GDPR Cookie Consent by SimpleServe Privacy Script Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's - AAD Consumer Forum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

    remember the winners always write the story

    don't think he was that bad at all, I've always felt he was a bit hard done by

    Shakespeare was always a big sook, just look at Macbeth

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

      Think you are right, Mrs. D. I know Richard was well respected in the north and Shakespeare was trying desperately to curry favour with Elizabeth I.

      I am sure this will boost the sales of Phillippa Gregory, though.

      And I have just heard on the local news that they are looking for the remains of Alfred the Great in Winchester .....
      I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

      If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

        Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
        Still can't decide whether or not he was as bad as he was painted by Shakespeare ....
        I don't think he was. Tellingly, Henry Tudor never ever accused him of having murdered the princes.

        BTW, a good read on the subject is 'Daughter of Time' by Josephine Tey.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

          Originally posted by MrsD View Post
          remember the winners always write the story

          don't think he was that bad at all, I've always felt he was a bit hard done by

          Shakespeare was always a big sook, just look at Macbeth
          Exactly. I was going to raise Macbeth as the very example to make that point until I saw you'd already done it.

          Shakespeare was a brilliant playwright (and despite popular conspiracy theories, I believe it was just the one guy who wrote the plays and it was himself) but he was undoubtedly a falsifier of history.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

            Note:- I Hate Shakespeare

            signed

            Richard 111
            I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

            If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

              Originally posted by The Tech Clerk View Post
              Note:- I Hate Shakespeare

              signed

              Richard 111
              "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride"

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

                What will happen to the bones, now that they have been confirmed as being Richard III? Does he get a state funeral as befitting a King of England? Or does he simply get buried privately?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

                  Make no Bones about it probably Cameron cost cutting = a Black Sack & put under flag stone in Westminster?
                  I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

                  If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

                    I watched this program last night and I am a little confused about the evidence"(doesn't take much). To me all the DNA test showed was that someone who happened to be decedent of Richard the third has some of the same DNA as the bones found in the hole, I don't see how it proves anything.

                    I don't pretend to understand the process involved, but given that we are talking about roughly 25 generations I would imagine that any skeleton of such an age would contain a matching dna to half the population of the country.(2^25 about 33 mill).
                    Unless there were other processes that the documentary didn't show.

                    I wonder why they didn't do a comparison with Edward the IV it would have given a direct result ? i missed bits of the documentary perhaps they explained I will watch it again tonight. Fascinating stuff.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

                      Found this

                      Becoming clearer


                      DNA for Richard III, The Genealogy - Resources - TES

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

                        "Dear Mr Plantagenet,

                        You were heard to say 'A horse! a horse! My kingdom for a horse!' from which we can deduce that a) you can ride a horse, so, notwithstanding your club foot and deformed spine, you are obviously not disabled for the purposes of entitlement to claim DLA and b) you have a 'kingdom' which we really must, in the circumstances, assume has a financial value of more than £16,000 so clearly lifting you above the threshold of eligibility for benefits entitlement. In the circumstances I must inform you that the DWP has suspended your benefits immediately pending a case review of your entire claim. Tower Hamlets Child Protection Services are also currently investigating the situation with regard to your nephews and their alleged occupancy of the property referred to on your claim as 'The Tower. Until that investigation is concluded, we are unable to reach a decision with regard to either your housing benefit claim or the issuing of tax credits to you."

                        ATOS declare Richard III fit for work s Purge

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

                          Originally posted by evilcartman View Post
                          Exactly. I was going to raise Macbeth as the very example to make that point until I saw you'd already done it.

                          Shakespeare was a brilliant playwright (and despite popular conspiracy theories, I believe it was just the one guy who wrote the plays and it was himself) but he was undoubtedly a falsifier of history.
                          I fully agree with this, evilcartman. And I suspect it was very much in his interests to falsify history, given the times in which he lived.

                          Think I also read somewhere that Thomas More had also destroyed Richard III's reputation. Didn't do him any good with Henry VIII, though ....

                          And I loved yout ATOS post!
                          Last edited by Phoenix; 6 February 2013, 18:38.
                          I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

                          If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

                            Originally posted by nattie View Post
                            What will happen to the bones, now that they have been confirmed as being Richard III? Does he get a state funeral as befitting a King of England? Or does he simply get buried privately?
                            Think he does deserve a proper funeral. Well, at least his bones do. I understand that there is already some lobbying for him to be buried at York Minster, because of his connection with the north.

                            But, I also feel for the academics at Leicester University, who have done such great stuff in identifying these remains.

                            Originally posted by NotDrowningButWaving View Post
                            I don't think he was. Tellingly, Henry Tudor never ever accused him of having murdered the princes.

                            BTW, a good read on the subject is 'Daughter of Time' by Josephine Tey.
                            Will investigate this. I did read the Rosemary Hawley Jarman book "We speak no treason" some years ago.

                            And the latest Phillippa Gregory "The Kingmaker's Daughter" deals with this period, as well. I am waiting for this to appear in paperback as they are so much easier to handle - as well as cheaper. Same goes for the latest Hilary Mantel - I absolutely devoured "Wolf Hall".
                            I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

                            If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

                              Really weird about the "R" being on the car park where he was buried.

                              I wonder who the other relative,(DNA donor) was that does not want publicity ?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are the King's

                                Originally posted by gravytrain View Post
                                I wonder who the other relative,(DNA donor) was that does not want publicity ?
                                I can't say.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X