Languish.org

It doesn't look like we have a thread about this story already, but since most everyone here is a history nerd I'm sure I don't need to post news articles about it. :)

Westminster obviously. He may have been Richard of York but his connection to York was by title only. The Yorkists didn't have much land in Yorkshire, just like the Lancastrians didn't have much land in Lancashire.

Westminster.  Down with the Tudor tyrants!

Westminster, in a parking lot.

Clever Jaron variant Cal.  :sleep:

Other: Dontgiveatosston, Aslongasidonthavetopayforitshire

I was reading recently that there's a belief that Richard III didn't kill his nephews. If he didn't, what the hell happened to them? :unsure:

Quote from: Gups on February 04, 2013, 09:05:33 AM
Other: Dontgiveatosston, Aslongasidonthavetopayforitshire

Heard it is wonderful there!

He belongs in a museum! :alberta:

Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2013, 09:14:36 AM
I was reading recently that there's a belief that Richard III didn't kill his nephews. If he didn't, what the hell happened to them? :unsure:

They think Henry did it and then blamed Richard.

This doesn't make sense to me though, because if they were alive, why wouldn't Richard have proved it by showing them off to silence the rumors? The fact that it was believed he'd killed the princes was damaging politically.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 04, 2013, 09:21:15 AM

Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2013, 09:14:36 AM
I was reading recently that there's a belief that Richard III didn't kill his nephews. If he didn't, what the hell happened to them? :unsure:

They think Henry did it and then blamed Richard.

This doesn't make sense to me though, because if they were alive, why wouldn't Richard have proved it by showing them off to silence the rumors?

Exactly. Which explains my confusion. Apparently, there is some evidence that the two boys were alive when Richard III was killed, and that they were removed from the Tower to protect them from Henry. That seems ridiculously far-fetched.

Quote from: lustindarkness on February 04, 2013, 08:13:48 AM
Westminster, in a parking lot.

I don't even think they have one.

Quote from: Gups on February 04, 2013, 09:05:33 AM
Other: Dontgiveatosston, Aslongasidonthavetopayforitshire

Butyouhavetopayforit :contract:

I believe Blackadder did the nephew slaying.

Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2013, 09:23:34 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 04, 2013, 09:21:15 AM

Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2013, 09:14:36 AM
I was reading recently that there's a belief that Richard III didn't kill his nephews. If he didn't, what the hell happened to them? :unsure:

They think Henry did it and then blamed Richard.

This doesn't make sense to me though, because if they were alive, why wouldn't Richard have proved it by showing them off to silence the rumors?

Exactly. Which explains my confusion. Apparently, there is some evidence that the two boys were alive when Richard III was killed, and that they were removed from the Tower to protect them from Henry. That seems ridiculously far-fetched.

Apparently there are a few other suspects, but they're all connected to Richard, at best it was a "troublesome priest" scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower#Suspects

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.  :bowler:

I think the most interesting part of this news is that he was a hunchback after all.

The winter of his discontent has been finally made glorious summer?

York. A full Anglican-Catholic state funeral in the North would be amazing.

As Mongers said Medieval Kings of England are buried all over the place. Ironically the Tudors are the first to mostly get buried in Westminster Abbey.

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 09:35:26 AM
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.  :bowler:

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


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

QuoteThe 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.

They should test the DNA of the two children found under the stairs of the Tower and see if they are the Princes as suspected.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 04, 2013, 10:04:19 AM

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 09:35:26 AM
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.  :bowler:

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


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

QuoteThe 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. :contract:

BBC reports he's to be reburied in Leicester cathedral, shows how little I know, though I guess one could work out the city probably had a cathedral what with it being a city.

I'm sympathetic to Shelf's idea of giving his re-internment some state pomp and ceremony, though not at York, pretty cool if the Queen attended the burial of one of her predecessors. 

Leicester has a nice little cathedral, all it lacks is a famous corpse.

I'd have his body thrown in the trash. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I say bury him under the stairs of the Tower where he stuffed the Princes.

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 10:26:32 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 04, 2013, 10:04:19 AM

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 09:35:26 AM
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.  :bowler:

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


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

QuoteThe 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. :contract:

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).

I thought the Duchy was still around but only consisted of the Channel Islands.

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 10:30:31 AM
BBC reports he's to be reburied in Leicester cathedral, shows how little I know, though I guess one could work out the city probably had a cathedral what with it being a city.

I'm sympathetic to Shelf's idea of giving his re-internment some state pomp and ceremony, though not at York, pretty cool if the Queen attended the burial of one of her predecessors.

That will not happen, as Richard III is officially the usurper, a kinslayer, and Henry VII the rightful king even Bosworth Fields. You and I we know it isn't the whole truth (wink, wink; nudge, nudge), but it is the Tudor and the Crown's official line. To give him pump and funeral would basically attack the legitimacy of the Windsor family as it descends from the Plantagenets only from the back door (by the marriage of Catherine to Owen Tudor, and Henry VII's marriage to Elizabeth of York).

Also, obviously the two Princes' skeletons should be tested, once and for all. There are no possibility of a confusion like in Louis XVII's case.

Quote from: Drakken on February 04, 2013, 11:11:18 AM

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 10:30:31 AM
BBC reports he's to be reburied in Leicester cathedral, shows how little I know, though I guess one could work out the city probably had a cathedral what with it being a city.

I'm sympathetic to Shelf's idea of giving his re-internment some state pomp and ceremony, though not at York, pretty cool if the Queen attended the burial of one of her predecessors.

That will not happen, as Richard III is officially an usurper, and Henry VII was the rightful king even Bosworth Fields. To you and I we know it isn't true (wink, wink; nudge, nudge), but it is the Tudor official line. To give him pump and funeral would basically attack the legitimacy of the Windsor family as it descends from the Plantagenets only from the back door (by the marriage of Catherine to Owen Tudor, and Henry VII's marriage to Elizabeth of York).

From the official royal family website; the entry for King Richard III. So, yeah, if the present monarch thinks he was legitimate he was legitimate.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheYorkists/RichardIII.aspx

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 11:15:07 AM

Quote from: Drakken on February 04, 2013, 11:11:18 AM

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 10:30:31 AM
BBC reports he's to be reburied in Leicester cathedral, shows how little I know, though I guess one could work out the city probably had a cathedral what with it being a city.

I'm sympathetic to Shelf's idea of giving his re-internment some state pomp and ceremony, though not at York, pretty cool if the Queen attended the burial of one of her predecessors.

That will not happen, as Richard III is officially an usurper, and Henry VII was the rightful king even Bosworth Fields. To you and I we know it isn't true (wink, wink; nudge, nudge), but it is the Tudor official line. To give him pump and funeral would basically attack the legitimacy of the Windsor family as it descends from the Plantagenets only from the back door (by the marriage of Catherine to Owen Tudor, and Henry VII's marriage to Elizabeth of York).

From the official royal family website; the entry for King Richard III. So, yeah, if the present monarch thinks he was legitimate he was legitimate.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheYorkists/RichardIII.aspx

Right there on the first paragraph:

QuoteRichard III usurped the throne from the young Edward V, who disappeared with his younger brother while under their ambitious uncle's supposed protection.

Quote from: Drakken on February 04, 2013, 11:17:08 AM

Right there on the first paragraph:

QuoteRichard III usurped the throne from the young Edward V, who disappeared with his younger brother while under their ambitious uncle's supposed protection.

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

I'll give them 10 pounds for the corpse.

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 11:19:57 AM
Richard III by the grace of god and by right of conquest king of England and France.

Yeah, except that Henry Tudor's retconned it into him being the rightful King, and Richard an usurper and a childkiller.

The difference between Henry IV and Richard III is that he lost, while Henry Bolingbroke won and died - agonizingly painfully - in his bed.

Quote from: Drakken on February 04, 2013, 11:23:57 AM

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 11:19:57 AM
Richard III by the grace of god and by right of conquest king of England and France.

Yeah, except that Henry Tudor's retconned it into him being the rightful King, and Richard an usurper and a childkiller.

Henry Tudor claimed the crown by right of conquest, not inheritance, as I recall.  Richard III could be the rightful king and still allow Henry VII to be the rightful king, also.

Quote from: grumbler on February 04, 2013, 11:33:50 AM
Richard III could be the rightful king and still allow Henry VII to be the rightful king, also.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of 'em.

Quote from: Gups on February 04, 2013, 11:58:09 AM
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of 'em.

Not vote York or Tudor/Lancastrian but vote for some third party?  Yeah go ahead throw your vote away.

Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2013, 12:30:24 PM

Quote from: Gups on February 04, 2013, 11:58:09 AM
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of 'em.

Not vote York or Tudor/Lancastrian but vote for some third party?  Yeah go ahead throw your vote away.

All good englishmen support Count Nader de Paulville.

What were his stats?

Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2013, 12:53:48 PM
What were his stats?

Not very good, his traits (Libertarian - 5 stewardship, Crackpot - 5 diplomacy, Idealist - 5 intrigue, Pacifist - 5 Military) are quite detrimental.

Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2013, 09:23:34 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 04, 2013, 09:21:15 AM

Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2013, 09:14:36 AM
I was reading recently that there's a belief that Richard III didn't kill his nephews. If he didn't, what the hell happened to them? :unsure:

They think Henry did it and then blamed Richard.

This doesn't make sense to me though, because if they were alive, why wouldn't Richard have proved it by showing them off to silence the rumors?

Exactly. Which explains my confusion. Apparently, there is some evidence that the two boys were alive when Richard III was killed, and that they were removed from the Tower to protect them from Henry. That seems ridiculously far-fetched.

Only if one assumes everything said about Richard by the Tudors is accurate - which itself seems a tad far fetched.

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. 

As to the poll question - I think he should be buried in York with a suitable ceremony.  There is a very strong and active Richard III society there and it would probably mean most to them.

btw, if you are insterested in the more positive view of Richard you might want to visit their website.

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

Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2013, 02:40:35 PM
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.

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

Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2013, 03:00:39 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2013, 02:40:35 PM
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.

They had the other evidence already - they were waiting on the DNA testing. But yeah, while DNA alone would not "prove" it, the article claims that the archaeologists are now convinced it is indeed him, based on the evidence which includes the DNA testing. Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this sun of York. Finally!  :D

Interestingly, turns out he was indeed 'deformed'.

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 03:01:42 PM
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 (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.  :D

Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2013, 03:00:39 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 04, 2013, 02:40:35 PM
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>

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 10:41:48 AM

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 10:26:32 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 04, 2013, 10:04:19 AM

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 09:35:26 AM
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.  :bowler:

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


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

QuoteThe 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. :contract:

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:

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 11:19:57 AM

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

You can't have it both ways.  <_<

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 03:28:45 PM

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.

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 03:19:53 PM

<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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2013, 03:40:05 PM

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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2013, 01:25:11 PM
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.

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 03:46:25 PM

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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2013, 03:53:29 PM

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 03:46:25 PM

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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2013, 03:53:29 PM

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 03:46:25 PM

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.

Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2013, 04:07:23 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2013, 03:48:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2013, 01:25:11 PM
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.

:lol:

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:08:29 PM

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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2013, 04:17:06 PM

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:08:29 PM

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.

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:19:15 PM
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?

Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2013, 04:25:17 PM

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:19:15 PM
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?

You have an unbroken line of father-son links all the way up to y-chromosomal adam, it does not follow that you will have a son, or that if you have a son that he will have a son and so on.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 04, 2013, 03:48:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2013, 01:25:11 PM
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.

:lol:

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:14:12 PM


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.

Curiously though Wikipedia states that the most recent common ancestor may have lived as little as 5000 years ago. 

Here is a listing of the evidence which suggests it is him.

Quote•DNA from skeleton matches two of Richard III's maternal line relatives. Leicester genealogist verifies living relatives of Richard III's family
•Individual likely to have been killed by one of two fatal injuries to the skull – one possibly from a sword and one possibly from a halberd
•Ten wounds discovered on skeleton - Richard III killed by trauma to the back of the head. Part of the skull sliced off
•Radiocarbon dating reveals individual had a high protein diet – including significant amounts of seafood - meaning he was likely to be of high status
•Radiocarbon dating reveals individual died in the second half of the 15th or in the early 16th century – consistent with Richard's death in 1485
•Skeleton reveals severe scoliosis – onset believed to have occurred at the time of puberty
•Although around 5 feet 8 inches tall (1.72m), condition meant King Richard III would have stood significantly shorter and his right shoulder may have been higher than the left
•Feet were truncated at an unknown point in the past, but a significant time after the burial
•Corpse was subjected to 'humiliation injuries' - including a sword through the right buttock
•Individual had unusually slender, almost feminine, build for a man - in keeping with contemporaneous accounts
•No evidence for 'withered arm' - as portrayed by Shakespeare - found
•Possibility that the individual's hands were tied
•Grave was hastily dug, was not big enough and there was no shroud or coffin.

Quote from: PJL on February 04, 2013, 04:31:29 PM

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:14:12 PM


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.

Curiously though Wikipedia states that the most recent common ancestor may have lived as little as 5000 years ago.

Which is total BS since aborigines got themselves isolated in australia 40,000 years ago and the amerindians got themelves isolated 10,000 years ago. You sure it wasn't Conservapedia you were quoting?

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:27:22 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2013, 04:25:17 PM

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:19:15 PM
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?

You have an unbroken line of father-son links all the way up to y-chromosomal adam, it does not follow that you will have a son, or that if you have a son that he will have a son and so on.

Yeah quick visualization - I'm unlikely to have children (much less a son) but there is the possibility that one of my sisters could have a son.  My father will immediately have a broken chain of male descendants as the next born male will only come through a female line.

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:37:24 PM

Quote from: PJL on February 04, 2013, 04:31:29 PM

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:14:12 PM


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.

Curiously though Wikipedia states that the most recent common ancestor may have lived as little as 5000 years ago.

Which is total BS since aborigines got themselves isolated in australia 40,000 years ago and the amerindians got themelves isolated 10,000 years ago. You sure it wasn't Conservapedia you were quoting?

Apparently computer modelling even with conservative criteria for for contact between different cultures give a MRCA living around 5000BC.

BTW, the Native American, Polynesians etc were isolated only up to 500 years or so. Plenty of time for mixed ethnic contact since then. Even in Britain it is reckoned that 80% of the population has some royal ancestry (legitimate or otherwise) and that only after a few hundred years. True they may still be completely isolated communities in Amazonia and elsewhere, but that's decreasing by the year.

Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2013, 04:49:04 PM

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:27:22 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2013, 04:25:17 PM

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 04:19:15 PM
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?

You have an unbroken line of father-son links all the way up to y-chromosomal adam, it does not follow that you will have a son, or that if you have a son that he will have a son and so on.

Yeah quick visualization - I'm unlikely to have children (much less a son) but there is the possibility that one of my sisters could have a son.  My father will immediately have a broken chain of male descendants as the next born male will only come through a female line.

Everyone by definition has an unbroken male and female line up.  There is no such guarantee going down however.

True. :)

Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 05:01:15 PM
Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Oldenburgs ~30 generations?

Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2013, 05:13:43 PM
Oldenburgs ~30 generations?

No.

Who the fuck are the Oldenburgs?

Looked it up.  Never mind. :)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 05:01:15 PM
Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Japanese royal family.

No idea how many generations.

Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2013, 05:46:17 PM
Japanese royal family.

No idea how many generations.

Nope.  That would have been my guess too.

Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2013, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 05:01:15 PM
Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Japanese royal family.

No idea how many generations.

Ah, good guess

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 05:01:15 PM
Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Looked it up, I would never have guessed it.

Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2013, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 05:01:15 PM
Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Japanese royal family.

No idea how many generations.

There were Empresses thrown in there.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 05:01:15 PM
Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Nepal ?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 04, 2013, 06:00:08 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2013, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 05:01:15 PM
Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Japanese royal family.

No idea how many generations.

There were Empresses thrown in there.

From wiki:

QuoteWomen were allowed to succeed (but there existed no known children of theirs whose father did not also happen to be an agnate of the imperial house, thus there is neither a precedent that a child of an imperial woman with a non-imperial man could inherit, nor a precedent forbidding it for children of empresses).

In regard to common ancestry and isolated populations, it is generally thought for sure that you only have to go back about 5,000 for a common ancestor to everyone and in fact there is strong evidence some historical figures alive in the past 2,000 years may literally be a common ancestor to huge portions of living humans today. The Genghis Khan effect can exaggerate this, as he had the pick of the healthiest women, had a huge harem and fathered many children even outside his harem. His offspring were all highly prized catches more or less, and had almost the best selection of women, huge harems, and tons of children even outside their core group of women. For this reason parts of central there is a substantial percentage of the total population who have Genghis Khan's Y chromosome.

Europeans started coming into contact with aborigines in Australia and Amazonian natives in the past 500 years. There are scattered tribes in Amazonia that had virtually or in fact no European contact at all until the latter part of the 20th century. But, there is virtually no evidence these tribes had no contact with anyone, they just had no contact with the West. In fact, many of the most isolated Amazonia tribes, numbering sometimes less than a few hundred, regularly interbred with other close by tribes. It kind of makes sense, practices like that would be important for social and vitality reasons. So it's in fact the case that when Spaniards started fathering children with South American natives over 500 years ago, their genetic influence went much deeper into Amazonia than Europeans themselves did for hundreds of years. This makes sense, natives have reasons to go back into the bush, Europeans not nearly so much, and people fuck each other constantly and have kids and spread genetic material from tribe to tribe.

If you do the math, going back enough generations you quickly end up with more mathematically possible ancestors than humans who lived at that point in time. What this means of course is all of us are descended from some individuals through multiple lines (pedigree collapse.) Thus with any species, go back far enough and you enter a situation where every person alive at that point in time falls into two categories. One is persons with no single living descendent today. The other are people whom everyone is descended from today. The point in human history in which all living persons either have no descendants or all living persons are common ancestors to all presently living humans is only estimated at furthest back to be 15,000 years ago and many think it is as recent as 5000 years ago.

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 06:08:18 PM
Nepal ?

Nope.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 06:52:59 PM

Quote from: mongers on February 04, 2013, 06:08:18 PM
Nepal ?

Nope.

The Frenchies? My guess is based on the fact that I don't believe France ever had a regnal Queen, and that IIRC all the French Kings til the Revolution were male-line descendants of Hugh Capet.

If not then my guess might be one of the dynasties that ruled England? (Just based on the possibility maybe the record for male-descent isn't that extensive and thus it's a family we don't think of as having ruled all that long.)

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2013, 06:36:16 PM
In regard to common ancestry and isolated populations, it is generally thought for sure that you only have to go back about 5,000 for a common ancestor to everyone and in fact there is strong evidence some historical figures alive in the past 2,000 years may literally be a common ancestor to huge portions of living humans today. The Genghis Khan effect can exaggerate this, as he had the pick of the healthiest women, had a huge harem and fathered many children even outside his harem. His offspring were all highly prized catches more or less, and had almost the best selection of women, huge harems, and tons of children even outside their core group of women. For this reason parts of central there is a substantial percentage of the total population who have Genghis Khan's Y chromosome.

Europeans started coming into contact with aborigines in Australia and Amazonian natives in the past 500 years. There are scattered tribes in Amazonia that had virtually or in fact no European contact at all until the latter part of the 20th century. But, there is virtually no evidence these tribes had no contact with anyone, they just had no contact with the West. In fact, many of the most isolated Amazonia tribes, numbering sometimes less than a few hundred, regularly interbred with other close by tribes. It kind of makes sense, practices like that would be important for social and vitality reasons. So it's in fact the case that when Spaniards started fathering children with South American natives over 500 years ago, their genetic influence went much deeper into Amazonia than Europeans themselves did for hundreds of years. This makes sense, natives have reasons to go back into the bush, Europeans not nearly so much, and people fuck each other constantly and have kids and spread genetic material from tribe to tribe.

If you do the math, going back enough generations you quickly end up with more mathematically possible ancestors than humans who lived at that point in time. What this means of course is all of us are descended from some individuals through multiple lines (pedigree collapse.) Thus with any species, go back far enough and you enter a situation where every person alive at that point in time falls into two categories. One is persons with no single living descendent today. The other are people whom everyone is descended from today. The point in human history in which all living persons either have no descendants or all living persons are common ancestors to all presently living humans is only estimated at furthest back to be 15,000 years ago and many think it is as recent as 5000 years ago.

As to the Australians I think you are looking at it backwards.  The way you phrased it, people disagreeing with you would have to prove a negative.  There is very little evidence that native Australians had much contact with anyone before the Europeans showed up.  There may have been some trade in the north, and with Maori but evidence is fairly weak.  Considering that the Australians lived in myrad bands and were probably the most primitive society on Earth at the time when they met Europeans indicates that what ever contact that some bands had with outsiders was minimal.

In the case of the Australian aborigines, my point was the moment Europeans started living on Australia their genes would have spread through those populations rapidly, even to aborigines who did not directly interact with Europeans. I wasn't saying prior to European exploration/colonization of Australia, that aborigines had outside contact. I don't know if they did or don't, I don't know much about that part of the world's history. I do know that in the few hundred years since contact more than enough generations have passed for the aborigines to share a common ancestor with everyone else, dating back no further than 5-15,000 years.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2013, 07:02:34 PM
The Frenchies? My guess is based on the fact that I don't believe France ever had a regnal Queen, and that IIRC all the French Kings til the Revolution were male-line descendants of Hugh Capet.

Bingo! 14 generations of direct male descent in the Capetian dynasty.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 07:23:32 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2013, 07:02:34 PM
The Frenchies? My guess is based on the fact that I don't believe France ever had a regnal Queen, and that IIRC all the French Kings til the Revolution were male-line descendants of Hugh Capet.

Bingo! 14 generations of direct male descent in the Capetian dynasty.

How ironic it had to end with decapetation.

 :P

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2013, 07:15:10 PM
In the case of the Australian aborigines, my point was the moment Europeans started living on Australia their genes would have spread through those populations rapidly, even to aborigines who did not directly interact with Europeans. I wasn't saying prior to European exploration/colonization of Australia, that aborigines had outside contact. I don't know if they did or don't, I don't know much about that part of the world's history. I do know that in the few hundred years since contact more than enough generations have passed for the aborigines to share a common ancestor with everyone else, dating back no further than 5-15,000 years.

I think there's some speculation that the Australian Aborigines had sporadic contact with the Chinese as well as some of the Indonesian peoples.  There's some connection between sea snails, the Chinese, and the Aborigines.  That crazy dude mentioned this in his 1421 book about Zheng He but I've seen it mentioned by legitimate historians too.

I don't think sea snails share mitochondrial DNA with the Chinese.

Quote from: Maximus on February 04, 2013, 07:42:00 PM
I don't think sea snails share mitochondrial DNA with the Chinese.

:sleep:

Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2013, 07:36:25 PM
How ironic it had to end with decapetation.

Actually it ended when the Capetian line failed and the Bourbons took over.

Sorry.  :(

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2013, 07:15:10 PM
In the case of the Australian aborigines, my point was the moment Europeans started living on Australia their genes would have spread through those populations rapidly, even to aborigines who did not directly interact with Europeans. I wasn't saying prior to European exploration/colonization of Australia, that aborigines had outside contact. I don't know if they did or don't, I don't know much about that part of the world's history. I do know that in the few hundred years since contact more than enough generations have passed for the aborigines to share a common ancestor with everyone else, dating back no further than 5-15,000 years.

Ah, I see what you are getting at.  Still it's impossible to prove considering there are still "uncontacted" peoples in the world, and I don't know if every aborigine has a European ancestor.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 07:45:46 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2013, 07:36:25 PM
How ironic it had to end with decapetation.

Actually it ended when the Capetian line failed and the Bourbons took over.

Sorry.  :(

Damn it, those bastards ruined a perfectly bad pun.  :mad:

Quote from: PJL on February 04, 2013, 04:54:44 PM
Even in Britain it is reckoned that 80% of the population has some royal ancestry (legitimate or otherwise) and that only after a few hundred years.

I'm potentially descended from the Plantagenets (via a line of bastardy) myself. :cool:

I've never actually had time to verify all of the links in the ancestral chain, but I'm 90% sure I'm descended via my mother's mother from the family Scott of Scott's Hall.
That family connects to the Plantagenet dynasty via Sir Edmund Scott (my 10th great grandfather, who was also a direct descendant of John Balliol)'s mother Margaret Pigot, whose 6th great grandfather was William de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, who claimed his grandmother was Joan of Acre, daughter of Edward Longshanks.  I think the de Burgh connection to the Plantagenets is disputed, and I'm not 100% sure my Scott line is connected to Sir Edmund Scott.  I know for certain I'm directly descended from Benjamin Scott, who was one of the Quaker Commissioners that founded West New Jersey.

Of course, all of this assumes that none of the related chicks got pregnant out of wedlock and had someone's kid other than their husband's.... and someplace in there between me and Longshanks there is a bastard descent but I don't recall exactly where, and the chain is so long it would take me a while to go back and figure it out.

Anyway, I have no reason to think my genealogy is particularly remarkable and from doing collaborative genealogy research I know there are *tons* of people out there in the US who are descended from Benjamin Scott and therefore potentially from the Plantagenets as well.

Another anecdote: on my Pennsylvania Dutch side, I had a great-great-great-great-great grandfather named Peter Sheibley (1742-1823) who was a Swiss immigrant to Pennsylvania, fought in the Revolution, etc.  He had two wives, twenty children, and 89 grandchildren.  Today he has at least 1,000 living direct descendants.:wacko:

Quote from: Caliga on February 04, 2013, 08:04:27 PM
Anyway, I have no reason to think my genealogy is particularly remarkable and from doing collaborative genealogy research I know there are *tons* of people out there in the US who are descended from Benjamin Scott and therefore potentially from the Plantagenets as well.

I don't think it is remarkable but I just told you a long-winded story about it? :unsure: :D

I was trying to back up his point about a huge proportion of English folks being partly of noble descent with an anecdote of my own. :sleep:

I'm descended from Thusla Doom.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2013, 07:12:53 PM

As to the Australians I think you are looking at it backwards.  The way you phrased it, people disagreeing with you would have to prove a negative.  There is very little evidence that native Australians had much contact with anyone before the Europeans showed up.  There may have been some trade in the north, and with Maori but evidence is fairly weak.  Considering that the Australians lived in myrad bands and were probably the most primitive society on Earth at the time when they met Europeans indicates that what ever contact that some bands had with outsiders was minimal.

Dingos arrived within the last 10,000 years, so someone brought them with them.

Also, there may have been gene flow from India 4,320 years ago.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/01/the-voyage-of-krishna-crusoe/#.URBpJVLcCF8

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 07:45:46 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2013, 07:36:25 PM
How ironic it had to end with decapetation.

Actually it ended when the Capetian line failed and the Bourbons took over.

Sorry.  :(

But the Bourbons were Capetian...just like how the House of Valois (also Capetians) took over in the 14th Century.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2013, 09:51:54 AM
York. A full Anglican-Catholic state funeral in the North would be amazing.

This.  York was Richard's powerbase due to his years serving in the north under his brother and living in Middleham Castle as a youth.  I believe he also planned to be buried there. 

"'King Richard, late mercifully reigning over us, was through great treason . . . piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this city,' reported the mayor's serjeant of the mace a day after Richard's death at the Battle of Bosworth on August 22, 1485."

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 04, 2013, 09:07:18 PM
Dingos arrived within the last 10,000 years, so someone brought them with them.

Dingos were not domesticated.  Why do you think they started out as domesticated animals?

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2013, 09:36:24 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 04, 2013, 09:07:18 PM
Dingos arrived within the last 10,000 years, so someone brought them with them.

Dingos were not domesticated.  Why do you think they started out as domesticated animals?

How could a large placental land mammal possibly get past the Wallace line without humans transporting them. :huh:

All evidence points to them being a descendent of the domestic dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo#Distribution_in_the_past

Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2013, 07:56:43 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2013, 07:15:10 PM
In the case of the Australian aborigines, my point was the moment Europeans started living on Australia their genes would have spread through those populations rapidly, even to aborigines who did not directly interact with Europeans. I wasn't saying prior to European exploration/colonization of Australia, that aborigines had outside contact. I don't know if they did or don't, I don't know much about that part of the world's history. I do know that in the few hundred years since contact more than enough generations have passed for the aborigines to share a common ancestor with everyone else, dating back no further than 5-15,000 years.

Ah, I see what you are getting at.  Still it's impossible to prove considering there are still "uncontacted" peoples in the world, and I don't know if every aborigine has a European ancestor.

They don't have to all have an European ancestor, remember the range for latest common ancestor is 15,000 to 5,000, there are room for all kinds of scenarios, like every European having a central Asian ancestor that is common to every aborigine and who died 12,000 years ago.

Also, uncontacted peoples is a very western centric view. To my knowledge none of these people are historically uncontacted by anyone, they just haven't established or had established with them any formal relationships with Western peoples. Like pretty much no Amazonia tribe is "uncontacted." There are still some out there that have never directly interacted with any white man, but we know about them from other Amazonians who have had direct dealings with them. Some people call the Sentinelese "uncontacted" but we have no idea since we haven't directly examined them. We know that there isn't a lot if anything written about them in history but we also know there were all kinds of trade and activity going on between peoples of the Andaman islands prior to modern times. There is nothing to suggest they never had dealings with other island tribes, or maybe even interactions with more civilized Indians. Interactions with savages by random Indians wouldn't warrant historical note in the 1600-1700s, when we do know Indian leaders had operations in the Andamans.

Yes, but you can't get a blood sample from Adamanese people to check their DNA, thus it's difficult to prove if they share a last common ancestor with anyone.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1iZT2rU.jpg&hash=4071d4dfd37cd40b8cae415faa57f3c4199d9dc8)

Quote from: Caliga on February 04, 2013, 08:04:27 PM

Quote from: PJL on February 04, 2013, 04:54:44 PM
Even in Britain it is reckoned that 80% of the population has some royal ancestry (legitimate or otherwise) and that only after a few hundred years.

I'm potentially descended from the Plantagenets (via a line of bastardy) myself. :cool:

I've never actually had time to verify all of the links in the ancestral chain, but I'm 90% sure I'm descended via my mother's mother from the family Scott of Scott's Hall.
That family connects to the Plantagenet dynasty via Sir Edmund Scott (my 10th great grandfather, who was also a direct descendant of John Balliol)'s mother Margaret Pigot, whose 6th great grandfather was William de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, who claimed his grandmother was Joan of Acre, daughter of Edward Longshanks.  I think the de Burgh connection to the Plantagenets is disputed, and I'm not 100% sure my Scott line is connected to Sir Edmund Scott.  I know for certain I'm directly descended from Benjamin Scott, who was one of the Quaker Commissioners that founded West New Jersey.

Of course, all of this assumes that none of the related chicks got pregnant out of wedlock and had someone's kid other than their husband's.... and someplace in there between me and Longshanks there is a bastard descent but I don't recall exactly where, and the chain is so long it would take me a while to go back and figure it out.

Anyway, I have no reason to think my genealogy is particularly remarkable and from doing collaborative genealogy research I know there are *tons* of people out there in the US who are descended from Benjamin Scott and therefore potentially from the Plantagenets as well.

The only interesting thing is knowing exactly how you are descended from British Royalty.  Virtually everybody of British descent is.  Both my kids are of easily traceable legitimate (allegedly anyway  :P) descent from Edward III which is sorta cool but I am pretty sure I am also descended from Edward III.  And what couldn't be more awesome than being descended from the dude who started the longest war in Euro history?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 07:23:32 PM
Bingo! 14 generations of direct male descent in the Capetian dynasty.

I think you are confusing the 14 generations back that Henry of Navarre had to go to find a common ancestor with Henry III with some kind of "14 generations of direct male descent."  In fact, the Salic law didn't require that the new king be the son or grandson of the old king, just that only male descendents could inherit.  John I (the 12th Capetian in a line of direct descent from Hugh Capet) died in infancy in 1316 and was succeeded by his uncle. 

They computer-generated his face too now.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.richardiii.net%2Fimages%2Ffacial_reconstruction1.jpg&hash=bc618cb3e2fde0132b1e0b1b943bee932e601a25)

Looks like they computer generated it with plastic.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 09:42:58 AM
Looks like they computer generated it with plastic.

Not to mention some make-up.  :lol:

COME ON, OXNARD!

Quote from: grumbler on February 05, 2013, 09:35:01 AM
I think you are confusing the 14 generations back that Henry of Navarre had to go to find a common ancestor with Henry III with some kind of "14 generations of direct male descent."  In fact, the Salic law didn't require that the new king be the son or grandson of the old king, just that only male descendents could inherit.  John I (the 12th Capetian in a line of direct descent from Hugh Capet) died in infancy in 1316 and was succeeded by his uncle.

Perhaps I got the number of generations wrong.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 07:45:46 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2013, 07:36:25 PM
How ironic it had to end with decapetation.

Actually it ended when the Capetian line failed and the Bourbons took over.

Sorry.  :(

Henri III was murdered, admittedly not by guillotine.  He did lose his head a few times though.

Quote from: grumbler on February 05, 2013, 09:35:01 AM
John I (the 12th Capetian in a line of direct descent from Hugh Capet) died in infancy in 1316 and was succeeded by his uncle.

Or alternatively became an Italian banker.  ;)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2013, 01:44:16 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 07:45:46 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2013, 07:36:25 PM
How ironic it had to end with decapetation.

Actually it ended when the Capetian line failed and the Bourbons took over.

Sorry.  :(

Henri III was murdered, admittedly not by guillotine.  He did lose his head a few times though.

Come to think of it, Henri II and IV were killed too. Must be an unlucky name for French kings.

Quote from: Solmyr on February 05, 2013, 04:24:08 PM
Come to think of it, Henri II and IV were killed too. Must be an unlucky name for French kings.

Henry V was the greatest of French Kings, as his stupidity killed the French Monarchy forever.

Quote from: Solmyr on February 05, 2013, 04:24:08 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2013, 01:44:16 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2013, 07:45:46 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2013, 07:36:25 PM
How ironic it had to end with decapetation.

Actually it ended when the Capetian line failed and the Bourbons took over.

Sorry.  :(

Henri III was murdered, admittedly not by guillotine.  He did lose his head a few times though.

Come to think of it, Henri II and IV were killed too. Must be an unlucky name for French kings.

I'd say all 3 of them had better luck than Francis II and Charles IX between them, as in you know - they made it past their 20s. ;)

Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2013, 04:28:40 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on February 05, 2013, 04:24:08 PM
Come to think of it, Henri II and IV were killed too. Must be an unlucky name for French kings.

Henry V was the greatest of French Kings, as his stupidity killed the French Monarchy forever.

What would have happened had he not died so soon?  Would things really change that much in the long run?  It's hard to imagine England and France being a single entity for long.

Has anyone considered that perhaps instead of thinking of where to rebury Richard III, we should be thinking of how to reanimate him?

Quote from: Solmyr on February 05, 2013, 09:40:27 AM
They computer-generated his face too now.

Looks really similar to this painting

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2013%2F2%2F4%2F1359992221626%2FPainting-of-Richard-III-b-010.jpg&hash=cb57062919c3835941bcd8f73e2cb808b4a5c906)

Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2013, 05:24:11 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2013, 04:28:40 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on February 05, 2013, 04:24:08 PM
Come to think of it, Henri II and IV were killed too. Must be an unlucky name for French kings.

Henry V was the greatest of French Kings, as his stupidity killed the French Monarchy forever.

What would have happened had he not died so soon?  Would things really change that much in the long run?  It's hard to imagine England and France being a single entity for long.

I am talking about Henry V of France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri,_Count_of_Chambord

I think Edward III or his immediate successors could have pulled off being King of both, I mean the Angevins came pretty close, but the Lancastrians were not French enough to be acceptable.

It does, but it's probably helped by the fact they obviously put him in a hat and wig designed to maximize his resemblance to the most famous portrait of him. I think facial reconstruction is said to be something like "70%" accurate, so yeah that portrait was probably a decent likeness of him, but it's made a bit more striking by the intentional framing to make it look like that specific portrait.

I'm curious:  how do you reconstruct a nose?  I haven't yet seen a skull that has anything other than a gaping hole for a nose.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2013, 05:26:23 PM
Has anyone considered that perhaps instead of thinking of where to rebury Richard III, we should be thinking of how to reanimate him?

Somebody get Herbert West on the line plz.

Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2013, 06:47:19 PM
I'm curious:  how do you reconstruct a nose?  I haven't yet seen a skull that has anything other than a gaping hole for a nose.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2002/prokopec.htm/#Results

Quote from: Caliga on February 05, 2013, 06:56:21 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2013, 05:26:23 PM
Has anyone considered that perhaps instead of thinking of where to rebury Richard III, we should be thinking of how to reanimate him?

Somebody get Herbert West on the line plz.

Then reanimate those two skeletons they found in the tower and we would have the beginnings of an interesting episode of Dr. Phil.

Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2013, 06:47:19 PM
I'm curious:  how do you reconstruct a nose?  I haven't yet seen a skull that has anything other than a gaping hole for a nose.

The people who do the reconstructions spend a lot of time learning the metrics of skulls.  For most humans, the basic muscles over the bones in the head follow pretty consistent ratios, and so flesh "depth markers" can be attached to a skull (or overlaid on a computer to a scanned image) to give the rough look of muscle, fat, and skin over the skull).

The really good reconstruction people know the metrics of the various regional groups, what we try to call race (but more accurately are clinal subgroups), and they know the various features (cheekbone size, amount of foramen, eye socket metrics, chin, forehead, nasal cavity, etc.) that all play a role in the shape of eye lids, the amount of fat in various places, the shape of the nose.

The best ones mix this knowledge with artistry and their reconstructions somehow capture a more lifelike feel than the  ones above.  That is why part of the process to do really good reconstructions takes a while.

Meh. They did a better job physically reconstructing Washington.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.squidoocdn.com%2Fresize%2Fsquidoo_images%2F-1%2Flens19062911_1328066683george-washington-facts.j&hash=6ad600059fa3f5b9ae072585d5823dbeeeade201)(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lakeharrietlodge.org%2Flhl277%2FPortals%2F0%2FImages%2Fwashington-george-2L.jpg&hash=1967830a1942b0f48bdcc2357dd545902841e6be)

Well he was far more worthy of being reconstructed.

Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2013, 12:46:21 AM
Well he was far more worthy of being reconstructed.

Meh, a rebel that won vs a rightful king that lost.

Quote from: Phillip V on February 07, 2013, 12:05:32 AM
Meh. They did a better job physically reconstructing Washington.

The difference is there were plenty of contemporary paintings of Washington, none survive of Richard III. That famous one posted above from the National Gallery was painted in the late 16th century.

Here's his descendent, whose DNA they used to confirm the identity of the remains, meeting his likeness:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn0.cosmosmagazine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2FRichard-III-face_COSMOS-science-magazine.jpg&hash=ee0e76b9cccecf23d963ddbf4dfd008e4ea2b780)

And here's Lord Farqaad from Shrek meeting it...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2F5a172b1ec3979819c2bfcb5681eaca61%2Ftumblr_mhrpjin8TE1qasthro1_500.jpg&hash=0d18232bd400737b5c27b96d43a3ff615b3553ca)

 :D

I liked this challenge to the Ricardians:

QuoteRichard III should be reburied under Leicester council's car park
Nigel Jones 5 February 2013 14:00

Anyone who watched last night's Channel 4 Documentary Richard III: The King Under the Car Park will need no reminding that members of the Richard III Society tend to be delusional fantasists rather than serious historians. Although we should doubtless be grateful to the Society for funding the dig that discovered the monarch's bones, that very fact tends to slant the coverage of Richard's resurrection.

There has been much talk about 're-writing history' and countering 'Tudor propaganda'; but the inconvenient truth (for Ricardians) is that the late king's spine was indeed twisted by scoliosis and one of his shoulders was noticeably higher than the other. Those particular pieces of Tudor and Shakespearian "spin" were no more than the plain truth. So it is with the rest of Richard's 'black legend'. As far as serious historians are concerned, the case against Richard has long been closed. Or, to put it in topical terms, if Richard is innocent of the charges against him, then so is Chris Huhne.

Rising in the dock of History to hear the accusations against him, Richard III would be on his feet for a very long time. The murder of his two nephews, the Princes in the Tower of London, would, of course, head the charge sheet. But what about the even more brutal killing – committed in the same grim fortress twelve years before, and carried out by Richard's own hands – the murder of the saintly and mentally fragile Henry VI, England's rightful anointed king?

Or the elimination earlier in 1483 of William, Lord Hastings, the very man who had helped to engineer the coup which brought Richard to the throne? Hastings, accused of treason at a meeting of Richard's new council, was dragged kicking and screaming his innocence to be decapitated on a rough wooden builder's block after the psychopathic king had sworn to have his victim's head off before he had eaten his lunch. Or the cold-blooded execution in Salisbury market place of his own chief henchman and former partner in crime, Henry Stafford, the 2nd Duke of Buckingham, who, perceiving Richard's truly evil nature when it was too late, had finally turned to rebel against him? Or Richard's seizure of Lord Rivers and Sir Richard Grey (respectively uncle and half-brother of the little princes), arrested in their beds after being entertained to dinner at Richard's table and lulled into drunken sleep at the Rose and Crown Inn in Stony Stratford, before being sent north to Richard's Yorkshire heartland to be quietly murdered.

Richard III had a long list of crimes to answer for before his own subjects, appalled by his tyranny, rebelled after just two years of his rule and welcomed the unknown Welshman Henry Tudor in his place. They helped Henry to defeat Richard's army at the Battle of Bosworth in August 1485, killed the king before he could flee, and dragged his torn and battered body to the nearby town of Leicester.

Why, since the discovery of what has now been positively identified as Richard's skeleton in the ruins of the Franciscan Abbey of Greyfriars under a Leicester council car park, has there been such an avalanche of praise heaped on this awful little man? The lauding of wicked Richard has come not only from the usual suspects in his starry-eyed fan club, but from serious historians who really should know better. Chris Skidmore, a Tory MP and Tudor historian who has written a new book about Bosworth, even tabled a Commons Motion calling on the government to 'arrange a full state funeral for the long dead monarch, and for his remains to be interred appropriately'.

The Richard III Society may huff and puff, but almost all serious modern historians – including Richard's most recent biographers Professor Michael Hicks and Desmond Seward, and the respected historian Alison Weir – have come to the same conclusion: contemporary evidence rather than "Tudor propaganda" leaves little room for doubt that he is guilty of the crimes for which posterity (and Shakespeare) have traditionally condemned him. To pretend otherwise, as so many Ricardians do, is sentimental fantasy.

For the murder of Henry VI, stabbed and/or bludgeoned as he knelt in prayer in his cell in the Tower's Wakefield tower, contemporary chronicler John Warkworth is specific: King Henry, he says was 'put to death between eleven and twelve o clock... by the Duke of Gloucester (Richard's title before he usurped the throne).' The Burgundian diplomat Philppe de Commines, unlike Warkworth a sympathiser with Richard's Yorkist house, agreed. Richard, he says, 'killed poor King Henry with his own hand, or else caused him to be killed in his presence'. John Morton, bishop of Ely, wrote that Richard 'slew King Henry with his own hand as men constantly say.' Richard's crime was widely known and his name reviled in his lifetime, long before any Tudor propagandists got spinning.

The arrest and killing of Richard's other prominent victims – Hastings, Buckingham, Rivers and Grey – were carried out brazenly as open acts of terror to scare his subjects into submission in the aftermath of the coup that brought him the throne in Spring 1483. But Richard was canny enough to know that the rubbing out of the two little Princes, Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York, the frail final obstacles that stood in the way of his grasping total power, would be a murder too far even in an age inured to the terrible bloodletting of the Wars of the Roses. He ensured, therefore, that the smothering of the two boys in their Tower bedsheets was carried out in secret by his own Keeper of Horse, Sir James Tyrell, and two hired thugs, Miles Forest and John Dighton.

Although the fullest details of the double murder do indeed come from a Tudor writer – Sir Thomas More, Richard's earliest biographer, who got his information from those who were at the Tower at the time – the literally killer fact ignored by the Richardian revisionists, is that More's description of where the boys' bodies were buried – under a heap of stones beneath the White Tower – exactly fits the actual discovery of their skeletons in the reign of Charles II. Charles certainly believed that the skeletons were those of his ancestors, and he gave them a fitting regal burial in Westminster Abbey. The skeletons were exhumed and examined in the 1930s after a Ricardian campaign and were found – surprise, surprise – to be those of two boys of the same ages as the Princes when they disappeared in September 1483.

A modern lawyer, addressing the Court of History in Richard's defence, would make modish excuses for his client's behaviour. For Richard suffered a dysfunctional childhood and youth. His father, two of his brothers and his guardian, Warwick the Kingmaker, all died violently in the Wars of the Roses. No wonder Richard's characteristic tic – seen at his own coronation – was playing with his dagger, drawing it in and out of its sheath, while casting suspicious glances all around him. No wonder, too, that his many enemies spread absurd stories that he had been born with teeth and hair down to his shoulders, or that he had only to breathe on a flower for its petals to wither. The crooked product of twisted times, Richard would never be "normal".

The Leicester bones have finally been identified, so where should Richard's mortal remains be reburied? Leicester looks likely to claim the king for its own cathedral. Westminster Abbey, resting place of the princes, has also been suggested. Surely it would be sacrilege to bury this killer in any Holy place. Even stowing him in the Yorkist heartland, in York Minster or the castles of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, would be showing him too much respect. Like his fellow tyrant Adolf Hitler, whose bunker, by strange coincidence, now lies under a Berlin car park, the best resting place for Richard would surely be a dishonoured tomb underneath the very same car park where he has lain these past five centuries. He deserves no better.

Nigel Jones's Tower: an epic history of the Tower of London is published by Hutchinson/Windmill. He will lead 'Winter of Discontent' a tour of Ricardian sites in Yorkshire, the Midlands and London between August 20-23 2013. www.historicaltrips.com

What Kings are not allowed to murder their enemies?  What is the 15th century coming to?  <_<

Despite the sanctimonious tone of Nigel Jones's article, as murder was a legitimate tool of statescraft in that period and beyond, I more or less agree with his assessment about Richard. He was a bad man, but so was Edward I, William the Conqueror, Henry II, and Henry IV. The only "saint" monarch England has really had was Henry VI, and we all know where it lead. In Richard's defence, murdering Henry VI was probably either on his older brother's orders, or done with his tacit agreement.

The only difference is, Richard lost. While I hate the term "Tudor propaganda" the reality is because the Tudor succeeded they were allowed to construct a narrative, in which Richard was the bad man, history was retconned, and Henry VII was made the hero. Had Richard III killed Henry Tudor and massacred his enemies, the narrative of "late Plantagenet propaganda" would have been wholly different, and we would know Richard III has a harsh motherfucker who overcame great odds against him, and Henry Tudor would be another Perkin Warbeck or Louis I of England in the footnotes of history.

Also, the so-called "Princes of the Tower" were legally bastards, as Edward had been judged a bigamist and his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville was declared invalid by Parliament. While Richard probably has friends and cronies advance the claim, it didn't make it any false. Richard had the rightful claim, he was already Lord Protector, and was practically invited to take the crown. However, the two boys weren't any less dangerous. The murder of the two princes follow the same logic that Edward IV had used, and his successors Henry VII and Henry VIII will use : eliminate any possible candidate that may become the figurehead of a Yorkist or Lancastrian coup as soon as they seem to make a move. In the Princes' case, however, there wasn't any semblance of legal fiction to get rid of them - they simply disappeared into thin air.

Henry VII, of course, made the writs disappear as soon as he could so make sure his wife would be considered legitimate.

I'm not sure I'd say Elizabeth was a bad woman. Not a saint by any means but bad woman? :yeahright:

Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 10:59:10 AM
I'm not sure I'd say Elizabeth was a bad woman. Not a saint by any means but bad woman? :yeahright:

If we follow Nigel Jones's solliloquy, so she was. She had Catholics tortured, she executed Mary Queen of Scots, Norfolk, and Essex, and encourage looting and raping by funding piracy.  :rolleyes:

I don't know whether Jones is a Republican or not, but it seems to him that any good king is either a dead or dethroned king.

Elizabeth had strong core values, and you and I know she would agonize for weeks, even years, before having someone murdered. Richard III did not, he was an opportunist and was capable of doing morally dubious things for his own gain. However, we cannot deny the fact that he lost and died like a dog counts in how Richard III is perceived by history.

Why would I follow Nigel Jones's solliloquy. Just because you chose to agree with him doesn't mean I have to.

Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2013, 11:06:34 AM
Why would I follow Nigel Jones's solliloquy. Just because you chose to agree with him doesn't mean I have to.

My argument is that Richard was a bad, violent man, but what he did was politically expedient. Jones judge him from a moral, normative standpoint, I judge him from a realpolitik one.

I never said that Elizabeth was a bad woman, but even she had to commit violent acts for political neceessity. She was far less gratuitous and more mesured in doing it than her father and grandfather, however.

Quote from: Drakken on February 08, 2013, 11:04:13 AM
Elizabeth had strong core values, and you and I know she would agonize for weeks, even years, before having someone murdered. Richard III did not, he was an opportunist and was capable of doing morally dubious things for his own gain. However, we cannot deny the fact that he lost and died like a dog counts in how Richard III is perceived by history.

Yeah but Richard III was fighting a Civil War and was part of a faction with family and supporters who were counting on him.  It was not just him.  Finishing second was not an option.  Elizabeth could afford, to a greater extent anyway, to agonize over the dirty business but her grandfather didn't and neither could Richard.

Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2013, 08:36:58 AM
What Kings are not allowed to murder their enemies?  What is the 15th century coming to?  <_<

This is the point which makes the whole debate sorta meaningless.

Handing out demerits to English 15th century monarchs for murder and usurpation is sorta like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.  :P

To answer the original question, while I voted for Leicester at the time that Richard was IDed, as York is willing to have his remains back, and given Richard's strong ties with the North, it would be in fact a great idea to have them buried in York.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2013, 11:19:45 PM
I liked this challenge to the Ricardians:

I liked it as well.  Nothing is as amusing as someone making up evidence in order to justify his accusation that the other side is making up evidence!  :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2013, 11:19:45 PM
I liked this challenge to the Ricardians:

:rolleyes:  Rubbish.

Bury St Edmunds.