Richard III and DNA testing

[XPhile2868]

Just a reminder that the programme starts on Channel Four in just over fifteen minutes.

Stephen

[Greensleeves]

Thanks for the reminder, Stephen - have just put the television on.

[Maggie.]

No doubt it will go very quiet in here.

[chinakay]

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

[davidft]

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

[Maggie.]

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.

[Erato]

"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

[davidft]

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

[Maggie.]

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.