# What do you think the Brits will do if they find Richard III's remains? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 13, 2012, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591 "2012-09-13T12:10:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/81 "2013-02-05T02:42:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What sort of genetic analysis can match someone living today with a 15th century ancestor? It doesn’t sound like they had y-chromosome data, and I don’t think mt-DNA analysis would be anywhere near “conclusive”. Here’s an article which questions the strength of the mt-DNA analysis, suggesting that it’s not that significant unless the strand shared by the bones and Mr Ibsen is an unusual one: [Richard III skeleton raises bone of contention over DNA evidence.](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/04/richard-iii-skeleton-bone-dna) However, the article doesn’t note that there was a match with another matrilineal descendant of Richard III’s mother. It seems that having the mt-DNA match with two known descendants increases the strength of the conclusion: one could be a coincidence, but two? Could a real geneticist chime in on this point? The article does point out that the archeological evidence is pretty compelling in itself, as summarised in this other article: [DNA tests prove skeleton found in Leicestershire car park really is King Richard III](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dna-tests-prove-skeleton-found-in-leicestershire-car-park-really-is-king-richard-iii-8479620.html): > [@](#): > > \*\*In his bones: evidence from the grave > **Age** > > Richard III\*\*: Died at age of 32 > **Skeleton** : Estimated to have died between age of 30 and 33 > > **Dating** > > **Richard III** : Died in 1485 > **Skeleton** : Radiocarbon dating estimates death between 1450 and 1540 > > **Location** > > **Richard III** : Historical records say he is buried in choir of Gray Friars > **Skeleton** : Found in choir of same monastery > > **Physique** > > **Richard III** : Said to have twisted or deformed physique > **Skeleton** : Suffered severe spinal curvature which began in adolesence > > **Death** > > **Richard III** : Slain in battle > **Skeleton** : Shows damage by sharp blades (swords or daggers) > > **Family** > > **Richard III** : Supposed to be related through maternal line to two living descendents > **Skeleton** : Maternal DNA of all three show perfect match ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/82 "2013-02-05T03:27:10Z")
My understanding is that the need for two living relations is to guard against the chance that one of them is simply wrong about their family history. ([The University of Leister](http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/familytree.html) posted one of the family trees, which I thought was pretty cool.) But Richard III’s maternal line went back in England at least four generations (according to wikipedia, to a Flemish knight whose wife is unknown\*) so there were probably a decent number of other aristocrats running around during the period with the same mtDNA. If it weren’t for the other evidence, I don’t think DNA on its own would be more then suggestive. \*but who was also the MIL of Chaucer. Small world. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/83 "2013-02-05T03:57:44Z")
I think the mtDNA analysis must be simply supporting evidence, and not definitive. There must be tens of thousands of people with the same mtDNA in England. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/84 "2013-02-05T04:10:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think the mtDNA analysis must be simply supporting evidence, and not definitive. There must be tens of thousands of people with the same mtDNA in England. Well, it doesn’t matter how many people there are _now_ with the same mtDNA, it matters how many there were in 1485. Conceivably Richard III’s Great^4 Grandmother was a Flemish woman whose mtDNA may not have been widespread in England before she followed her Flemish husband over when he crossed the Channel, in which case there would only be a few dozen individuals with the same mtDNA in England in 1485, making the chances of a false match pretty miniscule. And even better, you could probably individually rule most of them out as possibly being the body under the Church, since most of their deaths are documented. But sadly there doesn’t seem to be any record of the woman, so the aforementioned Flemish knight may have just married an Englishwoman whose mtDNA was already well represented in the English aristocracy. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/85 "2013-02-05T04:26:16Z")
> [@j666](#): > > I did not think Elizabeth was descended from the Plantagenets. Doesn’t she descend from the Hanovarians? Do they descend from female Plantagenets? Kings of England/Great Britain/U.K. in ALL CAPS: WILLIAM I the Conqueror (House of Normandy) s. HENRY I dau. Matilda m. Geoffrey Plantagenet, Duc d’Anjou s; HENRY II \*House of Plantagenet, or Angevins) s. JOHN s. HENRY III s. EDWARD I s. EDWARD II s. EDWARD III _A long and complex series of events leads to the reugns of first the House of Lancaster and then the House of York, both being male-line cadet branches of the Plantagenets. Our line of interest leads to a man who is Edward III’s great-grandson on both his father’s and his mother’s side_: Richard, Duke of York s. EDWARD IV d. Elizabeth m. HENRY VII (House of Tudor), heir of line to Lancastrians. d. Margaret m. James IV, King of Scots (House of Stuart( s. James V, King of Scots d. Mary Queen of Scots s. JAMES VI of Scots and I of England d. Elizabeth, Electress Palatine and Queen of Bohemia d/ Sophia , Duchess of Brunswick and Electress of Hanover (House of Hanover) s. GEORGE I s. GEORGE II s. Frederick, Prince of Wales s. GEORGE III s. Edward, Duke of Kent d. VICTORIA s. EDWARD VII \*House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) s. GEORGE V (changed house name to Wundsor in 1917) s. GEORGE VI d. ELIZABETH II So yeah, they are descended from the Plantagenets and the Hanovers, and the first kings of both Tudor and English Stuart lines as well, albeit through several female lines. ---
**Author:** ![Nunzio\_Tavulari](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Nunzio\_Tavulari](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nunzio_Tavulari)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/86 "2013-02-05T04:28:27Z")
shamelessly stolen from the twitter feed: Been so inspired by the Richard III archeologists I’m spending tonight digging up the patio even though I already know who’s buried there ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/87 "2013-02-05T08:09:10Z")
> [@APB](#): > > It is rather unlikely that he’ll be buried exactly where he was found, as that’s the car park of the council offices. This is my favourite detail about the whole thing. Sic transit gloria mundi and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/88 "2013-02-05T08:47:45Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The article does point out that the archeological evidence is pretty compelling in itself, as summarised in this other article: [DNA tests prove skeleton found in Leicestershire car park really is King Richard III](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dna-tests-prove-skeleton-found-in-leicestershire-car-park-really-is-king-richard-iii-8479620.html): Also, the [facial reconstruction](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21328380) looks just like his portraits. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/89 "2013-02-05T09:21:48Z")
I’d be a whole lot more impressed if the facial reconstruction artist had no idea whose skull they were reconstructing and/or had never seen Richard III’s portraits. But I bet they did/had. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/90 "2013-02-05T10:37:48Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > The tradition was that his body was thrown into the river _during the Dissolution_, some 50 years after he was buried. It’s always been known he was originally buried at Greyfriars by Henry, and Henry VII even apparently built him a marker of some sort that was attested by multiple sources. All of which was discussed in great detail by David Baldwin in [an article from 1986](https://www.le.ac.uk/lahs/downloads/BaldwinSmPagesfromvolumeLX-5.pdf), which, prior to the excavations, was the standard work on the subject. Baldwin’s article now seems extraordinarily prescient. ---
**Author:** ![Shakester](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shakester/32/437_2.png) [@Shakester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shakester)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/91 "2013-02-05T10:41:17Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I’d be a whole lot more impressed if the facial reconstruction artist had no idea whose skull they were reconstructing and/or had never seen Richard III’s portraits. But I bet they did/had. According to that article: > [@](#): > > Layers of muscle and skin were added **by computer** to a scan of the skull and the result was made into a three-dimensional plastic model. So, what, you reckon the computer based its work on the portraits? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/92 "2013-02-05T13:36:45Z")
> [@Shakester](#): > > So, what, you reckon the computer based its work on the portraits? Damn computers, can’t trust 'em for a moment. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/93 "2013-02-05T14:05:50Z")
> [@Shakester](#): > > So, what, you reckon the computer based its work on the portraits? People do the programing so maybe. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/94 "2013-02-05T14:14:18Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > People do the programing so maybe. Someone decided that he had dark hair, unless the DNA evidence told otherwise… ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/95 "2013-02-05T14:25:46Z")
Is it really possible that the Ibsen guy looks so much like the King? The eyes, the lips, the nose, etc? I can’t believe that. ---
**Author:** ![Shakester](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shakester/32/437_2.png) [@Shakester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shakester)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/96 "2013-02-05T14:31:53Z")
My understanding is that the process is automated; the computer just adds whatever level of flesh is average for the person’s gender/age/race/etc. Obviously people decide on the hairstyle, colouring, etc, but the actual face is dictated by the bones and the computer is just filling in the blanks. So, no, it’s not people drawing it in Photoshop. Anyone should be able to see that the skull in question has a prominent chin that is _very_ similar, even without adding any computer-generated flesh, to the portraits of Richard III. You don’t have to use much imagination to see that it matches. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/97 "2013-02-05T14:44:00Z")
It was the lips in particular that struck me as odd. ---
**Author:** ![Shakester](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shakester/32/437_2.png) [@Shakester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shakester)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/98 "2013-02-05T15:10:17Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > It was the lips in particular that struck me as odd. On the reconstruction? The lips look similar on the portraits and the computer reconstruction, it’s true. Do lips leave any tell-tale traces on the bones as to whether they’re thick or thin? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t just assume that they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/99 "2013-02-05T15:26:54Z")
The skull looks extremely jut-jawed to the point of having an underbite. I imagine most Europeans with that kind of facial construction would tend to be thin-lipped. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591/100 "2013-02-05T15:38:47Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Well, it doesn’t matter how many people there are _now_ with the same mtDNA, it matters how many there were in 1485. > > Conceivably Richard III’s Great^4 Grandmother was a Flemish woman whose mtDNA may not have been widespread in England before she followed her Flemish husband over when he crossed the Channel, in which case there would only be a few dozen individuals with the same mtDNA in England in 1485, making the chances of a false match pretty miniscule. And even better, you could probably individually rule most of them out as possibly being the body under the Church, since most of their deaths are documented. > > But sadly there doesn’t seem to be any record of the woman, so the aforementioned Flemish knight may have just married an Englishwoman whose mtDNA was already well represented in the English aristocracy. Unlikely. There aren’t that many mtDNA groups in all of Europe, and we don’t have any way of knowing how widespread this particular DNA group was in England in the 15th century. It might be able to to be used to rule out that the skeleton was R III, but by itself it is only suggestive, not conclusive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-the-brits-will-do-if-they-find-richard-iiis-remains/634591.md?page=6)