Where should Richard III be buried?

[Malthus]

People, it's already been decided it's Leicester Cathedral, more here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9847738/Richard-III-to-be-re-interred-in-major-ceremony-at-Leicester-Cathedral.html

Too bad. They shoulda had a battle to decide the matter. 

[Viking]

Didn't see this posted earlier in the thread - DNA evidence allegedly proves the skeleton they found is in fact Richard III.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/world/europe/richard-iii-search-announcement/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

"Prove" in this case seems awfully strong. All DNA tests can show is that the guy was in Richard III's extended family. That would probably apply to a healthy portion of the nobility of the time.

All the evidence together makes a very strong case though.

<science nerd> Mitochondrial DNA is special by it's nature. It is not part of the normal DNA strand but rather a second paralell DNA system found in Eukariotic cells. A Eukariotic cell is a cell that includes a second cell with it's own DNA as an organ. We are made up of Eukariotic cells, as are all creatures which reproduce sexually.

What this means is that the egg cell found within the female before fertilization has two sets of dna, one is the mother's normal dna and the second set is the mitochondrial dna. When the sperm fertilizes the egg the sperm dna and the eggs normal dna interact and create a mixture of the two, the mitochondrial DNA remains intact. The egg then splits and multiplies to create (in this case) a daughter. The Daughter's regular dna is a mix of the father's and mother's dna, but the mitochondrial DNA is an exact copy of the mother's dna.

This means that when you follow a pure female line the mitochondrial dna will remain unchanged. This also means that the mitochondrial dna in a single male born from a daughter connected to that female line will be identical (barring mutation, which happens at a much lower rate in mitochondrial dna due to it not being sexually re-produced) any other single male at any other point in the female line as long as they both trace up through pure females to a common source.

Ibsen is apparently decended in a pure female line from Richard's sister (and his mother obviously) so they will share the same identical mitochondrial dna (barring mutation). So this shows much much more than that he was in Richard's extended family. It means that it was either Richard or one of his Neville first cousins or one of his Lancastrian second cousins. Since we know who these people were and when and where they died this reduces it to Richard. Richard's grandmother was an only daughter.</science nerd>

[mongers]

Anywhere will do, I'm sure Liecester has a perfectly decent parish church of the right age that'll do.

Kings of England (&France) are buried all over the place. Several English Kings are buried in my own county at Winchester and Kings of Wessex are buried all over the place around here, there's one about 8 miles away from me. 

Nope. Kings of France are buried in the Basilica of Saint-Denis   


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilique_Saint-Denis

The church became a place of pilgrimage and the burial place of the French Kings, with nearly every king from the 10th to the 19th centuries (Louis XVIII is there also) being buried there, as well as many from previous centuries.

Nope I meant Kings of England and France, you know the ones buiredin Normandy and Anjou.

Not relevant since the Commise of 1204

btw fun fact, the french wikipedia page about the duchy of normandy has the duchy ending in 1204 (when norman rule ended), the english language page about the duchy of normandy has the duchy ending in 1469 (the the title was abolished).

Hang on, two posts down you say:

Richard III by the grace of god and by right of conquest king of England and France.

You can't have it both ways. 

[Viking]

You can't have it both ways. 

My point is that to bury somebody important you need to have lots of scary men with sharp pieces of metal nearby to make sure his enemies don't vandalize the grave. When those men are loyal Valvois men you can't bury Plantagenets there.

[alfred russel]

<science nerd> Mitochondrial DNA is special by it's nature. It is not part of the normal DNA strand but rather a second paralell DNA system found in Eukariotic cells. A Eukariotic cell is a cell that includes a second cell with it's own DNA as an organ. We are made up of Eukariotic cells, as are all creatures which reproduce sexually.

What this means is that the egg cell found within the female before fertilization has two sets of dna, one is the mother's normal dna and the second set is the mitochondrial dna. When the sperm fertilizes the egg the sperm dna and the eggs normal dna interact and create a mixture of the two, the mitochondrial DNA remains intact. The egg then splits and multiplies to create (in this case) a daughter. The Daughter's regular dna is a mix of the father's and mother's dna, but the mitochondrial DNA is an exact copy of the mother's dna.

This means that when you follow a pure female line the mitochondrial dna will remain unchanged. This also means that the mitochondrial dna in a single male born from a daughter connected to that female line will be identical (barring mutation, which happens at a much lower rate in mitochondrial dna due to it not being sexually re-produced) any other single male at any other point in the female line as long as they both trace up through pure females to a common source.

Ibsen is apparently decended in a pure female line from Richard's sister (and his mother obviously) so they will share the same identical mitochondrial dna (barring mutation). So this shows much much more than that he was in Richard's extended family. It means that it was either Richard or one of his Neville first cousins or one of his Lancastrian second cousins. Since we know who these people were and when and where they died this reduces it to Richard. Richard's grandmother was an only daughter.</science nerd>

I didn't realize it was mitochondrial DNA they were looking at, but I still don't think it changes the overall point....why would a mitochondrial DNA line be limited to the descendants of Richard's grandmother? A large number  of people in the 15th century could have shared that line.

[Viking]

I didn't realize it was mitochondrial DNA they were looking at, but I still don't think it changes the overall point....why would a mitochondrial DNA line be limited to the descendants of Richard's grandmother? A large number  of people in the 15th century could have shared that line.

No. It is limited to decendents of Richard's grandmother through the female line. So we are talking about sons of her daughters, if the time is correct. This limits the number to between half a dozen and a dozen men, all of which can apparently be accounted for. His sister is a good source of comparison since they know who here decendents are through a pure female line.

[alfred russel]

This of course is fertile ground on which history buffs can argue.  There are lots of theories as to who really killed them based on who benefited most from their deaths. 

While his culpability in the death of his nephews is debatable, it has now been established that he has thousands in unpaid parking violations.

[alfred russel]

No. It is limited to decendents of Richard's grandmother through the female line. So we are talking about sons of her daughters, if the time is correct. This limits the number to between half a dozen and a dozen men, all of which can apparently be accounted for. His sister is a good source of comparison since they know who here decendents are through a pure female line.

How can you establish that? Richard's grandmother established inherited her mitochondrial DNA from her mother, who may have passed on the same mitochondrial DNA line to others. Keep going back generations with that logic, and who knows how many people had that line in the 15th century.

The only way I can understand definitive proof is if you were able to identify a distinct mutation in the mitochondrial DNA of Richard's grandmother--and then traced that to Richard's remains and modern descendants. My assumption is that hasn't been done.

[DGuller]

No. It is limited to decendents of Richard's grandmother through the female line. So we are talking about sons of her daughters, if the time is correct. This limits the number to between half a dozen and a dozen men, all of which can apparently be accounted for. His sister is a good source of comparison since they know who here decendents are through a pure female line.

How can you establish that? Richard's grandmother established inherited her mitochondrial DNA from her mother, who may have passed on the same mitochondrial DNA line to others. Keep going back generations with that logic, and who knows how many people had that line in the 15th century.

The only way I can understand definitive proof is if you were able to identify a distinct mutation in the mitochondrial DNA of Richard's grandmother--and then traced that to Richard's remains and modern descendants. My assumption is that hasn't been done.

Those were my thoughts as well as I was reading Viking's explanation.  In theory, absent mutations, everyone should have Eve's mitochondrial DNA.

[Viking]

No. It is limited to decendents of Richard's grandmother through the female line. So we are talking about sons of her daughters, if the time is correct. This limits the number to between half a dozen and a dozen men, all of which can apparently be accounted for. His sister is a good source of comparison since they know who here decendents are through a pure female line.

How can you establish that? Richard's grandmother established inherited her mitochondrial DNA from her mother, who may have passed on the same mitochondrial DNA line to others. Keep going back generations with that logic, and who knows how many people had that line in the 15th century.

The only way I can understand definitive proof is if you were able to identify a distinct mutation in the mitochondrial DNA of Richard's grandmother--and then traced that to Richard's remains and modern descendants. My assumption is that hasn't been done.

Much less than you might think. I don't remember the source but somewhere I read that pure male to male lines lasted on average 3 generations in the middle ages among the nobility. Presumably similar numbers apply to women. Richards great great grandfather through the female line was flemish commoner who managed to get himself knighted and his daughter married as a third wife to John of Gaunt, literally the babysitter that married the widower.

[Viking]

Those were my thoughts as well as I was reading Viking's explanation.  In theory, absent mutations, everyone should have Eve's mitochondrial DNA.

She lived about 200,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

There is also a Y-Chromosomal Adam who lived between 60,000 and 140,000 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam


Note the difference in spread of date, mitochondrial dna doesn't change much. It is quite possible that Y-Chromosomal Adam survived the Toba Eruption

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

which is linked to a genetic bottleneck dated to around 50,000. These dates are estimated based on rates of mutation of dna, all of which is affected by environmental factors and generation length and age differences between parents etc.etc.

But, no, God did not expel eve and adam from the garden 6,000 years ago and if he did expel them at all he expelled her first and him 100,000 years later.

[Malthus]

This of course is fertile ground on which history buffs can argue.  There are lots of theories as to who really killed them based on who benefited most from their deaths. 

While his culpability in the death of his nephews is debatable, it has now been established that he has thousands in unpaid parking violations.

[alfred russel]

Much less than you might think. I don't remember the source but somewhere I read that pure male to male lines lasted on average 3 generations in the middle ages among the nobility. Presumably similar numbers apply to women. Richards great great grandfather through the female line was flemish commoner who managed to get himself knighted and his daughter married as a third wife to John of Gaunt, literally the babysitter that married the widower.

The average may have been 3 generations, but every living person has one thing in common: their female line ancestors didn't die out.

[Viking]

Much less than you might think. I don't remember the source but somewhere I read that pure male to male lines lasted on average 3 generations in the middle ages among the nobility. Presumably similar numbers apply to women. Richards great great grandfather through the female line was flemish commoner who managed to get himself knighted and his daughter married as a third wife to John of Gaunt, literally the babysitter that married the widower.

The average may have been 3 generations, but every living person has one thing in common: their female line ancestors didn't die out.

Same with male ancestors. Neither applies to decendents. Women do not have unbroken female lines of decendents and males do not have unbroken male lines of decendents.

[Valmy]

Same with male ancestors. Neither applies to decendents. Women do not have unbroken female lines of decendents and males do not have unbroken male lines of decendents.

How is that possible?  If I have an unbroken line of male ancestors wouldn't my super dooper great grandpa has an unbroken line of male descendents?