Richard III & the Car Park

[Errata]

Think they'll dig again if the remains aren't Richards?

[Monty]

Yes.

And whoever it is he will be respectfully reinterred and remembered in Leicester.

Of course, if he turns out not to be Richard it raises the question if all these who clammered for a York burial would still want that.

I think not.

Monty

[Phil H]

I picked up a copy of arcahaeology magazine over the weekend - I'll provide details later.

They anticipate DNA results in mid-December apparently. And may do some work on teeth to discover wherre the individual was born and raised.

Thanks vm for the up-date, Monty. You are a star.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

If it turns out not to be Richard, are they going to do any investigating as to who it might be? or will he just be reburied as an unknown? I realize that there's a certain amount of return on investment necessary for investigation to be worthwhile-- and a point at which no more investigation would reveal anything new. But would "not Richard" be that point?

[Phil H]

If the "DNA" tests prove inconclusive then I think there will be a pause while they await results from analysis of the teeth.

I think caution is being excerised here and no claims will be made that cannot be well verified.

They have excavated the area where richard was believed/said to have been interred, so where would they did again? If this is DEMONSTRABLY not the body of the king, then it could be that folklore was right and his remains were unearthed and thrown into the river at the Reformation.

I think - again in the event that the DNA tests are inconclusive - that there will be a major debate about how a body with battle wounds and a curved spine came to be found EXACTLY on the spot reputed to be Richard III's tomb. the coincidence would be massive. I'm not sure how you would/could prove who a C15th body belonged to at this remove, if it is NOT royal.

Await then claims that Richard survived bosworthy; or that the Tudoes replaced the body of the handsome king with a crookback just in case it was ever disinterred - to make their myth more real!!!

I have no particular knowledge of DNA testing, and worry about the long line of descent to the modern descendent, but I suspect that they will be satisfied that this IS Richard III.

Now I prepare to be proved VERY wrong.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

I am not an expert on DNA either, but my husband has a degree in biology, I've taken courses in statistics, and I have a cousin who works for a prosecutor's office, so here's what I can tell you: first, they are using mDNA, or mitochondrial, not nuclear DNA; mDNA is more stable than nDNA, which is why you can use it after so many generations (the rate of mutation of the Y-chromosome is very slow too, so if we had an unbroken male line, we could use that, but nDNA decays faster, and I think Henry VII saw to it that there were no Y-chromosomes around to test). Second, the rate mutation of mDNA is predictable. Third, some parts are more stable than others. They will look at what is salvageable from the corpse, which since it isn't that old (as opposed to, say, King Tut, and they got usable mDNA and Y-chromosomes from his femur), may be most of it, which means they'll be lucky, and will be able to look at they parts that are known to be resistant both to mutation, and easily interpreted in spite of decay, and therefore will be a really good match to the modern line.

Last, there are so many pieces to DNA (even mDNA), that even given the fact that most of them don't result in viable cells, there still are many more possibilities than people who have existed, and when you are dealing with mDNA, you are talking about maternal lines. There will be some change, since 1485, but it will be at a predictable rate, and will still be very, very close to the modern line; moreover, the odds that some other maternal line would have mutated from something else, to become more like the "Cecily Neville" line in 1485, than the actual "Cecily Neville" line is now, is like a river in Kentucky, which looked completely different from the Thames in 1485, to have changed courses over the centuries to the point, that right now, it looks more like the Thames in 1485 than the modern Thames does. The odds are so astronomical as to be negligible.

Which I guess does make my skeleton question stupid. I forget about the fact that the skeleton was pretty much where Richard was supposed to be, and how small Britain is. You don't misplace things much. You wouldn't believe how long it took us to figure out that the Ohio and the Mississippi were essentially the same river. It still goes by two names.

If the mDNA doesn't match, it probably means that someone goofed up the genealogy, and they should take another look at it. Make sure there isn't a case of someone raising a nephew or grandchild as their own child somewhere along the way, or just a plain old mistake. I guess it could be that this is the only potential unbroken female line, though, and if this isn't a match, it's a bust.

[Phil H]

Of course, Rivkah, it could be genealogical issues dating back to the C15th.

For instance, one historian, not that long ago, suggested that Richard's brother (Edward IV) might not have been his father's son!! Apparently, the Duke of York was on campaign at the time of the child's conception. Other circumstances were also quoted.

Other historians have poo-pooed the idea, saying the Richard of York could easily have got home to Rouen (Normandy) at the relevant time and rationalising the other circumstances away.

It's not relevant to Richard III, since the mother was the same - but I suppose strange things can happen in the best regulated families.

On losing things, its the length of our history, in Britain, that causes the problems. Did King Arthur exist? Or is he a fictional creation? On the evidence you can argue it either way - but with time, so much has been lost. (Bit like JtR studies.) Same with place names - almost all the Celtic (pre-Roman) names have gone, though some are traceable through lingusitic remnants in later names.

Did you know by the way - talking of linguistics, that the cow, pig and sheep are called by those ANGLO-SAXON names because it was Anglo-Saxons who reared them and tended them after 1066. But we eat beef, porc and mutton because it was the Frenc speaking Normans who ate the meat!! (Boeuf, porc and mouton.)

Thanks, by the way, Rivkah, for the info on DNA - very helpful background to have.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

Yeah, I know the beef/cattle thing. I have a degree in English, and my mother has a Ph.D in linguistics. I've known that since I was about 7. Also, I took French for two years in high school, and two years in college, and took two years of high school Latin.

On the DNA thing, because mDNA mutates at a predictable, and very slow rate, it will either be a match, or it won't. If it is close, but slightly outside parameters, then it is safe to presume that the sample was corrupt because the corpse was decayed (although this is why they like to take it from either a femur, or an undiseased tooth). The only way for it to be close, but not be the match they are looking for would be for it to be coincidentally from another, closely-related maternal line, and it is possible to say mathematically how close-- something like, Cecily Neville's great-great-grandmother's descendant (I made that up, because I don't know the actual mathematical formulae). Then, you could look and see if such a person even existed, and could have descendants in the relevant generations. if not, then you have to assume you are dealing with a corrupt sample. Not to mention, that even if the theoretical people did exist, you'd have to theorize one of them ending up in the grave Richard was supposed to be in. You can see for yourself how "corrupt sample" is way, way more likely.

Plus, in cases of historical importance, the tests are usually done more than once, by more than one lab. This is to eliminate bias, and cross-contamination, repetition of error, and the possibility of a poorly-calibrated machine in one place. I think the usual standard is three. Maybe someone else closer to the subject can check, but I'd guess one will be don't in the UK, one will be done in Canada, where the subject of the match is, and then one will be done in one of the prominent world labs. The US has some, but maybe the government will want to go outside the English-speaking world. France has some of the best labs for disease genotyping, but I don't know where they are with human DNA, quite honestly. Korea and Japan have good labs, but Korea has an, umm, poor reputation for honesty, and Japan is sort of busy right now.

That's all speculation, as I guess the labs have already been chosen.

People don't happen to know where Perkin Warbeck is buried, do they?

[RivkahChaya]

Oh, a final word about DNA: people who are biologists who deal with DNA on a regular basis can recognize a good vs. corrupt sample at a glance. This is what they do. It's like a zoologist being able to tell animal skeletons apart from a few sample bones, or an auto mechanic being able to tell whether a particular part is from a Ford of a Chevy. It's obvious to them, even if it isn't to us. Art historians can tell paintings by different artists apart by style. You know a lot about history-- maybe you can place a building within a few years of construction at a glance. My mother is a dialectologist, and she can seriously do a Henry Higgins, and tell you where you are from by your speech patterns, and within a very small area, not "Midwest," but "Urban South-Eastern Ohio," for example, or if you are from New England, she can pin it to a city. If you are from New York City, to a neighborhood. She can do it with people from the Czech Republic and Slovakia, too.

They may extract a lot of marrow from different parts of the skeleton, and run several DNA panels, and people who know what to look for will be able to see which ones are the best samples to try to match. It's what they do. It might seem difficult to you, or even sort of magic-y, but it's not to them.

[Phil H]

I suspect Warbeck was probably buried in a common grave at Tyburn where he was put to death. I've never heard of a personal grave. Indeed, Henry VII wanted rid of him and to leave no memorial for people remember the pretender by.

Cecily Neville's line is also interesting.

Her mother Joan was one of the illegitimate offspring of John of Gaunt (younger son of Edward III) and his mistress Katherine Swynford (he later married her but their children were all born before that event).

Cecily's father, Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, married twice (Joan was the second wife) and had two families. By his first wife he had two sons and six daughters, and by Joan, something like nine sons and five daughters - of whom Cecily was the youngest. There was a feud between the two sets of offspring. The first got the title, but the second set got the loot - rich marriages, influence and connections. One son of the second marriage was Earl of Salisbury and father of Warwick the Kingmaker. severasl daughters, including Cecily married Dukes.

So Richard II carried (through his mother) royal Plantagent blood as well as that of Beaufort and Neville.

Through his father, Richard III carried Plantagent (again) as well as Mortimer blood.

Phil H

[Errata]

Why exactly is a living descendent necessary? I mean, we know where Cicely Neville is, We know where Edward is, surely mDNA results from his parents would provide better comparison that someone 20 generations down the line?

[EddieX]

Why exactly is a living descendent necessary? I mean, we know where Cicely Neville is, We know where Edward is, surely mDNA results from his parents would provide better comparison that someone 20 generations down the line?

I would agree, but might the royal family object if every time human remains are discovered a royal ancestor has to be exhumed? If a case can be made via a living relative, then the authority to exhume putative parents or whatever can be applied for.

[Phil H]

I think EddieX is correct - exhuming burials today in the UK, unless absolutely unavoidable, is rare and frowned on.

Actually, Cecily might be difficult.

She was buried in the choir of the collegiate college at Fotheringhay (intended as the family mausoleum for the House of York), but after the Reformation that part of the church was soon is extreme disrepair.

When Elizabeth I visited the church in (I think) the 1560s, she found her ancestors' tombs in danger. She instructed they be reburied in the nave. Today Richard and Cecily rest on one side of the high altar with their son, Edmund and a previous Duke of York, on the opposite side.

I don't think the remains have ever been investigated and how easy it would be to determine which were Cecily's I don't know. In 500 years they may easily have become mixed, and the church is near the River Nene, so although on high ground, could have been damaged by flood water, unless buried behind rather than beneath the wall monument.

Fortheringhay church is impressive and beautiful and well worth a visit. the castle ruins are close by. The church includes a pulpit given by Cecily's surviving sons, carvings on it include the royal arms of Edward IV, the bull of Clarence and Richard's white boar emblem.

Phil H

[Errata]

I think EddieX is correct - exhuming burials today in the UK, unless absolutely unavoidable, is rare and frowned on.


Phil H

I don't suppose it's easier to get non royals? Like, Richard of York, Anne Mortimer, Joan Beaufort? Or one of Richard's illegitimate children?

[Phil H]

Errata

In the c19th and earlier there was a period when it was quite OK for antiquarians to "rummage" in old tombs. Most of the royal tombs at Westminster or Windsor for instance, were opened around that time. At Westminster one aim was simply to ascertain which royal bodies resided in which vaults as many have no memorial or record. (James I for instance is with Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, for no logical reason except, I suppose, that there was space at the time.) In most, if not all, of these cases, coffins were not opened, just noted.

There are engravings and detailed accounts of the opening of the vault in St George's Chapel, Windsor, containing the coffins of Henry VIII, Jane Seymour and Charles I. The latter's coffin was opened and the head removed and inspected - I have an illustration of a drawing done of the King's head at the time. But after that time, the practice appears to have been more and more frowned on.

As stated earlier in this thread, the urn containing the alleged bones of the "Princes" was opened in the 30s for "scientific" testing, but it required specific approval from the King and would not, I expect, now be repeated.

Even other exhumations of ordinary folk are rare and usually when a murder is suspected - the Harold Shipman case is an example. Graveyards/cemetaries, once full, are not by law, able to be redeveloped (and the bodies removed) for something like 75 years after the last burial, to allow for immediate descendents of those interred there to have died also.

So I doubt whether any known royal or close family burial would now be disturbed in any conceivable circumstances. Richard II was lost and has (maybe) been relocated and that would be an exception. Bodies found in the course of archaeological digs have the same exception. Similarly if a vault or tomb needed repair the coffin might be removed, but I doubt whether the coffin would be opened.

The modern view seems to be: let the dead rest in peace.

Phil H