Richard III - The DNA Analysis & Conclusion
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 дек 2014
- Dr Turi King and Professor Kevin Schϋrer discuss the findings of the genetic and genealogical analysis in the King Richard III case. This includes coverage of all the genealogical research, and the results of the mitochondrial and Y chromosome analysis.
It also includes the genetically-predicted hair and eye colour of Richard III as well as the results of the Bayesian analysis of all the evidence in the case to come to a conclusion about the identity of Skeleton 1 from the Greyfriars in Leicester.
The producers of the clip wish to express their grateful thanks to the Royal Collection Trust, Society of Antiquaries of London, Michael Ibsen, Wendy Duldig, Anooshka Rawden and John Holt.
This film was produced by External Relations, University of Leicester.
Filmed & Edited by Carl Vivian
Produced by Dr Turi King and Professor Kevin Schϋrer.
One of the most amazing finds in Archeological History.
Hahahaha
Thanks for some intelligent discussion. It seems to me that the skeleton is indeed Richard III.
72Yonatan cx
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111p11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111¹11¹¹¹1111¹¹¹¹11¹
Was any investigation taken re: the broken link which might have affected the Yorkist and Lancastrian claim to the throne? Brilliant work btw. Thank you.
From King of England to King of the parking lot. History can be so disrespectful. Glad he was discovered.
@3s3.7cy And what remains to be discovered.
@ Perhaps that's why he wound up in a parking lot.
@ who is your ancestors that this happened to? My welsh dna goes back to king of that area, and they at war with everyone in area before true English king was unified
Also, I noticed the man said if the break was between Edward III and Richard III, that would question the legitimacy Edward IV and Richard III. However, the strong claim to the throne came from their father's mother, Anne de Mortimer, not from Richard, Earl of Cambridge or Edmund, Duke of York.
Richard the 3rd insisted his brother Edward 4 was a bastard, and not his father's son. If his mom did it once, she could have done it twice! Furthermore, I saw another video by the university of Leicester that said that Richard the 3rd and his paternal grandfather shared no DNA.
However if their father were a bastard then that would’ve made a difference
The legitimacy question on the Yorkist side, raised contemporary to events, involved Edward IV himself. His nominal father, Richard Duke of York, was a smallish, gracile man, as were brothers Richard of Gloucester and George of Clarence, before the latter ran to fat. To much claret, George, is bad for the health.😄 But Eddy was a strapping boi, 2+ meters tall and broad of shoulder. Rather like a favorite archer in the household guard of his mum, Cecily Neville. Queer timing, too: Richard Sr was in Calais when Eddy was conceived, but Cecily was in England.😉
All standard paternity smear tactics, from Ceasar to Princess Diana. But these things did happen. (The entire Beaufort line was illegitimate, until it wasn't. And if Ed IV was a bastard, then so were Elizabeth of York and all the Tudors afterwards.)
I want to go back to school. I enjoyed this very much, thank you.
Do it! I am middle aged and taking Anthro. This video is homework.
Very, very interesting. Thank you.
congratulations !!
Will Richard get a King's burial now? Would be nice to have an artist reconstruct his skull with clay to see his probable features?
Your first question has been answered, and though the reburial of Richard's remains will not officially a state funeral, effectively it will be one. A forensic reconstruction of the face has been done. It bares a striking resemblance to the earliest image we have of Richard, which is a copy made in 1510 of a currently lost portrait.
No no
The “break” means someone has a different father. I wish they would just say it. Good grief.
Fantastic
If a break in occurred in the early part of the tree it is likely that it was due to Isabella of Castillo wife of Edmund Duke fo York. She had a very public affair with John Holland during their marriage and questions were raised over Richard Earl of Cambridges paternity at the time. However, Edward IV and Richard III’s mother Cecily Neville was the granddaughter of John Duke of Lancaster via the Beaufort line (the line as Margaret Beaufort and Henry VII) and their father Richard Duke of York’s mother Anne Mortimer was the Mortimer heiress of the second son of Edward III Lionel duke of Clarence (John was third, Edmund was fourth). So even if Richard Earl of Cambridge wasn’t the biological son of Edmund duke of York his son and grandsons still had Plantagenet blood and were heirs of Edward III, their claim was still stronger than Henry VII. Obviously we can’t ever know for sure if the break was due to Isabella or occurred in any of the other generations and in the end it doesn’t affect the past or the royal family now but it’s always interesting to speculate.
Prince William did not father Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Kate’s 6’10” blonde bodyguard did. 🎭🩰🎨
Fascinating!
This was so exciting to learn, I almost have a 'JFK moment' about the discovery.
Was looking at Lady in Lead video. If you got some DNA from her. Could you do a reverse DNA search in the existing present DNA banks and if you find a match then you could get maybe a lineage identity.
Fabulous. In order to further understand the discovery I would like to know how the break in the chain of paternal DNA can be determined. I also want to know what all the small pits,breaks, fractures and non symmetrical parts of the skull mean. Thanks
why don't anyone compare all three brothers. I am a direct descendant of George Plantagenet and Isabel Neville.
I have de courtenay dna as well
OK. Geno 2.0 documented me as having a link with Richard through the patriarchal line. Didn't pay much attention to this until lately since I didn't know that much about Richard, but I would be interested in knowing more about it.
Smile and the whole world will smile with you. Richard got that one right!
They should check Simon Abney-Hasting 15th Earl of Loudouns DNA against their findings.
He descends through a mixture of male and female lines so testing him will only confirm he's a distant relation. It's important to use female only lines or male only lines as this conclusivly determines descent, as they explained at the start of this video.
@@Aarontlondon so if one line dies out the go back to a living next relative which muddied up the water
Is it possible that the break came with one of the wives of the descendants of the Dukes of Somerset?
Anyone notice that Richard 3rd's.. right hand fingers & thumb were much smaller than his left hand? Perhaps the reason for a claim of from writings of a shriveled right arm.
How did you see that? I can’t find a good photo.
where are the remains now? I am traveling to the UK soon and would love to see it!
My hair was a virtual platinum blond wen I was 5. Dark brown with a dark red tint when I was 30, and now that I am 60 what is left of it is a dark brown and nothing else. Is that unusual?
If not how on earth do you nail down someones hair colour?
My maternal Haplogroup is the same as King Richards. Not even sure where to start to try and figure out this is possible. emails sent to the researchers have been basically ignored. If anyone reads this and has any info on how to obtain more information I would appreciate your help.
Is it haplogroup J?
yes I don't have it in front of me but I believe it is J1C8 @@silverstuff182
Watching all of these I am wondering if they have a genetic match however no name to go to the DNA, just a number association match. If they were to have a match of unknown origin it would lead to many many questions.
They did have names to go with the DNA. That's what those lineages charts were about explaining that the mtDNA tests confirmed the contemporary documentation of each of the female generations from Anne Of York down to the mothers of Michael Ibsen and Wendy Duldig. They have been very careful to explain that the mtDNA confirms the genealogical records. Without that documentation as you imply the DNA tests would have been called into question.
I have King Richard III.He is my first cousin 16x removed. How can I check my DNA against his???
Can you match the dna with Simon Abney Hastings in Australia? He is apparently the direct blood descendent
Direct blood descendant of whom? Richard had no children.
@@roberthudson1959 Richard had a child who died as a youngster, shortly before his wife died. So, no descendants who bore or fathered children of their own.
Has the DNA been loaded on any database like Geni or Ancestor? If not, why not allow data to become available?
Yes.😳
does the DNA of Michael-Abney Hasting descent of the brother of Richard lll match with the DNA of Richard
I think Abney Hasting is not of direct male line descent. So YDNA would not match.
I think that later on I heard that there are some males that match and some that don’t do that the break in the male line is within the last few generations
What about findings about likely illegitimacy regarding his brother? Couldn't DNA be done btwn all 3 to clear up THOSE rumors at least?
I am a Plantagenet descendant. My 19th Great Grandmother was Lady Margaret Countess of Somerset DD Plantagenet. I would love to give my dna to your university for evidence.
Tammy Coffman - Y- dna is only passed down from father to son. The Somersets were in the study to find a y-dna match. Mother to daughter as you are referring to is mitochondrial dna which they already had through Richard III’s sister, Anne of York.
So,, 19 generations ago, someone was screwing around? Amazing study and work.
When the ydna does not fit with the descandents of this familiy, it means one of the woman had a child of an other man. This means they have no rigth on the name or a title.
Henry VII could also claim his right to the thrown by right of conquering Richard III in battle. His actual right to inherit was always a little shaky. It is why he married Elizabeth of York, Edwatd IV"s oldest daughter in order to strengthen his claim to the thrown.
Thrown? It's spelled Throne but the term is Crown. Your point, however, is quite correct. Henry VII gained the Crown through conquest, as well, which is as legitimate as ancestry , in my opinion.
They didnt know about dna in those days so it was based on marriage.
Prince William did not father Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Kate’s 6’10” blonde bodyguard did. 🎭🩰🎨
@@scook5599 Prince William did not father Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Kate’s 6’10” blonde bodyguard did. 🎭🩰🎨
Woah.
Titled "Davinci Code" ? Bone ! Name below ? DNA RH not RHESUS' *?
I recently learned that I share mtDNA with Richard III. Interesting.
@chanctonbury63 Neat...I believe the mother was Cecilia Neville...
@@yankeedoodle1885 I believe the Windsor title was not during Henry VII reign. That title came much later. There is a great RUclips session on the Tudors....hosted by Claire Ridgway of the Tudor Society. Check it out!
@@yankeedoodle1885 Sooooo neat!
Darlene Farmer - According to my DNA test, Richard III and I share the same maternal ancestor some 13,000 years ago! I knew about his defeat at Bosworth Field by Henry VII, but not much else about Richard III. Odder still, my area of historical expertise is the Tudors, from Owen ap Meredith ap Tydier through the death of Elizabeth I (the Tudor line daughtered out). I've done enough reading histories and biographies about the Tudor family over some 30+ years that I inadvertently memorized the five generations of that genealogy.
Darlene Farmer hello cousin ! Ancestry DNA is amazing...related through the Beauchamp family and Braybrooke Plantagenet line...
Watching this video, she mentions that the 5th Duke of Beaufort is THEIR common ancestor. Who is she referring to when she says this?
I think she misspoke. The 5th Duke of Beaufort and Richard III would have had a common male ancestor - John of Gaunt- if there had been no break in paternity is what they are saying. The paternity break could be female infidelity or a son who was adopted but presumed to be biological by future generations, etc. It is more likely that it occurred in the 14 generations Richard III and the 5th Duke of Beaufort shared than in the 5 they did share. Additionally, they did not appear to have triangulated this data. They did not mention testing two descendants of the 5th Duke of Beaufort. I wish the report had been more through.
Margaret Beaufort
All very interesting. I believe the bastardship of the various claimants through John of Gaunt, who was concieved while his father, the King, was out of the country, really doesn't matter the least bit. Henry's lineage through John of Gaunt was not technically legitimate, but it matters not the least because he won and rule by conquest trumps lineage every time!
William the Conquerer was, with zero doubt, a bastard. His father's wife had no children, but his mother, the long term mistress of his father, had William. A bastard, but king by right of conquest. They won and so he became King.
I believe those remains were Richard III and I believe he was the legitimate king, but Henry won so ruled by conquest.
Prince William did not father Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Kate’s 6’10” blonde bodyguard did. 🎭🩰🎨
9.21 There is strong anecdotal evidence from the time that Edmund Langley, youngest son of Edward III was not the Father of Richard of Conisborough, but that Richard was in fact the result of a long term affair between his mother Isabel of Castile and John Holland half brother of King Richard II. There are extensive accounts from the time. Richard was not financially supported, and left nothing by his father when he died, neither by his brother.
If this is the case neither Edward IV nor Richard III had a male descent from Edward III through their Father Richard 3rd Duke of York. However they had a mixed descent through Edward IIIs second son Lionel Duke of Clarences wife through the Mortimer family and their Mother Anne.
Science is so cool.
I wonder if Richard iii DNA would somehow can be related to the Hastings who lived in Australia that are descendants of Richard iii brother George Duke of Clarence via his daughter who was also executed by the Tudors. Henry vii and Henry viii almost commit a genocide for killings the direct Plantagenets bloodline because they're still threat to them.
It’s much more likely that Edward IV, Richard’s brother, was illegitimate. Not Richard himself. Cecily Neville, their mother, had an affair. Richard III is my 1st cousin, 16 times removed.
Yes. The Tudors killed off the male Plantagenet men. If you descend from that line, it was through the women. I feel lucky to exist.
Prince William did not father Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Kate’s 6’10” blonde bodyguard did. 🎭🩰🎨
@@plantagenetsurvivor8771 Prince William did not father Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Kate’s 6’10” blonde bodyguard did. 🎭🩰🎨
Have they tested Henry I of England's DNA yet?
King Henry I’s y dna is the same as King Antiochus II Theos’ y dna since he is a male line descendant of King Antiochus II Theos. 🎭🩰🎨
The eye colour ciuld also be green!
If the bloodline was false there is 100% no chance it would be public and the facade would continue at what ever cost
The present royals have descent from many erstwhile ancient royals so go figure who comes out on top.
Please let me help I can give my DNA my Great Grandmothers sister had her DNA tested
My granny princess Marianna She descents from Charlemagne and also from the ancients kings of Wessex and from the First King of Plantagenets Henry Il of England too but also from Robert de Cottone
The reported false paternity incident is much more likely to be unrelated to Richard III than anything that affects his claim, though it can't be ruled out.
Prince William did not father Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Kate’s 6’10” blonde bodyguard did. 🎭🩰🎨
You keep what you kill.
*(But, what does the DNA reflect in ethnic heritage?, English/Basque Iberian, or Germanic?)* Lineage is answered and this is Why the Lineage should be focused on the Mother, as it always has been in the Jewish lineages.
I am a decendent of richard 111 i am so interested in all aspects if his life and death an dont believ he murdered the princes it wud b more likly henry 7th that was responsible😳
what happened to his shanks, they cut them off. Why would this be,,,,,,maybe a heridetry trait,,,,,,long shanks.
I have been matched with with DNA and King Richard III. I would like to learn more about my ancestry as I ran into a road block through my maternal side. Thank you
maternal mDNA is BS
Demo Real please explain
@@momohboy mitochondrial dna is not heredetary, mdna taken from different mitochondria of the same cell vary wildly. you can prove that you are descendant of an elephant or a cucumber with its help.
@@SunMoonBrothers Get help! That was nonsense.
@@williamjackson5942 hello cucumber
Another matrilineal relative would have been Barbara Spooner who married William Wilberforce.
I thought the “britains real monarch” documentary already proved Edward IV was the break in the DNA?
Prince William did not father Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Kate’s 6’10” blonde bodyguard did. 🎭🩰🎨
Good grief, just look at the curve in the spine.
Our lineage is linked according to Genetic reports referencing King Richard III, with the spinal disease within question of my son (by Sagebrush Pediatrics request for Labs). T2b6b with the very rare 7391C mutation, provides unquestionably the Morocco Quarters in Israel, to whom the Rothchilds built within the Old Jerusalem (war zone). As well, we have Nicholas II too within this lineage same reports. Both Amazing with the exception of all the bullies fighting for power and money. The Brahmins as well have the same link, which British may have conveniently displaced, but I hate to say that.
It is intellectually dishonest that every presentation from the University of Leicester on the subject of finding Richard III does not start with an acknowledgment that this would never have happened without the driving force of Philippa Langley and the Richard III Society. I understand that the University wishes to burnish its reputation at every opportunity. I think you do not realize that this glaring omission tremendously reduces the reputation of the University. Shame!
What about Elizabeth their sister she married my direct descendent John De La pole
I have proof my DNA
I am listed as Richard III being a cousin, Edward III 18th GGF, HenryVII 14th GGF (through different relatives, multiple lines), and I am RM269 YDNA & J1c2c2 MtDNA. My GGM's last name was Bruce. I know little to nothing about the technicalities of DNA, so a question... What is the difference between J1c2c2 & J1c2c3?
I'm the direct descendant of Edward I through his daughter Elizabeth of Rhuddlan who is the princess Elizabeth Plantagenet
So am I, hi.
How wonderful, did you find this out from the tests Jennifer or by working on your tree and which test would you recommend I take to find my true ancestral lines? I do have an extensive tree but as we all know sometimes people can be naughty and cheat on their spouses this would be so interesting to add something like this to my records! 🤗
And I too come from Elizabeth Plantagenet. Mine was all through a lot of bookwork. I didn't have one of the special DNA tests just one that gives me a lot of relatives on my Ancestry Match List.
I'm sure it's more then a 1 or 2%,
Great until the godamm music!
I would go and look at "Britains Real Monarch" with Tony Robinson. It will show that Edward IV having been born in April of 1442, while his so called father was at war in 1441 and no child would have lived an extra 8 weeks before being born. The real rightful heir should have been a descendant of Henry Hasting. There was a man who lived since WWII in a small town in Australia. I know he has passed away a few months ago, but he has children and grandchildren. I think you should have looked into it. There is a blood line that hasn't been investigated.
Oh yes! And I saw a documentary about this guy once!
I believe I share in Richard III DNA through my mtDNA.
Ironically; it would take Princess Diana to bring legitimate DNA back to the Royal line in William after the Tudor diversion.
This is interesting, can you explain this in more depth please.🤔
Richard III was in the eyes of many the last "English" royal. What followed were Welsh Tudors, Scottish Stuarts, German Hanoverians, etc.
Here is an excellent chart: ruclips.net/video/412rjcZ44Rk/видео.html
The Spensers on the other hand: familypedia.wikia.org/wiki/Ancestry_charts_of_Diana_Spencer_and_Catherine_Middleton
what shit comes out of that place
My name is Elizabeth Anne, my DOB is 06/02/1972 . The same day and month as Queen Elizabeth I I father's death. And the same day and month of this press release about the finding of King Richards remains. I could tell you much more. My and My son's birth certificates and ancestry records have all been removed from state and public records since we have lived in Plymouth. Much much more has happened. We are under serious occultist attack and oppression. I need help with a DNA test, finding out what happened to our birth records and ancestry evidence and the other things I have mentioned above.
Really?
I'm through the female line of Edward I maybe I could help
Many of the vikings were nukes
They are not even from the area
They are nordic
LEGAL GRAVE ROBBERS
Who da baby daddy?
How common was this mitochondrial DNA, not today, but back in Richard's day?
I would also think that there being no _contemporary_ descriptions of Richard's eye and hair colour, that DNA markers for such would be all the more irrelevant.
As for battle injuries, that is an entirely subjective assessment. The injuries exhibited - especially when one takes into consideration that the hands appear to have been bound - are arguably more in line with murder than battle. The head injury would certainly not be a battlefield injury, as the helm worn by Richard III would have been a close faced helm which could not possibly have been knocked off or otherwise accidentally lost. But a captive Richard III might certainly have had his helmet forcibly removed before being brutally murdered. The other injuries, too, would have been practically impossible to inflict through armour on the battlefield. If this is indeed Richard, he did not receive these wounds while fighting, as the wounds are not consistent at all with the battlefield injuries of a well armoured man - as Richard would be.
The frequency of "this" mitochondrial DNA in the 15th century is unimportant. The important fact is that this mtDNA from the skeleton matches that of two modern descendants who have genealogical evidence that they are related to Richard's sister.
I agree with you that many if not all the wounds could not have been inflicted with armour still in place. The arrangement of the arms suggests that Richard's hands may have been bound, but this cannot be proved.
Those were bloody times. Henry was totally justified in slaughtering Richard at Bosworth. One of the two had to die that day. Richard was a brave man, but he lost. In war, that is the ultimate sin.
David Keenan The frequency of the mitochondrial DNA is all-important, because that is what decides how significant the match is. Remember, this is not a match to the 15th century, it is a match to the 20th century, the 19th century, 18th century, 17th, 16th, 15th, 14th, 13th, 12th, 11th and 10th century. And beyond. If the strand was common in the 15th century, then this match is of little significance - no matter how many people you match it with today. The only thing it proves is that the corpse was possessing of the same mitochondrial DNA as that of Richard, but what does that prove?
If a lot of people have the same mitochondrial DNA as myself (and they very well might, I have a pretty big family on my mother's side - I could have the same strand as that of Churchill for all I know), and someone 500 years in the future finds a corpse and determines it has that particular strand of mitochondrial DNA, does that mean they have found me? No, it means they have found one of countless candidates - even if the strand becomes rare in future.
The head injury in the back of head/neck region absolutely could have been a battle injury and the fatal one at that. Historic accounts in the form of ballads say a welsh fighter delivered the first and ortal blow with a poleaxe (like a halberd) swing in the battle, If from behind the point of aim would have been a swing arching upward aimed at the neck (the week point where the helm and body armor met), and taking off part of the skull in the lower rear -- and the injury is exactly consistent with that
To furhte rnote the only problem with frequency would be enhanced frequnce of Richard's maternal DNA on the battlefield. In other words several of Richards relatives with identical mtDNA may have been battlefield deaths there (on both sides) But the scolioisis and place of burial make it likely the remains are his. In other words if the NW European distribution of his mtDNA is 1.6%, on that battlefield there could be 5%.
Dr Turi King specifically mentions that she had to consider how common was the mitochondrial DNA type and stated that was incredibly rare. You can find much more information on this project if you watch a lecture series by UBC (the University of British Columbia) called - Richard III: The Resolution of A 500-Year-Old Cold Case - which is presented by Dr. King who is a lecturer in Genetics and Archaeology at the University of Leicester. Dr King was the one leading the international research team involved in the DNA identification work of the remains of Richard III, she is also leading the project carrying out the whole genome sequencing of Richard III. I believe she said after factoring in ALL the probabilities that they used, and she goes over the entire list of them, the end result that the remains being somebody who was not Richard III was 6.7 million to one. There is also her presentation (on British Council Germany channel) - titled: Queen's Lecture 2016 by Dr Turi King | King Richard III - the resolution of a 500-year-old mystery - with additional commentary on the rare mitochondrial DNA type afterwards during a discussion with the audience members, including mention about the injuries.
You don't disturb a grave for any reason.even if it covers history. I guess rest in peace until some curious history desides to rob a grave to get famous.
To each his own. You definitely have the right to feel that way, especially about your own resting place. Considering the ego these folks had to have, I'm thinking he might be glad to know the interest be taken. I would. And I'd be glad to be out from under that parking lot!!
@@AprilBird4 Richard III would be happy to be buried in a Cathedral rather than a parking lot for sure!
Considering the length of human occupation in the UK, I would be surprised if there was a square foot anywhere that wasn't somebody's final resting place. Land gets repurposed unfortunately.
tell some one that cares
why dont you explaine , why there so much waste at the uni , and why you sell junk food so clever
They believe they have found the remains of the “two princes in the tower” I believe they belong to Richard 3rd brother so why don’t they DNA test them they should prove they are related which will prove both are who they are suppose to be
The Queen has to give permission for the remains of the children alleged to be the Princes to be exhumed and tested. She has constantly refused to give such permission.
@@yvettebasson1243 LOL! I wouldn't let it happen to my family members! She has her point though! It's like people poking me to give my DNA and test it with one of my forgotten family members!
And women couldnt have families
ok the overstatement of a particular word to make yourself sound smarter is a bit irritating. "SKELETAL" remains lady....NOT "SKELEETAL" remains. Sheesh!
This is how they say it at the U of Leicester. I've heard others there pronounce it this way.
@devildog1982z You mean correctly?
But, but, I thought gender was whatever you wanted it to be in your imagination? Now you are telling me its hardwired in binary fashion into your DNA? I feel lied to.
There is always one troll who must start this unnecesssary discussion at any costs.
@@linchen008 Aaargh! It's 'whether', not "weather".
Gender=how you see yourself.
Sex=what's between your legs.
It depends on the body you're born into. Race, gender, commonalities. Look at the Hasburg family with their protruding chin apparently from incest. There are some today in 2023 that still support incest.
Can you believe it? Tsk
Get a life😂
Prince William did not father Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Kate’s 6’10” blonde bodyguard did. 🎭🩰🎨