The Royal Family is descended from hobos and gypsies!

[IIOY]

That might be a fake headline that I made up. Anyway, Richard III's bones were found in a car park (trashy prick!) and now there is suspicion that someone somewhere in the royal family had an affair.  Well, I never.   From BBC:


Scientists who studied genetic material from remains found in a Leicester car park say the finding might have profound historical implications.



Depending on where in the family tree it occurred, it could cast doubt on the Tudor claim to the English throne or, indeed, on Richard's.



The study is published in the journal Nature Communications.



But the scientists would not be drawn on what meaning it might have - if any - for the current Royal Family, as it was still unknown when the break, or breaks, in the lineage occurred.



In 2012, scientists extracted genetic material from the remains discovered on the former site of Greyfriars Abbey, where Richard was interred after his death in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.



'Overwhelming evidence'

Their analysis shows that DNA passed down on the maternal side matches that of living relatives, but genetic information passed down on the male side does not.


However, given the wealth of other details linking the body to Richard III, the scientists conclude that infidelity is the most likely explanation.



"If you put all the data together, the evidence is overwhelming that these are the remains of Richard III," said Dr Turi King from Leicester University, who led the study.



Speaking at a news briefing at the Wellcome Trust in London, she said that the lack of a match on the male side was not unexpected, because her previous research had shown there was a 1-2% rate of "false paternity" per generation.



The instance of female infidelity, or cuckolding, could have occurred anywhere in the numerous generations that separate Richard III from the 5th Duke of Beaufort (1744-1803), whose living descendants provided samples of male-line DNA to be compared against that of the Plantagenet king.


"We may have solved one historical puzzle, but in so doing, we opened up a whole new one," Prof Kevin Schurer, who was the genealogy specialist on the paper, told BBC News.



Investigation of the male genealogy focused on the Y chromosome, a package of DNA that is passed down from father to son, much like a surname. Most living male heirs of the 5th Duke of Beaufort were found to carry a relatively common Y chromosome type, which is different from the rare lineage found in the car park remains.



Richard III and his royal rival, Henry Tudor (later Henry VII), were both descendants of King Edward III. The infidelity could, in theory, have occurred either on the branch leading back from Henry to Edward or on the branch leading from Richard to Edward.



Henry's ancestor John of Gaunt was plagued by rumours of illegitimacy throughout his life, apparently prompted by the absence of Edward III at his birth. He was reportedly enraged by gossip suggesting he was the son of a Flemish butcher.



"Hypothetically speaking, if John of Gaunt wasn't Edward III's son, it would have meant that (his son) Henry IV had no legitimate claim to the throne, nor Henry V, nor Henry VI," said Dr Schurer.


Asked whether a break in the branch of the tree leading to the Tudors could have implications for the legitimacy of the present-day royal family, Dr Schurer replied: "Royal succession isn't straightforward inheritance from fathers to sons, and/or daughters. History has taken a series of twists and turns.



"There were proclaimers of the throne around the time of the Stuart succession. You could argue that Lady Kinloss is the rightful heir, because she is the descendent of Lady Jane Grey."



The breakage was statistically more likely to have occurred in the part of the family tree which does not affect Royal succession - the most recent stretch - simply because more links in the chain exist there.


Richard's maternal-line - or mitochondrial - DNA was matched to two living relatives of his eldest sister Anne of York. Michael Ibsen and Wendy Duldig are 14th cousins and both carry the same extremely rare genetic lineage as the body in the car park.



Richard III was defeated in battle by Henry Tudor, marking the end of the Plantagenet dynasty and the beginning of Tudor rule, which lasted until Queen Elizabeth I died childless in 1603.



Richard's battered body was subsequently buried in Greyfriars. As the Leicester team uncovered the male skeleton, the curvature in its spine became obvious. The condition would have caused one of the man's shoulders to be higher than the other, just as a contemporary of Richard described.



Genes involved in hair and eye colour were also tested. The results suggest Richard III had blue eyes, matching one of the earliest known paintings of the king. However, the hair colour analysis gave a 77% probability that the individual was blond, which does not match the depiction.



But the researchers say the test is most closely correlated with childhood hair, and in some blond children, hair darkens during adolescence.


The researchers took all the information linking the body to Richard III and carried out a statistical test known as Bayesian analysis to determine the probability that the body was indeed his - or not. Despite the absence of a male-line genetic match, the results came back with a 99.999% probability that the body was that of the Plantagenet king.



Commenting on the study, Prof Martin Richards, a population geneticist at the University of Huddersfield, told BBC News: "The work seems to have been done with great care and looks very convincing to me."



He said Richard III's maternal DNA type was very rare, and carried an additional genetic variant not previously seen before that "seems to be unique amongst a database that includes several thousand Europeans".



"So I agree that their assessment of the match probability is very conservative and it's very likely to be him," Prof Richards said.



He added that, given the apparent certainty of the body's identity, "the lack of any match for the Y-chromosome lineage is quite curious and suggests an intriguing new avenue for dynastic DNA studies".



Dr Ross Barnett, a specialist in ancient DNA at the University of Copenhagen, agreed that the work was "interesting and thorough".



Dr Barnett had previously raised questions over a preliminary analysis of the maternal-line DNA. But he told BBC News: "Now the paper is here and available for scrutiny, I have no further complaints. The team are excellent and I would expect the analysis to be robust."

[Vespasia]

Dec 2, 2014 14:53:37 GMT -5 IIOY said:

That might be a fake headline that I made up. Anyway, Richard III's bones were found in a car park (trashy prick!) and now there is suspicion that someone somewhere in the royal family had an affair.  Well, I never.   From BBC:

I'm sure there was lots of hanky panky going on in the days before Maury. 

[mbcdefg]

I really want to make a Monaco joke but I can't find a connection. Womp womp.

[Knight]

What's interesting is that Richard III spread rumors that his brother, Edward IV, was the result of infidelity in order to keep the Princes in the Tower off the throne. Apparently his mother wasn't too happy about that so he went with declaring that Edward's marriage was unlawful and thus the Princes were illegitimate.

[IIOY]

Dec 2, 2014 14:57:13 GMT -5 Vespasia said:

Dec 2, 2014 14:53:37 GMT -5 IIOY said:

That might be a fake headline that I made up. Anyway, Richard III's bones were found in a car park (trashy prick!) and now there is suspicion that someone somewhere in the royal family had an affair.  Well, I never.   From BBC:

I'm sure there was lots of hanky panky going on in the days before Maury. 

I refuse to believe these people had affairs. Have you seen their teeth?

[mbcdefg]

Dec 2, 2014 15:16:21 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Dec 2, 2014 14:57:13 GMT -5 Vespasia said:

I'm sure there was lots of hanky panky going on in the days before Maury. 

I refuse to believe these people had affairs. Have you seen their teeth?

MH bought me this book (for our wedding anniversary, lol):

[pinkdutchtulips]

Dec 2, 2014 15:16:21 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Dec 2, 2014 14:57:13 GMT -5 Vespasia said:

I'm sure there was lots of hanky panky going on in the days before Maury. 

I refuse to believe these people had affairs. Have you seen their teeth?

you'd be shocked as some of the affairs they had ... watch The Duchess (Kiera Knightley, Ralph Fienes) sometime ....

[Velar Fricative]

Dec 2, 2014 15:14:23 GMT -5 Knight said:

What's interesting is that Richard III spread rumors that his brother, Edward IV, was the result of infidelity in order to keep the Princes in the Tower off the throne. Apparently his mother wasn't too happy about that so he went with declaring that Edward's marriage was unlawful and thus the Princes were illegitimate.

I learned this from The White Queen. I watched it with my ILs. It was actually kinda good. 

In any case, going through the Wikipedia Black Hole I realized there were a ton of illegitimate children and this was just par for the course.

[IIOY]

Dec 2, 2014 15:47:20 GMT -5 pinkdutchtulips said:

Dec 2, 2014 15:16:21 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I refuse to believe these people had affairs. Have you seen their teeth?

you'd be shocked as some of the affairs they had ... watch The Duchess (Kiera Knightley, Ralph Fienes) sometime ....

I'm being facetious.

Except about the teeth.

[Knight]

Dec 2, 2014 15:47:38 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Dec 2, 2014 15:14:23 GMT -5 Knight said:

What's interesting is that Richard III spread rumors that his brother, Edward IV, was the result of infidelity in order to keep the Princes in the Tower off the throne. Apparently his mother wasn't too happy about that so he went with declaring that Edward's marriage was unlawful and thus the Princes were illegitimate.

I learned this from The White Queen. I watched it with my ILs. It was actually kinda good. 

In any case, going through the Wikipedia Black Hole I realized there were a ton of illegitimate children and this was just par for the course.

Absolutely. The current queen is descended from a bastard line through John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford as every monarch has since the Tudors. The Beauforts, who were the children of Katherine, were legitimized by their parents' marriage through papal bull but they were barred from the throne by their half-brother Henry IV. 

[mbcdefg]

Dec 2, 2014 15:53:24 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Dec 2, 2014 15:47:20 GMT -5 pinkdutchtulips said:

you'd be shocked as some of the affairs they had ... watch The Duchess (Kiera Knightley, Ralph Fienes) sometime ....

I'm being facetious.

Except about the teeth.

Let's look at a picture book ...

[Deleted]

I was just coming to post this. I'm so fascinated!

[Vespasia]

Dec 2, 2014 15:47:20 GMT -5 pinkdutchtulips said:

Dec 2, 2014 15:16:21 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I refuse to believe these people had affairs. Have you seen their teeth?

you'd be shocked as some of the affairs they had ... watch The Duchess (Kiera Knightley, Ralph Fienes) sometime ....

I did a paper in college titled "Scandalous Women of the Regency Period." She was one of the 3 people I focused on. It was very CEP, I examined how wealth and social class impacted a woman's ability to carry on affairs with fewer repercussions.

My professor loved me after that. Which was good because I had her for 8 classes.

[sparrowsong]

Interesting. I'm currently reading The Kings Curse which is told from the point of view of Margaret Pole, niece to Richard III.

[msmerymac]

Dec 2, 2014 14:53:37 GMT -5 IIOY said:

"There were proclaimers of the throne around the time of the Stuart succession. You could argue that Lady Kinloss is the rightful heir, because she is the descendent of Lady Jane Grey."

And what's interesting is that Lady Jane Grey was the same level of relation as Mary, Queen of Scots (both great-nieces of Henry VIII, so great-granddaughters of Henry VII). And the son of Mary Queen of Scots actually did become king. 

Of course, Henry VIII explicitly said that Lady Jane Grey would inherit the throne after his own children, and not Mary Queen of Scots, because, the horror, Scotland would have merged with England.  *-) But at various times Henry VIII also de-legitimized his own daughters. 

[hopecounts]

Dec 2, 2014 16:11:35 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Dec 2, 2014 14:53:37 GMT -5 IIOY said:

"There were proclaimers of the throne around the time of the Stuart succession. You could argue that Lady Kinloss is the rightful heir, because she is the descendent of Lady Jane Grey."

And what's interesting is that Lady Jane Grey was the same level of relation as Mary, Queen of Scots (both great-nieces of Henry VIII, so great-granddaughters of Henry VII). And the son of Mary Queen of Scots actually did become king. 

Of course, Henry VIII explicitly said that Lady Jane Grey would inherit the throne after his own children, and not Mary Queen of Scots, because, the horror, Scotland would have merged with England.  *-) But at various times Henry VIII also de-legitimized his own daughters. 

This had more to do with Mary Q of S being Catholic then the Scotland and England thing, they actually considered arranging a marriage for Edward to Mary for the purpose of joining the kingdoms but under his rule and therefore as a Protestant kingdom. 
Which is also why it never happened. 

[dixienormous]

Plantagenet/Tudor History is fascinating to me.

[mbcdefg]

If any of you like the tiaras, Camilla is wearing one to tonight's diplomatic reception at Buckingham Palace. This is the reception where Will and Kate went last year and Kate was photographed in the car with a new (to her) tiara and then I went apeshit after seeing it. Doesn't look like they are attending this year's party, though

Camilla's tiara is her own family's tiara, the Shand Tiara.



Chuck's looking rather red.

[hopecounts]

Interesting article that provides an answer to the question.
www.unofficialroyalty.com/much-ado-about-nothing-pondering-richard-iiis-dna/

[Velvetshady]

Dec 2, 2014 15:56:36 GMT -5 Knight said:

Dec 2, 2014 15:47:38 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I learned this from The White Queen. I watched it with my ILs. It was actually kinda good. 

In any case, going through the Wikipedia Black Hole I realized there were a ton of illegitimate children and this was just par for the course.

Absolutely. The current queen is descended from a bastard line through John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford as every monarch has since the Tudors. The Beauforts, who were the children of Katherine, were legitimized by their parents' marriage through papal bull but they were barred from the throne by their half-brother Henry IV. 

as well as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Q Adams, FDR, and the Bushes.

Alison Weir has a good book on Katherine

[Knight]

Dec 4, 2014 14:02:08 GMT -5 Velvetshady said:

Dec 2, 2014 15:56:36 GMT -5 Knight said:

Absolutely. The current queen is descended from a bastard line through John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford as every monarch has since the Tudors. The Beauforts, who were the children of Katherine, were legitimized by their parents' marriage through papal bull but they were barred from the throne by their half-brother Henry IV. 

as well as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Q Adams, FDR, and the Bushes.

Alison Weir has a good book on Katherine

I may have read it like five times. She was a fascinating woman.