Richard III (1452-1485): Discovery of Remains and Reburial


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
And the fails 'journalists' are unable even to use spellchecker, to get 'medieval' right...
 
Thrilling, what a pity we will never know for sure who cheated !
 
Henry Tudor's blood claim to throne was pretty weak. However, if you kill the King, it helps your claim out immensely. Then you marry a York princess which brings together the Lancasters and Yorks.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
rominet09 said:
Thrilling, what a pity we will never know for sure who cheated !
Click to expand...

We'll probably never know, but I'd bet it was Edmund of Langley's wife Isabella of Castille, after all it was much commented on when she was alive that she had loose morals and Pugh noted that her youngest son, Richard of Conisburg (Richard III's grandfather,) was quite possibly fathered by her lover John of Holland rather than her husband Edmund.
 
It's fascinating stuff, but the British Press always enjoys a 'do the Windsors have a right to the throne' angle in these sort of reports.
 
The press seem to ignore the fact that The House of Windsor reigns due to the legislation passed by the parliament in 1701 and for no other reason.
 
Iluvbertie said:
The press seem to ignore the fact that The House of Windsor reigns due to the legislation passed by the parliament in 1701 and for no other reason.
Click to expand...

Why let a little thing like the law get in the way of tabloid headline?!:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Good Lord.....if they had DNA tests back in the day. Imagine the impact on history?
 
Iluvbertie said:
The press seem to ignore the fact that The House of Windsor reigns due to the legislation passed by the parliament in 1701 and for no other reason.
Click to expand...

The BBC article gets this fact actually:

"Henry VII was descended from Edward III from the Beaufort line - the Beauforts were legitimised by half-brother Henry IV but not in succession. Royal succession has been based on many things in the past: ability to lead troops, religion, connections - not always seniority by royal blood."
She added: "The Queen's right to reign in based on the 1701 Act of Settlement that restricted succession to Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover. A medieval false paternity does not challenge the current Queen's right to reign."
Click to expand...
 
sndral said:
We'll probably never know, but I'd bet it was Edmund of Langley's wife Isabella of Castille, after all it was much commented on when she was alive that she had loose morals and Pugh noted that her youngest son, Richard of Conisburg (Richard III's grandfather,) was quite possibly fathered by her lover John of Holland rather than her husband Edmund.
Click to expand...
If that were the case, then surely there is no real effect on the succession because Richard, Earl of Cambridge, married Anne Mortimer who was great granddaughter of Lionel of Antwerp and thus from the senior line of Edward III, therefore the Yorkist claim would remain intact?
 
Okay, so I've taken the time to look through the University of Leicester's page of the results and I've developed a few thoughts.

First, there are two false paternity events that have been discovered; of the 5 living "male-line" relatives of Richard III, 4 of them have one type of Y-chromosome and the 5th has another - meaning that at some point in the last few generations a false paternity event happened and at least one of these so-called male line descendants of the 5th Duke of Beaufort is not actually a male-line descendant of him at all (the results don't say if the 4 matching descendants have the same type of Y-chromosome as the 5th Duke, or if it's the odd-one out; it does say that geneological information shows that all 5 of them do descend from him, just not necessarily in a male-line).

Adding to this is the fact that Richard's DNA is not of the same Y-chromosome type as any of the 5 descendants, meaning that at some point either between Edward III and Richard III or between Edward III and the 5th Duke there was at least 1 other false paternity event.

This doesn't necessarily mean anything about succession claims though. First of all, there is a span of 19 generations in which this event could have happened. Second of all, if it happened at some point between Edward and Richard it only has about a 50% chance of affecting his blood claim - if either Richard himself or Richard's father were illegitimate then the claim would have been affected, although he still would have been descended from Edward III (as he descends from Edward III in three different lines). The York claim didn't come through a purely male-line, and really both Richard and Edward staked their claim via conquest/resumption.

Thirdly it doesn't necessarily mean anything for the Lancaster succession; unless the false paternity event occurred at John of Gaunt, then the Lancasters and the Beauforts descend from different children of John of Gaunt (and, for that matter, different wives). Further, it doesn't necessarily mean anything about Henry VII's claim either, as the 5th Duke of Somerset descends in a male line from a different grandson of John of Gaunt than Henry does; Henry was the grandson of the 1st Duke of Somerset, while the 5th Duke was the descendant of the 2nd Duke of Somerset (younger brother of the 1st Duke).
 
CarlLewis said:
If that were the case, then surely there is no real effect on the succession because Richard, Earl of Cambridge, married Anne Mortimer who was great granddaughter of Lionel of Antwerp and thus from the senior line of Edward III, therefore the Yorkist claim would remain intact?
Click to expand...
Exactly. The York's title may have come from Edmund of Langely, but their claim to the throne came from Anne Mortimer, the ultimate heiress of Lionel of Antwerp, the second son of Edward III.
 
Interesting, but Philippa Langley is far from unbiased.
 
I like the fact that an enameled white rose was added to the rosary.
I like the fact how very diligent details are being carried out and with historical accuracy in the preparation of Leicester Cathedral.
​
 
An Ard Ri said:
Roses on Richard III cortege route will highlight missing people

BBC News - Roses on Richard III cortege route will highlight missing people
Click to expand...

That's a great graphic of the cortege route/times.

Is it possible that 5929 people went missing in Leistershire in 26 months? Is that number on par per capita with other areas of the UK? I checked and my entire state only has 99 people missing TOTAL.
"The organizers want to display 5,929 white roses, made from a variety of materials including ceramic, plastic and paper, to represent the number of people who went missing in Leicestershire in 2012-13."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Richard III (1452-1485) and Queen Anne Neville
Replies
6
Views
930
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
T
Complete List of Monarchs and Legitimate Pretenders of the Kingdom of Jerusalem
Replies
4
Views
4K
Troy Thompson
T
R
King Stephen (Stephen of Blois) - (c. 1092-1154)
Replies
23
Views
5K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Anna was Franziska
  • Locked
DNA and the law
4 5 6
Replies
153
Views
23K
Warren
Warren
ysbel
Identification of the Remains of the Romanov Family by DNA Analysis (Gill 94) (1994)
Replies
3
Views
6K
lexi4
L

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom