made a huge difference and made him look more lifelike. I'm sure she also spent a lot more time working on him.
I also wondered if she had been influenced by images of him, but, thinking about it, as Richard has always received such a bad rap, maybe she would have been intent on giving him a completely different look to how he had been portrayed in the past? Therefore I tend to agree with Trystan. It also would have been a more interesting exercise rather than just making a 3d copy of a painting.
-
Facial reconstruction http://youtu.be/95ourpqaxdg
-
some details of how the reconstruction was carried out :
What is the method for reconstructing Richard III's face? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21350181) (BBC News)
-
Does the fact that there are portraits of Richard help or hinder the production of a cast of his features. By the way, today's Guardian has a feature that the firm assessing disability clients for the government (ATOS) have certified him as fit for work!! :)
-
Well, he does look healthy enough :P ;D
The portraits of him aren't contemporary, so they are suspect. They might do for hair colour, but I think they tried to avoid preconceptions from any portraiture.
-
Someone used to reconstruct the faces on a programme called 'Meet the Ancestors' on in the late 1990s.
I used to love it. It was only half an hour long, could have done with more. Must have missed loads of them with working though.
-
Someone used to reconstruct the faces on a programme called 'Meet the Ancestors' on in the late 1990s.
I used to love it. It was only half an hour long, could have done with more. Must have missed loads of them with working though.
Same person who did the Richard III reconstruction.
-
Hi, she`s called Professor Caroline Wilkinson, she is also on a programme called "History Cold Case"
jess5athome
-
I have read some of this thread, so apologies if this has been covered before.
However, what interested me is the different disciplines that came together.
e.g. archaeology - the actual dig; history - checking contemporary records; science - dna and many other tests; genealogy - checking the pedigree and line of descent to check the dna.
regards
-
Did you know Dickie was a Brummie. 8) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Derek! This makes your 33rd post....and Richard was 33 when he died....is that spooky, or what?
;D ;D ;D
-
"and Richard was 33 when he died"
Not just Richard, either.
-
Derek! This makes your 33rd post....and Richard was 33 when he died....is that spooky, or what?
;D ;D ;D
Very. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not just Richard, either.
Are you thinking of someone a couple of thousand years ago?