Interesting Link
Interesting Link
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsunnesandroses.blogspot.co.uk%2F2014%2F03%2Fjoan-beaufort-her-many-descendants.html%3Fm%3D1&h=NAQEz6n-zAQEvQ9XMIYr4LCgUXCWA3VTODQsCtvR-DMIBOQ&enc=AZO0fHqBzhjWqKi8E8KYbH_jeF1BjSYy3cMKo6KI9mHb4UBGDh8_ul2x1qXI4MV_NAxH6VjJ0tPE3YQOl6tUFK39E13_g-jVcbYQyoL4iPLm6_IKyogBGYOshXXUgcMxyipYFie6sqZk4fDj2av9n9Xd&s=1
Re: Interesting Link
Thank you so much for this.It's wonderful.Glad to hear of Ralph de Greystoke and your family connections to Richard.
Best wishes Kathryn x
Re: Interesting Link
On Apr 1, 2014, at 6:49 PM, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Pamela,
Thank you so much for this.It's wonderful.Glad to hear of Ralph de Greystoke and your family connections to Richard.
Best wishes Kathryn x
Re: Interesting Link
Carol
Re: Interesting Link
Sent from my iPad
On 2 Apr 2014, at 03:50, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Pam, Your long link didn't work for me. Can you try a TinyURL? (Go to http://tinyurl.com/ to create one. Or just tell us the name of the Facebook page and hopefully I can find it (though I don't "do" Facebook).
Carol
Re: Interesting Link
Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
The problem is that you have to keep going back - the mt-DNA is shared by Joan B's mother and all her female line descendants and also by HER mother and all her descendants and so on...
So without identifying Catherine de Roët's mother....
The comment that Phillippa of Hainault's mother was 'a Valois' shows further lack of understanding. That was her father's name which is irrelevant to identifying mt-DNA.
Kind regards
David
From: kcflet <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting Link
Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:54:39 AM
Try this blog address for the info on Joan Beaufort and her descendants.http://sunnesandroses.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/joan-beaufort-her-many-descendants.html?m=1
Re: Interesting Link
On Apr 2, 2014, at 1:24 AM, "Jan Mulrenan" <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
Jan here. Yes please, Pam, may we have a " tiny " link when you have the time?
Thank you!
Sent from my iPad
On 2 Apr 2014, at 03:50, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Pam, Your long link didn't work for me. Can you try a TinyURL? (Go to
http://tinyurl.com/ to create one. Or just tell us the name of the Facebook page and hopefully I can find it (though I don't "do" Facebook).
Carol
Re: Interesting Link
On Apr 1, 2014, at 9:51 PM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Pam, Your long link didn't work for me. Can you try a TinyURL? (Go to
http://tinyurl.com/ to create one. Or just tell us the name of the Facebook page and hopefully I can find it (though I don't "do" Facebook).
Carol
Re: Interesting Link
I was on my iPad, which looks entirely different from my desktop&&.
The story link is sunnesandroses.blogspot.co.uk. I don't know if you have to type in the remainder, so it is as follows:
2014/03/joan-beaufort-her-many-desccendants.html
And here is the text, if nothing else works!
Joan Beaufort & Her Many Descendants
In articles printed this past week, Michael Hicks stated that the remains of the body found under a parking lot in Leicester might not be those of King Richard III, on the
basis that his maternal grandmother had many children, & so her mitochondrial DNA wasn't so rare as we have been led to believe. Hicks stated that the skeleton could be that of one of Richard III's many cousins, or even that of an unrelated person who happened
to die of similar injuries.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/27/richard-iii-remains-leicester-doubt-car-park-academics
I happened to have some spare time & so I decided to run the numbers myself. Hicks' statement certainly sounds alarming. Joan Beaufort did have a passel of children, many of whom had children who survived to adulthood. It's possible.
Michael Hicks' Position: That the skeleton found in Leicester could not be that of Richard III because too many other people at the time had the same mitochondrial DNA as Joan Beaufort.
Here are the givens in this little logic puzzle:
Given: Joan Beaufort's mtDNA was Haplogroup J. Specifically J1c2c.
Given: mtDNA is passed from mother to child, so all of Joan Beaufort's children will be part of the same haplogroup.
Given: Only daughters will pass along mtDNA to their children, so the only grandchildren of Joan Beaufort who will share her mtDNA haplogroup will be those born to her daughters.
Given: The Wars of the Roses lasted from 1455 to 1487, fought in sporadic battles.
Given: Many of the combatants in the Wars of the Roses were members of the Plantagenet family, belonging or loyal to the York branch or the Lancaster branch.
Given: The remains are those of a male who died in his late 20's to early 30's.
Given: The radiocarbon dating results show they can be dated to approximately 1475-1530
Given: Richard III died at the age of 32, at the Battle of Bosworth & is recorded as being buried in Leicester.
Data: Joan Beaufort had 16 children, 10 sons & 6 daughters.
Looking at the sons, 4 died prior to 1455. Only 1 died in battle: Richard Neville, at Wakefield in 1460. All of her sons died before 1485. None of her sons are documented as being buried in Leicester.
Out of 10 sons, none were buried in Leicester.
Total number of sons who could be the one whose remains were found in Leicester: 0
Data: Joan's Daughters-- Joan's daughters had 26 sons (& numerous daughters; I'll get to them next). Out of those 26, 10 died prior to 1455. Only 1 grandson survived the War of the Roses, Ralph de Greystoke, who died in 1487.* Five others (not including
Richard) died in various battles of the Wars of the Roses: 1st Battle of St. Albans, Wakefield, Towton, Hedgeley Moor. Of those remaining, not including Richard, they died prior to 1485 & none were buried in Leicester.
Of this group, only TWO were at the Battle of Bosworth. One survived (Ralph de Greystoke) & one died (Richard III). Ralph de Greystoke was in his 70's or 80's. Richard III was 32. Ralph was buried at Kirkham. Richard III is recorded as being buried in Leicester.
Out of 26 grandsons born to Joan's daughters, the total number who could be the one whose remains were found in Leicester: 1
Data: Joan's Daughters' Daughters--There were 22 great-grandsons born who fit the criteria for having Joan's mtDNA AND were old enough to participate in the Wars of the Roses AND be old enough to have been in their late 20's-early 30's when they died.
Of this number, 13 died before 1485. 2 died at Towton. The remaining 9 died after 1485. Please note: There were more great-grandsons than 22; however, they were too young to have been at Bosworth, or if they had, they were too young to have been the remains
found in Leicester. Furthermore, none were recorded as having been buried in Leicester.
On edit: It appears that at least 1 of Joan's great-grandsons was at Bosworth: John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln. However, he died in 1487 at the Battle of East Stoke.
Total number of great-grandsons who could be the one whose remains were found in Leicester: 0
Conclusion: Out of 58 descendants of Joan Beaufort who could fit the criteria of having her mtDNA, only
2 3 are recorded as being present at the Battle of Bosworth. Only one of those two three died at Bosworth & is recorded as being buried in Leicester, & that one is Richard III.
Well, it was worth a shot, I suppose. Of course, you could move the goal posts & start yammering about Joan Beaufort's mother or grandmother, but only someone losing an argument does that.
On a side note, it was rather sobering to look at the destruction this family did to itself. Was it worth it? I can't answer that. I was really surprised to see that despite the large number of possible descendants, only 2 were at Bosworth. I myself started
this little exercise thinking there were many more, maybe 10. But 2 3, with 1 surviving the Battle?
*Ralph de Greystoke is my many-times great-grandfather. This means I am a 1st cousin, 18 times removed, of Richard III.
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Jan Mulrenan
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 1:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting Link
Jan here. Yes please, Pam, may we have a " tiny " link when you have the time?
Thank you!
Sent from my iPad
On 2 Apr 2014, at 03:50, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Pam, Your long link didn't work for me. Can you try a TinyURL? (Go to
http://tinyurl.com/ to create one. Or just tell us the name of the Facebook page and hopefully I can find it (though I don't "do" Facebook).
Carol
Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
The problem is that you have to keep going back - the mt-DNA is shared by Joan B's mother and all her female line descendants and also by HER mother and all her descendants and so on...
So without identifying Catherine de Roët's mother....
The comment that Phillippa of Hainault's mother was 'a Valois' shows further lack of understanding. That was her father's name which is irrelevant to identifying mt-DNA.
Kind regards
David
From: kcflet <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting Link
Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:54:39 AM
Try this blog address for the info on Joan Beaufort and her descendants.http://sunnesandroses.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/joan-beaufort-her-many-descendants.html?m=1
Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 11:56
Subject: Re : Re: Re: Interesting Link
I wonder if people have not understood the mt-DNA issue. It does not matter how many descendants of Joan Beaufort you track down. In my view that was only an example used by Hicks. The problem is that you have to keep going back - the mt-DNA is shared by Joan B's mother and all her female line descendants and also by HER mother and all her descendants and so on... So without identifying Catherine de Roët's mother.... The comment that Phillippa of Hainault's mother was 'a Valois' shows further lack of understanding. That was her father's name which is irrelevant to identifying mt-DNA. Kind regards David From: kcflet <[email protected]>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: Interesting Link Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:54:39 AM Try this blog address for the info on Joan Beaufort and her descendants.http://sunnesandroses.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/joan-beaufort-her-many-descendants.html?m=1
Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
Mary
Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
Precisely – the combination of evidence is overwhelming and the Y-relationship would be conclusive. Winchester is rapidly becoming a suburb of Cairo – they are clutching at straws.
From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: 02 April 2014 13:40
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
But David it's not just about the DNA is it? What are the chances of someone also having the right medical condition, the right battle injuries, being the right height and build AND being buried exactly where Richard was said to be buried?
Methinks Prof Hicks doth protest too much
From: Durose David
<daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014,
11:56
Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
I wonder if people have not understood the mt-DNA issue. It does not matter how many descendants of Joan Beaufort you track down. In my view that was only an example used by Hicks. The problem is that you have to keep going back - the mt-DNA is shared by Joan B's mother and all her female line descendants and also by HER mother and all her descendants and so on... So without identifying Catherine de Roët's mother.... The comment that Phillippa of Hainault's mother was 'a Valois' shows further lack of understanding. That was her father's name which is irrelevant to identifying mt-DNA. Kind regards David
From: kcflet <[email protected]>; To: < >; Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:54:39 AM
Try this blog address for the info on Joan Beaufort and her descendants.
http://sunnesandroses.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/joan-beaufort-her-many-descendants.html?m=1
Re : Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
I quite agree - I think I said that in an earlier post. When you combine all the circumstantial evidence you come to the conclusion that the remains were those of Richard.
In fact with the help of my database it was the work of a very short time to go through the qualifying descendants mentioned by Hicks and eliminate them.
If the mt-DNA had not matched, this would still not have proved conclusively the other way either - it could still have been a defect in the ancestry line that was checked. As it is (two lines matching) we can conclusively say that the remains share mt-DNA with Richard's maternal line as far as we know it, and that this is consistent with the identification.
Regards
David
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re: Interesting Link
Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 12:40:20 PM
But David it's not just about the DNA is it? What are the chances of someone also having the right medical condition, the right battle injuries, being the right height and build AND being buried exactly where Richard was said to be buried?
Methinks Prof Hicks doth protest too much
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 11:56
Subject: Re : Re: Re: Interesting Link
I wonder if people have not understood the mt-DNA issue. It does not matter how many descendants of Joan Beaufort you track down. In my view that was only an example used by Hicks. The problem is that you have to keep going back - the mt-DNA is shared by Joan B's mother and all her female line descendants and also by HER mother and all her descendants and so on... So without identifying Catherine de Roët's mother.... The comment that Phillippa of Hainault's mother was 'a Valois' shows further lack of understanding. That was her father's name which is irrelevant to identifying mt-DNA. Kind regards David
From: kcflet <[email protected]>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: Interesting Link Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:54:39 AM
Try this blog address for the info on Joan Beaufort and her descendants.http://sunnesandroses.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/joan-beaufort-her-many-descendants.html?m=1
Re: Interesting Link
"I was on my iPad, which looks entirely different from my desktop&&.
The story link is sunnesandroses.blogspot.co.uk. I don't know if you have to type in the remainder, so it is as follows:
2014/03/joan-beaufort-her-many-desccendants.html
And here is the text, if nothing else works!"
Carol responds:
Yes, you need the whole URL, including http://, for the link to work. Someone else (kcflet?) has already provided it. Very interesting article (though we don't know for sure that John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, was at Bosworth). Thanks for calling it to our attention.
Carol
Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
"I wonder if people have not understood the mt-DNA issue. It does not matter how many descendants of Joan Beaufort you track down. In my view that was only an example used by Hicks. The problem is that you have to keep going back - the mt-DNA is shared by Joan B's mother and all her female line descendants and also by HER mother and all her descendants and so on... So without identifying Catherine de Roët's mother...."
Carol responds:
I suspect that by now the members of this forum understand how mtDNA works considering how often we've discussed it. (I can't speak for the author of the article, of course.)
Admittedly, we don't know the identity of Catherine de Roët's mother. However, we do know that one of Catherine's sisters, Elizabeth (or Isabel), became a nun--dead end there--and that her other sister, Philippa (the one who married Chaucer) had two sons and two daughters. Of the daughters, one, Elizabeth, became a nun (another dead end). Nothing is known of the other daughter, Agnes, except that she was a lady-in-waiting at the coronation of Henry IV in 1399. Possibly, she died young as she has no known descendants. (The de la Poles were, of course, descended from Chaucer's son, Thomas, so John of Lincoln's mtDNA, mentioned as an afterthought in the article, is irrelevant whether he was at Bosworth or not, and, in any case, we know he didn't die there.)
What is more important, I think, is the combination of factors that Hicks is ignoring. What are the chances that another descendant of Catherine de Roët's mother being buried in the choir of Greyfriar's church, exactly where Richard was buried according to Rous? Clearly, the man buried there was no ordinary battle victim or he would have been buried in a mass grave--or sent home to be buried by his relatives if he were a man of status like the Duke of Norfolk.
It's the *combination* of factors, not the mtDNA alone, that makes the identity of the skeleton almost certain. When we get that Y chromosome, we'll know without doubt. As for Hicks, he's just making a fuss over nothing again as he did with the "missing" papal dispensation for a nonexistent affinity.
Carol
Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
………. and absolutely everyone at Bosworth had scoliosis. In fact it was really a Paralympic equestrian trial, except that some of them were a bit carried away.
From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of Durose David
Sent: 02 April 2014 16:13
To:
Subject: Re : Re: Re : Re:
Re: Interesting Link
Liz,
I quite agree - I think I said that in an earlier post. When you combine all
the circumstantial evidence you come to the conclusion that the remains were
those of Richard.
In fact with the help of my database it was the work of a very short time to
go through the qualifying descendants mentioned by Hicks and eliminate them.
If the mt-DNA had not matched, this would still not have proved conclusively
the other way either - it could still have been a defect in the ancestry line
that was checked. As it is (two lines matching) we can conclusively say that
the remains share mt-DNA with Richard's maternal line as far as we know it,
and that this is consistent with the identification.
Regards
David
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>;
To:
< >;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 12:40:20 PM
But David it's not just about the DNA is it? What are the chances of someone also having the right medical condition, the right battle injuries, being the right height and build AND being buried exactly where Richard was said to be buried?
Methinks Prof Hicks doth protest too much
From: Durose David
<daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014,
11:56
Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
I wonder if people have not understood the mt-DNA issue. It does not matter how many descendants of Joan Beaufort you track down. In my view that was only an example used by Hicks. The problem is that you have to keep going back - the mt-DNA is shared by Joan B's mother and all her female line descendants and also by HER mother and all her descendants and so on... So without identifying Catherine de Roët's mother.... The comment that Phillippa of Hainault's mother was 'a Valois ' shows further lack of understanding. That was her father's name which is irrelevant to identifying mt-DNA. Kind regards David
From: kcflet <[email protected]>; To: < >; Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:54:39 AM
Try this blog address for the info on Joan Beaufort and her descendants.
http://sunnesandroses.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/joan-beaufort-her-many-descendants.html?m=1
Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
"(The de la Poles were, of course, descended from Chaucer's son, Thomas, so John of Lincoln's mtDNA, mentioned as an afterthought in the article, is irrelevant whether he was at Bosworth or not, and, in any case, we know he didn't die there.)"
Carol again:
Before anyone jumps on me, of course, John's mother was Richard's sister, Elizabeth, who would share his and their mother's mtDNA. I was sidetracked by the Chaucer connection. But as the skeleton can't be John's, it doesn't matter.
Carol
Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
On 02/04/2014 13:40, liz williams wrote:
But David it's not just about the DNA is it? What are the chances of someone also having the right medical condition, the right battle injuries, being the right height and build AND being buried exactly where Richard was said to be buried? Methinks Prof Hicks doth protest too much
Simple. He has a huge investment in being right, and when all the evidence proves him wrong he will not accept it.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
Which renders him a consummate fool, rather than just a fool!
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 7:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re: Interesting Link
On 02/04/2014 13:40, liz williams wrote:
But David it's not just about the DNA is it? What are the chances of someone also having the right medical condition, the right battle injuries, being the right height and build AND being buried exactly where Richard was said to be buried?
Methinks Prof Hicks doth protest too much
Simple. He has a huge investment in being right, and when all the evidence proves him wrong he will not accept it.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Interesting Link
.
Jess From: Pamela Bain
Sent: 03/04/2014 13:33
To:
Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re: Interesting Link
Which renders him a consummate fool, rather than just a fool!
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 7:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re: Interesting Link
On 02/04/2014 13:40, liz williams wrote:
But David it's not just about the DNA is it? What are the chances of someone also having the right medical condition, the right battle injuries, being the right height and build AND being buried exactly where Richard was said to be buried?
Methinks Prof Hicks doth protest too much
Simple. He has a huge investment in being right, and when all the evidence proves him wrong he will not accept it.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
