New paper published

I came across this from Archaeology News.

King Richard III  case closed after 529 years

Maybe the stories about Richard Earl of Cambridge being the illegitimate son of the Duke of Exeter are true after all. There was also a suggestion about Edmund of Langley, because he was born several weeks early and Edward III and Queen Phillippa were not on good terms, but I think the REofC is the most likely, as there was a contemporary account about Isabella and Holland's infidelity. I wonder if there are any Holland descendants to test. Or maybe the Beauforts really were Swynfords... Anyway, I hope the wonders of science will change the Queen's mind about the bones in the Abbey. Nico


On Tuesday, 2 December 2014, 18:53, "Wolfand Boar wolfandboarfics@... []" <> wrote:


merriannmclain wrote:

I came across this from ArchaeologyNews.King Richard III  case closed after 529 years

WB replies:

Thank you so much for this! I have been awaiting these results!

Wow! :

"King Richard was almost certainly blue-eyed and probably had blond hair at least during his childhood.The portrait which appears to most closely match the genetically-determined hair and eye colour is the Arched-Frame Portrait in the Society of Antiquaries."


WB

Carol wrote:

"As for blue eyes with dark hair, isn't that mainly a "Celtic" trait? If Richard's brothers and sisters were all fair-haired (admittedly, we don't know that though many people take it for granted), I suspect that he was, too, at least as a child, and that his coloring matched Edward's (minus Edward's florid complexion, a result, I would guess, of his lifestyle)."

Marie:

Well, all Edward's portraits show him with dark brown hair, and this is the colour that the hair appeared in-situ when his tomb was opened - it only

Actually, the original paper spoke of a 77% probability of blonde hair if matched with the 97% probability of blue eyes.

There still is a 23% probability of developing a "recessive" character leading to darker hair, just like with Mendel's peas, which is fully compatible with contemporary descriptions and later portraits deriving from a previous original. There is not even need to think of hair "darkening with age" even if it is entirely possible.

Science is fine, but the range of possibilities is wider than one may be led to think at first reading. Therefore I would still be cautious and match test results with contemporary or near contemporary descriptions before rushing to conclusions. The "dark one in a fair family" still sounds fine to me, if ever the family were fair indeed. Edward IV does not look that fair in his own portrait, more a light chestnut brown. Mac

Carol wrote:

"As for blue eyes with dark hair, isn't that mainly a "Celtic" trait? If Richard's brothers and sisters were all fair-haired (admittedly, we don't know that though many people take it for granted), I suspect that he was, too, at least as a child, and that his coloring matched Edward's (minus Edward's florid complexion, a result, I would guess, of his lifestyle)."

Marie:

Well, all Edward's portraits show him with dark brown hair, and this is the colour that the hair appeared in-situ when his tomb was opened - it only

Carol wrote:

"As for blue eyes with dark hair, isn't that mainly a "Celtic" trait? If Richard's brothers and sisters were all fair-haired (admittedly, we don't know that though many people take it for granted), I suspect that he was, too, at least as a child, and that his coloring matched Edward's (minus Edward's florid complexion, a result, I would guess, of his lifestyle)."

Marie:

Well, there are a couple of "Celtic" links in Richard's tree - one, or possibly two (can't recall) Gaelic Irish ones coming through in the de Burgh line, and, famously, Gwladus Ddu. But Edward IV seems to have had dark brown hair, to judge from his portraits. His hair in-situ when his coffin was opened also looked dark brown until it was washed.

The contemporary who described Margaret's physical appearance at her wedding does not seem to have mentioned her hair colour, so I imagine she was probably not a blond.

The portraits of Richard, Duke of York, such as we have, suggest that he was blond or at least fair-haired, so if Edward IV had mid/dark brown hair then he must have inherited it from his mother, notwithstanding novelists' universal depiction of Cecily as blonde (genes for fair hair are recessive, so if you inherit a dark hair gene from one parent and a blond gene from the other you will have dark hair). Edward IV, therefore, would have inherited a (recessive) fair-hair gene from his father, which is how he was able to father fair-haired children. If my reading of the situation is correct, therefore, then, depending on whether Cecily inherited a gene for dark hair from one parent or two, either all, or roughly half of York's children, would have had dark hair (at least in adulthood, viz:-

!) Cecily carries 2 dark-hair genes, She passes one of these on to each of her children, so that all will be dark haired; or

2) Cecily has one (dominant) dark-hair gene and one (receissive) fair hair genes:

all inherit a blond gene from their father, York;

roughly half half inherit the dark-hair gene from mother, Cecily Neville: these have dark hair,

and roughly half inherit the blond-hair gene from their mother: these have fair hair.

As I read the ULAS article (and I may be wrong), their assessment of Richard's fair hair is equally merely a statistical probability, but based on his blue eyes rather than what we know about other members of the family. The method they use only gives a correct result in 2/3 to 3/4 of cases. Given the lack of agreement between Richard's portraits (the - sadly uncleaned - Windsor one is just as early as the SoA) I would personally rather wait until genetic science is able directly to identify & interpret the genes responsible for hair colour.

Also, the blond hair in childhood caveat is quite a get-out - the majority of blond tinies that I have known have been brown haired by the time they reached adulthood.

Marie

"As for blue eyes with dark hair, isn't that mainly a "Celtic" trait? If Richard's brothers and sisters were all fair-haired (admittedly, we don't know that though many people take it for granted), I suspect that he was, too, at least as a child, and that his coloring matched Edward's (minus Edward's florid complexion, a result, I would guess, of his lifestyle)."

Marie responded:

"Well, all Edward's portraits show him with dark brown hair, and this is the colour that the hair appeared in-situ when his tomb was opened - it only "

Carol again:

Hi, Marie. I take it your message got interrupted as what I've quoted is all that appeared. Sorry to be unclear. I wasn't referring to blond hair that turns brown in adolescence or childhood, as was apparently the case with Edward and possibly Richard. (I know about the circumstances with Edward's hair being snipped and washed, but we don't know what color it would have been without the goo, which probably made it appear darker than it really was, just as blond or brown hair of almost any shade appears darker when it's dirty.) I meant hair that's dark from birth (or, let's say, age two, after the baby fluff has fallen out), either very dark brown/brunet or black combined with blue eyes as a "Celtic" trait (with "Celtic" in quotation marks because this trait probably traces back to the original Neolithic inhabitants of England rather than the Celts). I doubt that either Edward or Richard had that particular combination, Here's they type I had in mind as "Celtic": http://24.media.tumblr.com/3588e6a19f8a10182ae2810f0f44cac5/tumblr_mis1ewYcbl1qf6rvbo1_400.jpg

Carol

Actually, the original paper spoke of a 77% probability of blonde hair if matched with the 97% probability of blue eyes.

There still is a 23% probability of developing a "recessive" character leading to darker hair, just like with Mendel's peas, which is fully compatible with contemporary descriptions and later portraits deriving from a previous original. There is not even need to think of hair "darkening with age" even if it is entirely possible.

Science is fine, but the range of possibilities is wider than one may be led to think at first reading. Therefore I would still be cautious and match test results with contemporary or near contemporary descriptions before rushing to conclusions. The "dark one in a fair family" still sounds fine to me, if ever the family were fair indeed. Edward IV does not look that fair in his own portrait, more a light chestnut brown. Mac

In my mother and father's family there were towheads when they were young. My mother was not, but Daddy was. All of my cousins and I on my mother's side were blond as children, some darkening, and some not. Most of us are like you Carol, golden blond to dark blond. But my mother and all her siblings had blue eyes, as do I. Now most of us are adding home grown platinum hair, as we march through our fifties and sixties!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 12:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's hair colour (was New paper published)

Mac wrote :

"Actually, the original paper spoke of a 77% probability of blonde hair if matched with the 97% probability of blue eyes.

"There still is a 23% probability of developing a "recessive" character leading to darker hair, just like with Mendel's peas, which is fully compatible with contemporary descriptions and later portraits deriving from a previous original. There is not even need to think of hair "darkening with age" even if it is entirely possible.

"Science is fine, but the range of possibilities is wider than one may be led to think at first reading. Therefore I would still be cautious and match test results with contemporary or near contemporary descriptions before rushing to conclusions. The "dark one in a fair family" still sounds fine to me, if ever the family were fair indeed. Edward IV does not look that fair in his own portrait, more a light chestnut brown."

Carol responds:

Yes, I read the original article, complete with photos. (I posted a link in another message.)

Dark hair, by the way, would not be a recessive trait. If either parent passes on a gene for dark hair, the child will have dark hair because that gene is dominant. As for blond hair turning brown in adolescence or adulthood, it's quite common. It happened to me, for one. My hair was very fair from the time I was about one to the time I was ten, when it started gradually darkening. Now it's about the darkest possible shade of blond and most people consider it brown--in fact, the hair-eye combination in the last set of photos (if we consider them as sets, which I don't think they are) matches mine fairly closely (ignoring the gray hairs that have crept in over the last ten years).

Anyway, we know that Richard's skin tone was not dark (the Croyland chronicler says that he was always "pale" and the portraits show him as fair-complexioned (but not ruddy like Edward), so "dark one in a fair family" is still wrong. His hair was probably no darker or not much darker than Edward's in adulthood and his eyes, as indicated by both the portraits and the DNA, almost certainly blue. (I'm not sure about Edward's.) So "dark one in a fair family" is just a way of making Richard seem somehow different from his family. Tey also has the child Richard hanging back behind the rest of the family "as usual" and depicts him, if I recall correctly, as small and sickly from the outset. Funny, the rabidly anti-Richard Desmond Stewart gives much the same picture.

I forgot to mention that no contemporary description mentions Richard's hair or eye color. We have only the portraits (all painted after his death but perhaps from a contemporary original) to give us an idea of his coloring.

And how would "dark one in a fair family" make sense for Richard if *Edward* doesn't look that fair and we don't know what the others looked like? Come to think of it, Margaret seems to have dark hair (and dark eyes) in her best-known portrait: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_York#mediaviewer/File:Margaret_of_York.jpg Of course, with the shaved forehead popular among women at the time, it's hard to tell.

Carol, who doubts that Richard was any "darker" than the rest of his family

Carol

Mac wrote :

"Actually, the original paper spoke of a 77% probability of blonde hair if matched with the 97% probability of blue eyes.

"There still is a 23% probability of developing a "recessive" character leading to darker hair, just like with Mendel's peas, which is fully compatible with contemporary descriptions and later portraits deriving from a previous original. There is not even need to think of hair "darkening with age" even if it is entirely possible.

"Science is fine, but the range of possibilities is wider than one may be led to think at first reading. Therefore I would still be cautious and match test results with contemporary or near contemporary descriptions before rushing to conclusions. The "dark one in a fair family" still sounds fine to me, if ever the family were fair indeed. Edward IV does not look that fair in his own portrait, more a light chestnut brown."

Carol responds:

Yes, I read the original article, complete with photos. (I posted a link in another message.)

Dark hair, by the way, would not be a recessive trait. If either parent passes on a gene for dark hair, the child will have dark hair because that gene is dominant. As for blond hair turning brown in adolescence or adulthood, it's quite common. It happened to me, for one. My hair was very fair from the time I was about one to the time I was ten, when it started gradually darkening. Now it's about the darkest possible shade of blond and most people consider it brown--in fact, the hair-eye combination in the last set of photos (if we consider them as sets, which I don't think they are) matches mine fairly closely (ignoring the gray hairs that have crept in over the last ten years).

Anyway, we know that Richard's skin tone was not dark (the Croyland chronicler says that he was always "pale" and the portraits show him as fair-complexioned (but not ruddy like Edward), so "dark one in a fair family" is still wrong. His hair was probably no darker or not much darker than Edward's in adulthood and his eyes, as indicated by both the portraits and the DNA, almost certainly blue. (I'm not sure about Edward's.) So "dark one in a fair family" is just a way of making Richard seem somehow different from his family. Tey also has the child Richard hanging back behind the rest of the family "as usual" and depicts him, if I recall correctly, as small and sickly from the outset. Funny, the rabidly anti-Richard Desmond Stewart gives much the same picture.

I forgot to mention that no contemporary description mentions Richard's hair or eye color. We have only the portraits (all painted after his death but perhaps from a contemporary original) to give us an idea of his coloring.

And how would "dark one in a fair family" make sense for Richard if *Edward* doesn't look that fair and we don't know what the others looked like? Come to think of it, Margaret seems to have dark hair (and dark eyes) in her best-known portrait: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_York#mediaviewer/File:Margaret_of_York.jpg Of course, with the shaved forehead popular among women at the time, it's hard to tell.

Carol, who doubts that Richard was any "darker" than the rest of his family

Carol

Mac wrote :

"Actually, the original paper spoke of a 77% probability of blonde hair if matched with the 97% probability of blue eyes.

"There still is a 23% probability of developing a "recessive" character leading to darker hair, just like with Mendel's peas, which is fully compatible with contemporary descriptions and later portraits deriving from a previous original. There is not even need to think of hair "darkening with age" even if it is entirely possible.

"Science is fine, but the range of possibilities is wider than one may be led to think at first reading. Therefore I would still be cautious and match test results with contemporary or near contemporary descriptions before rushing to conclusions. The "dark one in a fair family" still sounds fine to me, if ever the family were fair indeed. Edward IV does not look that fair in his own portrait, more a light chestnut brown."

Carol responds:

Yes, I read the original article, complete with photos. (I posted a link in another message.)

Dark hair, by the way, would not be a recessive trait. If either parent passes on a gene for dark hair, the child will have dark hair because that gene is dominant. As for blond hair turning brown in adolescence or adulthood, it's quite common. It happened to me, for one. My hair was very fair from the time I was about one to the time I was ten, when it started gradually darkening. Now it's about the darkest possible shade of blond and most people consider it brown--in fact, the hair-eye combination in the last set of photos (if we consider them as sets, which I don't think they are) matches mine fairly closely (ignoring the gray hairs that have crept in over the last ten years).

Anyway, we know that Richard's skin tone was not dark (the Croyland chronicler says that he was always "pale" and the portraits show him as fair-complexioned (but not ruddy like Edward), so "dark one in a fair family" is still wrong. His hair was probably no darker or not much darker than Edward's in adulthood and his eyes, as indicated by both the portraits and the DNA, almost certainly blue. (I'm not sure about Edward's.) So "dark one in a fair family" is just a way of making Richard seem somehow different from his family. Tey also has the child Richard hanging back behind the rest of the family "as usual" and depicts him, if I recall correctly, as small and sickly from the outset. Funny, the rabidly anti-Richard Desmond Stewart gives much the same picture.

I forgot to mention that no contemporary description mentions Richard's hair or eye color. We have only the portraits (all painted after his death but perhaps from a contemporary original) to give us an idea of his coloring.

And how would "dark one in a fair family" make sense for Richard if *Edward* doesn't look that fair and we don't know what the others looked like? Come to think of it, Margaret seems to have dark hair (and dark eyes) in her best-known portrait: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_York#mediaviewer/File:Margaret_of_York.jpg Of course, with the shaved forehead popular among women at the time, it's hard to tell.

Carol, who doubts that Richard was any "darker" than the rest of his family

Carol

Hi Carol,

Yes, sorry, my first attempt at a post did post itself before it was ready. My second now appears as well.

I agree that Richard was almost certainly not the dark one in a fair family. He may even have had fairer hair than Edward IV. Not all of Edward's hair would have been lying in the goo at the bottom of the coffin, I imagine, as the stuff growing from around the face should have been well clear, but there is no suggestion in the descriptions that these parts appeared fairer than the rest.

I too was light blond when small, but it darkened later. It's been a complicated process. It went quite mousy by the time I was 13 but then I rebelled and grew it long as I had always wanted, and I to my delight that not constantly cutting off the old growth made a huge difference as it soon lightened and brightened to a golden blond. But different parts of my head had different types of hair. Front left baby fine and pale blond, top back and above the ears some of the hairs were thick, crinkly and very dark, everywhere else dark blond with a smattering of copper. In my twenties it all started to fade to something better described as "fair", then during pregnancy it all darkened until it was almost black, then gradually lightened to afterwards to a dark tow colour, like very old rope that's been out in the rain; at that point I reached for the dye bottle. My eyes are dark blue. My kids both have blue eyes. My son has light brown hair (blond when he was small), whilst my daughter's started dark blond and ended up mid brown - even dark brown perhaps now (she's late 20s) - very similar to my mum's colouring. I only give this description of my indecisive, "spare parts" head of hair & my kids to stress how complex the whole subject of hair colour is.

What is notable, I think, is that no one thought the hair colour of Edward or Richard striking enough to mention. Notably un-notable. Had Edward's handsomeness been crowned by shining blond hair surely Commines and others would have said so. Had Richard's hair been so terribly dark, again his early detractors would surely have spun this up as a sinister trait.

Marie

My elder daughter's husband, and his brother were both very blonde as children, (I have seen lots of photographs), but are very dark now, with brown eyes.
In fact I feel sure that most children who are born blonde end up with light to medium brown hair.
In my family, hair that is auburn, wiry, thick and very curly is almost a "default" type. Unfortunately, I have dark hair that is very fine and thin, and getting it to look decent requires the addition of lots of products and much work!
My younger daughter particularly, has beautiful long auburn hair, although we both have very similar green eyes.
Genetics seems to me to be quite a lottery.

I think recessive genes from both parents can throw up all sorts of anomalies.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Hi Carol,

Yes, sorry, my first attempt at a post did post itself before it was ready. My second now appears as well.

I agree that Richard was almost certainly not the dark one in a fair family. He may even have had fairer hair than Edward IV. Not all of Edward's hair would have been lying in the goo at the bottom of the coffin, I imagine, as the stuff growing from around the face should have been well clear, but there is no suggestion in the descriptions that these parts appeared fairer than the rest.

I too was light blond when small, but it darkened later. It's been a complicated process. It went quite mousy by the time I was 13 but then I rebelled and grew it long as I had always wanted, and I to my delight that not constantly cutting off the old growth made a huge difference as it soon lightened and brightened to a golden blond. But different parts of my head had different types of hair. Front left baby fine and pale blond, top back and above the ears some of the hairs were thick, crinkly and very dark, everywhere else dark blond with a smattering of copper. In my twenties it all started to fade to something better described as "fair", then during pregnancy it all darkened until it was almost black, then gradually lightened to afterwards to a  dark tow colour, like very old rope that's been out in the rain; at that point I reached for the dye bottle. My eyes are dark blue. My kids both have blue eyes. My son has light brown hair (blond when he was small), whilst my daughter's started dark blond and ended up mid brown - even dark brown perhaps now (she's late 20s) - very similar to my mum's colouring. I only give this description of my indecisive, "spare parts" head of hair & my kids to stress how complex the whole subject of hair colour is.

What is notable, I think, is that no one thought the hair colour of Edward or Richard striking enough to mention. Notably un-notable. Had Edward's handsomeness been crowned by shining blond hair surely Commines and others would have said so. Had Richard's hair been so terribly dark, again his early detractors would surely have spun this up as a sinister trait.

Marie

My elder daughter's husband, and his brother were both very blonde as children, (I have seen lots of photographs), but are very dark now, with brown eyes.
In fact I feel sure that most children who are born blonde end up with light to medium brown hair.
In my family, hair that is auburn, wiry, thick and very curly is almost a "default" type. Unfortunately, I have dark hair that is very fine and thin, and getting it to look decent requires the addition of lots of products and much work!
My younger daughter particularly, has beautiful long auburn hair, although we both have very similar green eyes.
Genetics seems to me to be quite a lottery.

I think recessive genes from both parents can throw up all sorts of anomalies.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Hi Carol,

Yes, sorry, my first attempt at a post did post itself before it was ready. My second now appears as well.

I agree that Richard was almost certainly not the dark one in a fair family. He may even have had fairer hair than Edward IV. Not all of Edward's hair would have been lying in the goo at the bottom of the coffin, I imagine, as the stuff growing from around the face should have been well clear, but there is no suggestion in the descriptions that these parts appeared fairer than the rest.

I too was light blond when small, but it darkened later. It's been a complicated process. It went quite mousy by the time I was 13 but then I rebelled and grew it long as I had always wanted, and I to my delight that not constantly cutting off the old growth made a huge difference as it soon lightened and brightened to a golden blond. But different parts of my head had different types of hair. Front left baby fine and pale blond, top back and above the ears some of the hairs were thick, crinkly and very dark, everywhere else dark blond with a smattering of copper. In my twenties it all started to fade to something better described as "fair", then during pregnancy it all darkened until it was almost black, then gradually lightened to afterwards to a dark tow colour, like very old rope that's been out in the rain; at that point I reached for the dye bottle. My eyes are dark blue. My kids both have blue eyes. My son has light brown hair (blond when he was small), whilst my daughter's started dark blond and ended up mid brown - even dark brown perhaps now (she's late 20s) - very similar to my mum's colouring. I only give this description of my indecisive, "spare parts" head of hair & my kids to stress how complex the whole subject of hair colour is.

What is notable, I think, is that no one thought the hair colour of Edward or Richard striking enough to mention. Notably un-notable. Had Edward's handsomeness been crowned by shining blond hair surely Commines and others would have said so. Had Richard's hair been so terribly dark, again his early detractors would surely have spun this up as a sinister trait.

Marie

My elder daughter's husband, and his brother were both very blonde as children, (I have seen lots of photographs), but are very dark now, with brown eyes.
In fact I feel sure that most children who are born blonde end up with light to medium brown hair.
In my family, hair that is auburn, wiry, thick and very curly is almost a "default" type. Unfortunately, I have dark hair that is very fine and thin, and getting it to look decent requires the addition of lots of products and much work!
My younger daughter particularly, has beautiful long auburn hair, although we both have very similar green eyes.
Genetics seems to me to be quite a lottery.

I think recessive genes from both parents can throw up all sorts of anomalies.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Hi Carol,

Yes, sorry, my first attempt at a post did post itself before it was ready. My second now appears as well.

I agree that Richard was almost certainly not the dark one in a fair family. He may even have had fairer hair than Edward IV. Not all of Edward's hair would have been lying in the goo at the bottom of the coffin, I imagine, as the stuff growing from around the face should have been well clear, but there is no suggestion in the descriptions that these parts appeared fairer than the rest.

I too was light blond when small, but it darkened later. It's been a complicated process. It went quite mousy by the time I was 13 but then I rebelled and grew it long as I had always wanted, and I to my delight that not constantly cutting off the old growth made a huge difference as it soon lightened and brightened to a golden blond. But different parts of my head had different types of hair. Front left baby fine and pale blond, top back and above the ears some of the hairs were thick, crinkly and very dark, everywhere else dark blond with a smattering of copper. In my twenties it all started to fade to something better described as "fair", then during pregnancy it all darkened until it was almost black, then gradually lightened to afterwards to a  dark tow colour, like very old rope that's been out in the rain; at that point I reached for the dye bottle. My eyes are dark blue. My kids both have blue eyes. My son has light brown hair (blond when he was small), whilst my daughter's started dark blond and ended up mid brown - even dark brown perhaps now (she's late 20s) - very similar to my mum's colouring. I only give this description of my indecisive, "spare parts" head of hair & my kids to stress how complex the whole subject of hair colour is.

What is notable, I think, is that no one thought the hair colour of Edward or Richard striking enough to mention. Notably un-notable. Had Edward's handsomeness been crowned by shining blond hair surely Commines and others would have said so. Had Richard's hair been so terribly dark, again his early detractors would surely have spun this up as a sinister trait.

Marie

"Poohlandeva" wrote

"Before that, amazed as I was that Richard had blonde hair, it actually makes more sense in the context of the rest of his siblings who had varied degrees of light to dark hair, but mainly on the lighter side. Blonde is also not a static colour and give many varieties within its scope; you have strewberry blonde and his most accepted portrait has a reddish hue; you have fair, which is very light, you have ash blonde, you have medium and even dark blonde and most people will change hair colouring as they grow to adults."

Marie:

Yes, indeed, all that ULAS are claiming in the small print is that Richard would - probably - have started off blond, and the range of likely hair colours they show for adulthood range to what looks to me a medium reddish brown.

P wrote:

"Does this also settle the debate about if Edward IV was the son of the Duke of York due to being very tall and fair while Richard was meant to have dark hair and look as he did?"

Marie:

Not sure what you mean. Edward IV does not seem to have been fair, and Richard does not seem to have been dark - is that your point?

P wrote:

"Of course Clarence's accusations that he was a true son while Edward not cannot be taken too seriously as he was reacting in the extreme to the death of his wife Isabella whom he believed had been poisoned when he made these accusations. Clarance was also angry that Edward did not punish those he blamed for the act and moved to censor him instead for taking justice into his own hands. These unfortunate all too publc statements led to his downfall and treason trial and his mysterious death in 1478; executed on Edwards orders."

Marie:

Of course, this was the second time Clarence had tried to make use of this claim - it had also surfaced when Warwick and Clarence rebelled against Edward in the late 1460s.

P wrote

"I have read many of the views as to who is the false paternity and there are a number of candidates, many rumours abounded at the time and since. John of Gaunt's paternity was questioned, the Beautforts came originally from illegitimate stock, being later legitimized, but rumours as to their own legitimacy and adultery followed them down to Margaret Beautfort, who was the mother of Henry Tudor but was a widow when she was 13, and there is no question he was legitimate. It has been believed that there was no question that Margaret was legitimate, but her father's legitimacy was questioned as was that of her brother. Joan Beautfort the wife of Richard's ancestor Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland is also a candidate for being unfaithful and has had something of a reputation in various ways. However, if this is where the break is that raises the question of Richard and the House of Yorks entitlement to the throne. Both families have secrets in the cubboard and any break gives rise to the claim of that party being weakened. The House of Tudor which came via the Beaufort line has a dodgy enough claim to the crown, but another illegitimate child, one that is important as they are a foundation stone of that claim and well we do indeed have an interesting senario. I would love to resolve this mystery, the scandle would make fascinating reading, but it is unlikely that we will know for sure. Unless we are going to dig up and DNA test and paternity test all of Richard's relatives both before his birth and since; which is unlikely the question will remain open. But there certainly are a number of candidates. One other candidate that has been mentioned on forums far and wide is that Owen Tudor may not have been the father of Edmund Tudor, this would have been Edmund Beaufort the Second Duke of Sommerset. Now I am not convinced of this, but if it was true then that certainly puts the cat in the Tudor pigeon pie. What a fascinating senario that would have been."

Marie:

I assume you've moved beyond the question of the mismatch between RIII's Y chromosome and those of the 5 modern-day Beauforts because paternity of Henry's mother would not be relevant to this chain, nor would the paternity of Henry Tudor, nor would the paternity of Edward IV. Of all the possible breaks in the chain, however, that between York and RIII seems the least likely as the resemblance between the two was supposedly quite marked and there were absolutely no rumours that Cecily had been engaged in an affair at that time.

P wrote:

" Michael Young believes that as he was about 100 miles away and did not return to her until 20th August 1441, this is too late for the conception of Edward to be legitimate; thus there must be a lover and another father. Much has also been made of the fact that Edward was baptised in the castle in the small chapel there, while Edmund was baptised in the Catherdral at Rouen in full splender. This argument has merit and is not easily dismissed. As I have said, Clarance and others made the same accusation. I do not accept that Richard made this accusation. as his relationship with his mother during his brief reign seems to have been cordial and even loving. We have to take the source of this Polydore Virgil with a big pince of salt as the author of Cecily's biograthy Amy Linacre has pointed out. She also makes a good case for the legitimacy of Edward and Cecily remaining faithful to Richard of York. She points out that pregnancy can be considered full term up to 37 weeks, rather than 40-42 and that Edward could have been born early. She also points out that at times Richard was merely 50 miles away and could have reached his wife in less than one day."

Marie:

Do you mean Michael Jones and Amy License? I know this subject has been thrashed to death on this forum, but I'd just like to make the following points. Neither figure for the distance between Rouen and Pontoise is correct. By the old Roman road (roughly same route as the modern route nationale without the wiggles ironed out) the distance was about 100 km or 60 miles, or possibly slightly over.

We don't actually know where Edward was baptized, only that his baptism was not entered into the cathedral register so he probably wasn't baptized there. The first person to claim that Richard made the accusation - or at least that Ralph Shaa made it on Richard's behalf - is in fact Mancini.

The standard human gestation period is actually 38 weeks. People talk about a "period of pregnancy" of 40 weeks, but this is a convention counting forward 40 weeks from the first day of the woman's last menstrual period and assumes that conception would have occurred two weeks later. Of course, what we need for our purposes is to assess when Edward is likely to have been conceived, not when Cecily had her last period. Amy Licence [?} seems, from what you write, to have confused the "term of pregnancy" with the actual gestation period. Any gestation length three weeks either side of the standard figure is considered normal, which is presumably how Amy came up with 37 weeks. Taken from date of conception, a baby is considered full term from 35 weeks.

If AL used 38 weeks as the basis for working back Edward's likely date of conception from his birth date, she will have been three weeks out. The date 38 weeks before Edward's birth, around which we have to make our assessments, is 5th August. I worked this out for an article on the subject I wrote some years back, and it seems to be generally acknowledged as correct.

I don't personally buy the idea that York is likely to have visited Cecily - too far, and the cathedral staff said prayers for his safe return every single day from mid July to 20 August.

The question of Edward's paternity is unanswerable without DNA evidence, and we're not going to get that any time soon.

.

Hilary wrote: I read in Richardson (I think) that Ralph Neville, Richard's grandfather, had a limp and this was not to do with any injury. Can scoliosis or similar problems be inherited and were the Neville's the culprits?

Yes, scoliosis can be genetically inherited just like other conditions (e.g. suspected endometriosis in Anne Beauchamp passed on to Anne Neville, etc.). I read somewhere Henry VIII's son also suffered from scoliosis, so it can have run in the family, but I do not like the idea of "culprits". Lifestyle (e.g. heavy armours, food, etc.) also played a part in developing a condition for which one had a genetic predisposition or not. Mac

Mary wrote: Also Carol, I believe there is a story that Cecily is supposed to have said words to the effect that Edward was no son of his father, when she heard about his marriage to EW. If this is true then I would think what she meant that he was not like his father because, had he been King, R of Y would never have married someone of EW's background and wouldn't have had a clandestine marriage. I think ( and it is only my opinion) that Edward probably had no intention of revealing Elizabeth as his wife and probably would have married Bona of Savoy if he could have got away with it. Obviously the Rivers family had other ideas.
I have often thought this myself. He may have thought EW would never have stood up to him, or could be paid off as J-AH says Edward did with Eleanor. However, he underestimated the pressure that a large number of Woodville brothers could put on him. That may account also for the Woodville brothers' promotion to such powerful positions, as they always knew enough to make trouble.

The discussion on genes is interesting. Richard and Edward clearly seem to have brown hair in the portraits, but the reports on the hair colour of members of the York family seem to vary. I seen Margaret described as fair, but her colouring looks more like a brunette. Clarence was said by some writers to be blond, but I don't know how they know for sure. If Richard's father had blond hair, he could have inherited it from Pedro the Cruel who was said to have had blond hair and light blue eyes. There is a kind of resemblance with him and the House of York. Henry VI and HT didn't look like the earlier Plantagenets either, which isn't helpful with the paternity question. I can't decide whether John Beaufort and John of Gaunt look alike.
A lot of royalty and nobility seem to have blond hair, much more so than the general population. Maybe it is the inbreeding factor. Genes are a funny thing though. I don't necessarily thing that those Mendel rules we learned at school really work so neatly, and several genes determine hair and eye colour. We were told that two blue eyed parents couldn't have brown eyed children, but that isn't true. A lot of people seem to be a mix of the parent's colouring rather clear dominant and recessive types. Also, I wonder if it is the colour that is dominant or something else to do with the gene. You get families where a blond person marries a dark haired one and all the children turn out with a distinctive shade of blond hair like Boris Johnson's family. I have seen it quite a bit with blue eyes too, especially ones with a distinctive shade. Whatever, EIV and RIII's hair colour, blond certainly won the genetic lottery with EIV's children if the Royal Window is anything to go by.
Nico







On Friday, 5 December 2014, 18:19, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


Also Carol, I believe there is a story that Cecily is supposed to have said words to the effect that Edward was no son of his father, when she heard about his marriage to EW. If this is true then I would think what she meant that he was not like his father because, had he been King, R of Y would never have married someone of EW's background and wouldn't have had a clandestine marriage. I think ( and it is only my opinion) that Edward probably had no intention of revealing Elizabeth as his wife and probably would have married Bona of Savoy if he could have got away with it. Obviously the Rivers family had other ideas.
Mary

I inherited my mother's eyes (and grandmother, great grands, and so on) and my father's more olive complexion. So, yes, genes are not certain, especially with people and the complexity and number of genes. Fruit flies and flowers are a lot less complex...



On Dec 5, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Mary wrote: Also Carol, I believe there is a story that Cecily is supposed to have said words to the effect that Edward was no son of his father, when she heard about his marriage to EW. If this is true then I would think what she meant that he was not like his father because, had he been King, R of Y would never have married someone of EW's background and wouldn't have had a clandestine marriage. I think ( and it is only my opinion) that Edward probably had no intention of revealing Elizabeth as his wife and probably would have married Bona of Savoy if he could have got away with it. Obviously the Rivers family had other ideas. I have often thought this myself. He may have thought EW would never have stood up to him, or could be paid off as J-AH says Edward did with Eleanor. However, he underestimated the pressure that a large number of Woodville brothers could put on him. That may account also for the Woodville brothers' promotion to such powerful positions, as they always knew enough to make trouble.
The discussion on genes is interesting. Richard and Edward clearly seem to have brown hair in the portraits, but the reports on the hair colour of members of the York family seem to vary. I seen Margaret described as fair, but her colouring looks more like a brunette. Clarence was said by some writers to be blond, but I don't know how they know for sure. If Richard's father had blond hair, he could have inherited it from Pedro the Cruel who was said to have had blond hair and light blue eyes. There is a kind of resemblance with him and the House of York. Henry VI and HT didn't look like the earlier Plantagenets either, which isn't helpful with the paternity question. I can't decide whether John Beaufort and John of Gaunt look alike.
A lot of royalty and nobility seem to have blond hair, much more so than the general population. Maybe it is the inbreeding factor. Genes are a funny thing though. I don't necessarily thing that those Mendel rules we learned at school really work so neatly, and several genes determine hair and eye colour. We were told that two blue eyed parents couldn't have brown eyed children, but that isn't true. A lot of people seem to be a mix of the parent's colouring rather clear dominant and recessive types. Also, I wonder if it is the colour that is dominant or something else to do with the gene. You get families where a blond person marries a dark haired one and all the children turn out with a distinctive shade of blond hair like Boris Johnson's family. I have seen it quite a bit with blue eyes too, especially ones with a distinctive shade. Whatever, EIV and RIII's hair colour, blond certainly won the genetic lottery with EIV's children if the Royal Window is anything to go by.
Nico




On Friday, 5 December 2014, 18:19, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


Also Carol, I believe there is a story that Cecily is supposed to have said words to the effect that Edward was no son of his father, when she heard about his marriage to EW. If this is true then I would think what she meant that he was not like his father because, had he been King, R of Y would never have married someone of EW's background and wouldn't have had a clandestine marriage. I think ( and it is only my opinion) that Edward probably had no intention of revealing Elizabeth as his wife and probably would have married Bona of Savoy if he could have got away with it. Obviously the Rivers family had other ideas. Mary

Nance wrote:

"I'm new here, but have to comment on Edward IV's baptism - the fact that his father was not present probably has more to do with the fact that Cecily's first son, Henry, did not survive long and that the greatest fear attending a live birth was that unbaptized infants who died were believed to be barred from Heaven forever."

Marie:

Hi Nance, and a warm welcome to the forum. It's not that York was absent from the baptism. He was away on campaign for 2 1/2 weeks before and 3 weeks after the date on which Edward would have been conceived had he been born on the due date.

York was back in Rouen well before Edward's birth and almost certainly attended the baptism, wherever it was. We just don't have as record of it, although the baptisms of Edmund and Elizabeth are recorded in the Rouen cathedral register.

You are right that baptisms always took place very soon after birth so the baby could go to heaven if it died. Also, the only canonically acceptable reason for a private baptism was if the baby was in imminent danger of death.

My own view is that Edward probably was baptized in the cathedral but the record was lost before the pages were bound together - at any rate, English bishops' registers seem to have been written on loose leaves and bound into volumes later on.

Sandra wrote:

"I'm a half-and-half  my other was a green-eyed brunette from Wales, and my father a blue-eyed blond from Dorset. I arrived with green eyes and blonde hair. But not quite the same shade of green and not quite the same shade of blonde. Oh, and I have my mother's osteoporosis, when I would much rather have had my father's sturdy bones. So I wonder if we'll ever know the exact details of Richard's appearance? Even if we learn his father's colouring, and his mother's and his brothers', there's no guarantee he would have been anything but a mixture of some or all of them."

Marie:

I agree. My dad's hair was almost black, his eyes hazel; my mum had mid brown (at least in adult life) and light blue eyes. I was blond with dark-blue eyes. My dad had his mother's colouring, and she her father's, but my dad must have been carrying recessive blond & dark-blue eye genes from somewhere. I know my mum's father was fair, but her mother had copper hair, so where my mother's brown came from is not that clear - she so much resembled her father facially that there's seemingly no question of a 'false paternity event' and she was evidently carrying his fair hair gene. Also, I do seem to have hairs of all the family colours and textures to be found around my head here and there, which is odd. One of my kids has light blue eyes and the other dark blue. Both are fair-skinned and don't tan. I was the only fair one out of the four children born to my parents. Complex business, I suspect, just what colour your hair grows.

Nance wrote:

"I'm new here, but have to comment on Edward IV's baptism - the fact that his father was not present probably has more to do with the fact that Cecily's first son, Henry, did not survive long and that the greatest fear attending a live birth was that unbaptized infants who died were believed to be barred from Heaven forever."

Marie:

Hi Nance, and a warm welcome to the forum. It's not that York was absent from the baptism. He was away on campaign for 2 1/2 weeks before and 3 weeks after the date on which Edward would have been conceived had he been born on the due date.

York was back in Rouen well before Edward's birth and almost certainly attended the baptism, wherever it was. We just don't have as record of it, although the baptisms of Edmund and Elizabeth are recorded in the Rouen cathedral register.

You are right that baptisms always took place very soon after birth so the baby could go to heaven if it died. Also, the only canonically acceptable reason for a private baptism was if the baby was in imminent danger of death.

My own view is that Edward probably was baptized in the cathedral but the record was lost before the pages were bound together - at any rate, English bishops' registers seem to have been written on loose leaves and bound into volumes later on.

Sandra wrote:

"I'm a half-and-half  my other was a green-eyed brunette from Wales, and my father a blue-eyed blond from Dorset. I arrived with green eyes and blonde hair. But not quite the same shade of green and not quite the same shade of blonde. Oh, and I have my mother's osteoporosis, when I would much rather have had my father's sturdy bones. So I wonder if we'll ever know the exact details of Richard's appearance? Even if we learn his father's colouring, and his mother's and his brothers', there's no guarantee he would have been anything but a mixture of some or all of them."

Marie:

I agree. My dad's hair was almost black, his eyes hazel; my mum had mid brown (at least in adult life) and light blue eyes. I was blond with dark-blue eyes. My dad had his mother's colouring, and she her father's, but my dad must have been carrying recessive blond & dark-blue eye genes from somewhere. I know my mum's father was fair, but her mother had copper hair, so where my mother's brown came from is not that clear - she so much resembled her father facially that there's seemingly no question of a 'false paternity event' and she was evidently carrying his fair hair gene. Also, I do seem to have hairs of all the family colours and textures to be found around my head here and there, which is odd. One of my kids has light blue eyes and the other dark blue. Both are fair-skinned and don't tan. I was the only fair one out of the four children born to my parents. Complex business, I suspect, just what colour your hair grows.

Height is not necessarily the same amongst siblings either. Both my daughters are around about my height 5ft 6in. Their father is 5ft 8in. However, my nieces and nephews height differ quite a lot. My nephew is over 6ft while both his sisters are 5ft. Their father, his father and my father were all around 5ft 10. So the assumption is that my nephew has inherited the genes of my mother's family whose brothers were all over 6ft. While the girls have inherited their paternal grandmother's genes as she was around 5ft. So E4 could have inherited E1's

My family (maternal) are either short and round or tall and skinny. The tall skinny ones, unfortunately, usually succumb to another inherited trait, alcoholism.



On Dec 6, 2014, at 8:42 AM, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Height is not necessarily the same amongst siblings either. Both my daughters are around about my height 5ft 6in. Their father is 5ft 8in. However, my nieces and nephews height differ quite a lot. My nephew is over 6ft while both his sisters are 5ft. Their father, his father and my father were all around 5ft 10. So the assumption is that my nephew has inherited the genes of my mother's family whose brothers were all over 6ft. While the girls have inherited their paternal grandmother's genes as she was around 5ft. So E4 could have inherited E1's

Doug wrote:

"Might Edward possibly having been born early also be the reason there's no mention of his baptism because he was baptized privately? Something, as you noted, that was reserved for babies whose survival was uncertain?"

Marie:

Ye-e-es... Maybe. But the baby had to be in imminent danger of death, ie not likely to make it alive to the church. I suspect few babies baptized privately survived. I'm always reluctant, too, to conclude that a thing did not happen because we have no record of it - for the 15th century, at any rate. That's just the sort of reasoning that had Richard marry without a dispensation. There are many registers extant that we know don't include all the relevant business because some are referred to in other documents. For instance, we sort of know of Princess Cecily's divorce from Ralph Scrope only because there is a largely illegible reference to it in one of the Act Books of the diocese of York, but the actual record of the proceedings (giving her grounds) is not amongst the Cause Papers (the records of the hearings of the bishop's court) where it ought to be. If we had a contemporary document stating that York's son Edward was baptised privately, or in some other church, then we would know where we are, but I'm unhappy about arguing a case from absence of evidence.

Marie wrote:

Ye-e-es... Maybe. But the baby had to be in imminent danger of death, ie not likely to make it alive to the church. I suspect few babies baptized privately survived. I'm always reluctant, too, to conclude that a thing did not happen because we have no record of it - for the 15th century, at any rate. That's just the sort of reasoning that had Richard marry without a dispensation. There are many registers extant that we know don't include all the relevant business because some are referred to in other documents. For instance, we sort of know of Princess Cecily's divorce from Ralph Scrope only because there is a largely illegible reference to it in one of the Act Books of the diocese of York, but the actual record of the proceedings (giving her grounds) is not amongst the Cause Papers (the records of the hearings of the bishop's court) where it ought to be. If we had a contemporary document stating that York's son Edward was baptised privately, or in some other church, then we would know where we are, but I'm unhappy about arguing a case from absence of evidence.

Doug here:

Darn, Thought I might have something there, but definitely agree that lack of a record doesn't mean something didn't occur.

Doug

(who's gaining an appreciation for the modern bureaucratic practice of filing in triplicate...)

"The Beaufort news, though, does prove, for the many who doubted that such things could happen, that false paternity events in high places have always been a reality and do not tend to lead to rejection of the child by the cuckolded husband, notwithstanding the fact that accusations of same were politically useful in the WotR."

Indeed. In fact, depending on who was contributing the genetic material (the multiple adulteries in Henry VII's family tree may well have provided him more genuinely noble albeit inbred blood than if every single one of his ancestors had been scrupulously faithful), these adulteries might have actually benefited the overall genetic health of the Plantagenets. Certainly we don't hear about any freaks of nature among the Plantagenets such as would later inhabit the severely inbred Hapsburgs and the families with whom they bred.

Tamara

Hi all,

On the subject of Edward IV's baptism, I've got the following further information, mainly from a summary of the contents of the cathedral registers which I found online, but also using other sources.

According to his biographer, Johnson, York set off on a 3-month tour of the provinces under his control on 27 March 1442, i.e. just over a month before Edward's birth - i.e. Nance seems to be right and York would have been absent from the baptism, but this is because he would not have been in Rouen. Why he chose that time to absent himself is a legitimate question to ask, of course, but he did have a job to do. His absence might explain why no one thought to ask the cathedral for permission to baptise the baby there.

York was in Rouen for Edmund's birth, and obtained permission for the canons for Edmund to be baptized in the cathedral font. The cathedral noted that it received him with great honour: the tombs were uncovered, the relics displayed on the main altar, and the choir was gathered. According to one version of Worcester's list of the births of York's children, this was the first time that the "font of Rollo" had been used since Rollo's time.

In September 1444 York again received permission to use the cathedral font for his daughter Elizabeth; her godparents were Jacquetta of Bedford (incorrectly named Isabelle in the register), York's elder daughter Anne and Lord Talbot.

So I'm now a lot happier that Edward wasn't baptised in the cathedral, but York was away and a cathedral baptism was evidently an unprecedented honour that the Duke had to negotiate with the canons for his next baby. Perhaps Edward was baptized in the nearest parish church rather than privately in the castle chapel.

Marie

Nico wrote :



"Meanwhile, another silly Daily Mail story spouting rubbish and calling Richard a hunchback again."



Carol responds:



Here's the actual article by Turi King et al;:



http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html It states incorrectly that "if the false paternity occurred in either of the three generations between Edward III and Richard, Duke of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, then neither of their claims to the crown would have been legitimate." As I said earlier, the Yorkist claim was (ironically) not based on the Yorkist line and would not have been affected. Otherwise, the article, though somewhat technical, is very informative.



However, it has led, perhaps inevitably, to nonsense like this, in, of all places, Forbes magazine: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/12/03/dna-casts-doubt-on-richard-iiis-legitimacy/



Though the article does mention the possibility that Richard of Cambridge was illegitimate it states that, if so, our Richard was a "bastard," a patent absurdity. However, it mentions John of Gaunt not as the adulterer we know he was and maybe or maybe not the father of John Beaufort but as possibly illegitimate himself, with Edward III as the possible cuckold. (Possibly, the author was confused about or ignorant of the Beaufort contoversy.)



Someone needs to set the record straight before this nonsense spreads any further.



Carol



Carol

Nico wrote :



"Meanwhile, another silly Daily Mail story spouting rubbish and calling Richard a hunchback again."



Carol responds:



Here's the actual article by Turi King et al;:



http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html It states incorrectly that "if the false paternity occurred in either of the three generations between Edward III and Richard, Duke of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, then neither of their claims to the crown would have been legitimate." As I said earlier, the Yorkist
claim was (ironically) not based on the Yorkist line and would not have been affected. Otherwise, the article, though somewhat technical, is very informative.



However, it has led, perhaps inevitably, to nonsense like this, in, of all places, Forbes magazine: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/12/03/dna-casts-doubt-on-richard-iiis-legitimacy/



Though the article does mention the possibility that Richard of Cambridge was illegitimate it states that, if so, our Richard was a "bastard," a patent absurdity. However, it mentions John of Gaunt not as the adulterer we know he was and maybe or maybe not the father of John Beaufort but as possibly illegitimate himself,
with Edward III as the possible cuckold. (Possibly, the author was confused about or ignorant of the Beaufort contoversy.)



Someone needs to set the record straight before this nonsense spreads any further.



Carol



Carol

Nico wrote :



"Meanwhile, another silly Daily Mail story spouting rubbish and calling Richard a hunchback again."



Carol responds:



Here's the actual article by Turi King et al;:



http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html It states incorrectly that "if the false paternity occurred in either of the three generations between Edward III and Richard, Duke of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, then neither of their claims to the crown would have been legitimate." As I said earlier, the Yorkist claim was (ironically) not based on the Yorkist line and would not have been affected. Otherwise, the article, though somewhat technical, is very informative.



However, it has led, perhaps inevitably, to nonsense like this, in, of all places, Forbes magazine: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/12/03/dna-casts-doubt-on-richard-iiis-legitimacy/



Though the article does mention the possibility that Richard of Cambridge was illegitimate it states that, if so, our Richard was a "bastard," a patent absurdity. However, it mentions John of Gaunt not as the adulterer we know he was and maybe or maybe not the father of John Beaufort but as possibly illegitimate himself, with Edward III as the possible cuckold. (Possibly, the author was confused about or ignorant of the Beaufort contoversy.)



Someone needs to set the record straight before this nonsense spreads any further.



Carol



Carol

Carol and others interested in Richard's DNA results...
The discovery of Richard's Y-chromosome DNA has caused me to do a little further research. There are a couple of studies done on the continent that might be of interest - both published in the European Journal for Human Genetics.
The first in 2010, compared the DNA in the alleged head of Henry IV of France with the alleged sample of blood from Louis XVI. They matched Haplotype G. Since this is very rare the conclusion was that it was highly probable that the two were related and likely to be really remains of the people they purported to
be.
A second study attemped to sequence the Y-DNA of the Bourbons in 2013 by the University of Louvain, used living male line descendants of the Bourbons - all matched R1b. Since the lines of descent of the volunteers were separate, the study ruled out false paternity. The result of this was that the original 2010 study was invalidated.
There is a summary of these studies in an article on Livescience web site - search it for lost kings or Bourbon DNA.
The article was written after the identification of Richard's remains but before the publication of the Y-DNA result.
It praises Leicester for their exemplary approach in using ancient DNA and other factors to provide a reliable identification.
However, the difficulties in dealing with old samples is highlighted. The similarity between the 2 European studies and the Beaufort /
Richard results is quite striking.
There are a number of Genetics based forums where the two continental studies have been argued over. One of the most sensible and understandable comments stated that they were getting too many G haplotype results when dealing with old celebrity samples.
My background is scientific, but I don't know enough about the confidence limits within the Y-DNA result for Richard to comment. But it might be that there is less certainty of a false paternity event than believed hitherto.
Kind regardsDavid





Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
At 4 Dec 2014 17:26:55, justcarol67@...
[]'> wrote:

Nico wrote :



"Meanwhile, another silly Daily Mail story spouting rubbish and calling Richard a hunchback again."



Carol responds:



Here's the actual article by Turi King et al;:



http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html It states incorrectly that "if the false paternity occurred in either of the three generations between Edward III and Richard, Duke of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, then neither of their claims to the crown would have been legitimate." As I said earlier, the Yorkist claim was (ironically) not based on the Yorkist line and would not have been affected. Otherwise, the article, though somewhat technical, is very informative.



However, it has led, perhaps inevitably, to nonsense like this, in, of all places, Forbes magazine: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/12/03/dna-casts-doubt-on-richard-iiis-legitimacy/



Though the article does mention the possibility that Richard of Cambridge was illegitimate it states that, if so, our Richard was a "bastard," a patent absurdity. However, it mentions John of Gaunt not as the adulterer we know he was and maybe or maybe not the father of John Beaufort but as possibly illegitimate himself, with Edward III as the possible cuckold. (Possibly, the author was confused about or ignorant of the Beaufort contoversy.)



Someone needs to set the record straight before this nonsense spreads any further.



Carol



Carol

Nico wrote :



"Meanwhile, another silly Daily Mail story spouting rubbish and calling Richard a hunchback again."



Carol responds:



Here's the actual article by Turi King et al;:



http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html It states incorrectly that "if the false paternity occurred in either of the three generations between Edward III and Richard, Duke of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, then neither of their claims to the crown would have been legitimate." As I said earlier, the Yorkist
claim was (ironically) not based on the Yorkist line and would not have been affected. Otherwise, the article, though somewhat technical, is very informative.



However, it has led, perhaps inevitably, to nonsense like this, in, of all places, Forbes magazine: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/12/03/dna-casts-doubt-on-richard-iiis-legitimacy/



Though the article does mention the possibility that Richard of Cambridge was illegitimate it states that, if so, our Richard was a "bastard," a patent absurdity. However, it mentions John of Gaunt not as the adulterer we know he was and maybe or maybe not the father of John Beaufort but as possibly illegitimate himself,
with Edward III as the possible cuckold. (Possibly, the author was confused about or ignorant of the Beaufort contoversy.)



Someone needs to set the record straight before this nonsense spreads any further.



Carol



Carol

Nico wrote :



"Meanwhile, another silly Daily Mail story spouting rubbish and calling Richard a hunchback again."



Carol responds:



Here's the actual article by Turi King et al;:



http://www.nature .com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html It states incorrectly that "if the false paternity occurred in either of the three generations between Edward III and Richard, Duke of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, then neither of their claims to the crown would have been legitimate." As I said earlier, the Yorkist claim was (ironically) not based on the Yorkist line and would not have been affected. Otherwise, the article, though somewhat technical, is very informative.



However, it has led, perhaps inevitably, to nonsense like this, in, of all places, Forbes magazine: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/12/03/dna-casts-doubt-on-richard-iiis-legitimacy/



Though the article does mention the possibility that Richard of Cambridge was illegitimate it states that, if so, our Richard was a "bastard," a patent absurdity. However, it mentions John of Gaunt not as the adulterer we know he was and maybe or maybe not the father of John Beaufort but as possibly illegitimate himself, with Edward III as the possible cuckold. (Possibly, the author was confused about or ignorant of the Beaufort contoversy.)



Someone needs to set the record straight before this nonsense spreads any further.



Carol



Carol

That is quite correct. Richard’s strongest claim was in the Mortimer line, his second strongest in the York male line and his Beaufort descent was irrelevant.

Statistically, the line to the Regency Duke of Beaufort is 3.75% more likely to contain the sperm of a “milkman” than that to Richard. One of the Regency Duke’s “descendants” definitely isn’t.

Objectively, every link in the Y-chain is 5%+ to be a failure, but Gaunt-Dorset must now be a favourite.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 11 December 2014 05:29
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New paper published

“Joan Beautfort the wife of Richard' s ancestor Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland is also a candidate for being unfaithful and has had something of a reputation in various ways. However, if this is where the break is that raises the question of Richard and the House of Yorks entitlement to the throne.”

There have been several misunderstandings based on the Beaufort gene not matching Richard’s, I just caught this latest one and wanted to correct it for the record here. The Yorkist claim to the throne had nothing to do w/ Joan Beaufort, and actually the closer descent from the royal line was thru her, not her husband so infidelity wouldn’t affect that.

In actuality the Yorkist claim was through Lionel of Antwerp, Edward III’s second son, through his only child Phillippa. Nothing to do w /Joan Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt, Edward III’s third son. That the crux of the Yorkist claim, descent from the second son rather than the Lancaster descent from the third son, as was the scurrilous Tudor claim.

And to continue in my pedantic corrections...earlier Carol mentioned Henry IV as an ancestor of Henry Tudor. That isn’t correct either. He didn’t even have that good a lineage or claim to the throne. I’m sure that was just a slip in getting all tangled up in what has come to light lately.

Stephen, I’m surprised, are you asleep on the job here? j/k You’ve very good.

I appreciate all who contribute here, just wanted to get corrections on the record. When I started, before posting I read the entire history of the group so I think the record needs to be clear. Yeah, I know, OCD or something.

That is quite correct. Richard's
strongest claim was in the Mortimer line, his second strongest in the York male line and his
Beaufort descent was irrelevant.

Statistically, the line to the Regency
Duke of Beaufort is 3.75% more likely to contain the sperm of a milkman
than that to Richard. One of the Regency Duke's descendants
definitely isn't.

Objectively, every link in the Y-chain is
5%+ to be a failure, but Gaunt-Dorset must now be a favourite.

From:

[mailto: ]


Sent: 11 December 2014 05:29

To:

Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: New paper published

Joan Beautfort
the wife of Richard' s ancestor Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland is also
a candidate for being unfaithful and has had something of a reputation in
various ways. However, if this is where the break is that raises the question of
Richard and the House of Yorks entitlement to the throne.

There have been
several misunderstandings based on the Beaufort gene not matching
Richard's, I just caught this latest one and wanted to correct it for the
record here. The Yorkist claim to the throne had nothing to do w/ Joan
Beaufort, and actually the closer descent from the royal line was thru her, not
her husband so infidelity wouldn't affect that.

In actuality the
Yorkist claim was through Lionel of Antwerp, Edward III's second son, through
his only child Phillippa. Nothing to do w /Joan Beaufort, daughter of
John of Gaunt, Edward III's third son. That the crux of the Yorkist
claim, descent from the second son rather than the Lancaster descent from the third son, as was
the scurrilous Tudor claim.

And to continue in my
pedantic corrections...earlier Carol mentioned Henry IV as an ancestor of Henry
Tudor. That isn't correct either. He didn't even have
that good a lineage or claim to the throne. I'm sure that was just
a slip in getting all tangled up in what has come to light lately.

Stephen, I'm
surprised, are you asleep on the job here? j/k You've very
good.

I appreciate all who
contribute here, just wanted to get corrections on the record. When I
started, before posting I read the entire history of the group so I think the
record needs to be clear. Yeah, I know, OCD or something.

That is quite correct. Richard's
strongest claim was in the Mortimer line, his second strongest in the York male line and his
Beaufort descent was irrelevant.

Statistically, the line to the Regency
Duke of Beaufort is 3.75% more likely to contain the sperm of a milkman
than that to Richard. One of the Regency Duke's descendants
definitely isn't.

Objectively, every link in the Y-chain is
5%+ to be a failure, but Gaunt-Dorset must now be a favourite.

From:

[mailto: ]


Sent: 11 December 2014 05:29

To:

Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: New paper published

Joan Beautfort
the wife of Richard' s ancestor Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland is also
a candidate for being unfaithful and has had something of a reputation in
various ways. However, if this is where the break is that raises the question of
Richard and the House of Yorks entitlement to the throne.

There have been
several misunderstandings based on the Beaufort gene not matching
Richard's, I just caught this latest one and wanted to correct it for the
record here. The Yorkist claim to the throne had nothing to do w/ Joan
Beaufort, and actually the closer descent from the royal line was thru her, not
her husband so infidelity wouldn't affect that.

In actuality the
Yorkist claim was through Lionel of Antwerp, Edward III's second son, through
his only child Phillippa. Nothing to do w /Joan Beaufort, daughter of
John of Gaunt, Edward III's third son. That the crux of the Yorkist
claim, descent from the second son rather than the Lancaster descent from the third son, as was
the scurrilous Tudor claim.

And to continue in my
pedantic corrections...earlier Carol mentioned Henry IV as an ancestor of Henry
Tudor. That isn't correct either. He didn't even have
that good a lineage or claim to the throne. I'm sure that was just
a slip in getting all tangled up in what has come to light lately.

Stephen, I'm
surprised, are you asleep on the job here? j/k You've very
good.

I appreciate all who
contribute here, just wanted to get corrections on the record. When I
started, before posting I read the entire history of the group so I think the
record needs to be clear. Yeah, I know, OCD or something.

That is quite correct. Richard's
strongest claim was in the Mortimer line, his second strongest in the York male line and his
Beaufort descent was irrelevant.

Statistically, the line to the Regency
Duke of Beaufort is 3.75% more likely to contain the sperm of a milkman
than that to Richard. One of the Regency Duke's descendants
definitely isn't.

Objectively, every link in the Y-chain is
5%+ to be a failure, but Gaunt-Dorset must now be a favourite.

From:

[mailto: ]


Sent: 11 December 2014 05:29

To:

Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: New paper published

Joan Beautfort
the wife of Richard' s ancestor Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland is also
a candidate for being unfaithful and has had something of a reputation in
various ways. However, if this is where the break is that raises the question of
Richard and the House of Yorks entitlement to the throne.

There have been
several misunderstandings based on the Beaufort gene not matching
Richard's, I just caught this latest one and wanted to correct it for the
record here. The Yorkist claim to the throne had nothing to do w/ Joan
Beaufort, and actually the closer descent from the royal line was thru her, not
her husband so infidelity wouldn't affect that.

In actuality the
Yorkist claim was through Lionel of Antwerp, Edward III's second son, through
his only child Phillippa. Nothing to do w /Joan Beaufort, daughter of
John of Gaunt, Edward III's third son. That the crux of the Yorkist
claim, descent from the second son rather than the Lancaster descent from the third son, as was
the scurrilous Tudor claim.

And to continue in my
pedantic corrections...earlier Carol mentioned Henry IV as an ancestor of Henry
Tudor. That isn't correct either. He didn't even have
that good a lineage or claim to the throne. I'm sure that was just
a slip in getting all tangled up in what has come to light lately.

Stephen, I'm
surprised, are you asleep on the job here? j/k You've very
good.

I appreciate all who
contribute here, just wanted to get corrections on the record. When I
started, before posting I read the entire history of the group so I think the
record needs to be clear. Yeah, I know, OCD or something.

Wrong character used. I meant that a “Beaufort” failure is 3.75 times as likely (15/19) if there is only one milkman in total, but there could be more.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 11 December 2014 13:57
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New paper published

Stephen,

I will take your calculations on face value - but in order to put an increased probability of 3.75% into perspective for those who find numbers confusing, this is what it means. If you had two bags and one had 100 peas in it and another that held 104 peas then the weight of the two bags would represent respectively the likelyhood of York line's being at fault in comparison to that of the Beaufort. This is probably too close for most people to judge.

Actually, there has also been research into the rates of false paternity and while your figure is not far off the mark, it has been found that the rate varies from country to country and social status. Where much importance is put on inheritance of a surname / male bloodline then the rate is considerably lower.

However, what you say is true - that statistically, the longer the line is, the higher the probablity of a false paternity - but the results between Richard and the Beauforts are not mutually exclusive. The same rate applies to both lines. It is not a question of deciding which line is OK and which is not. All but one of the modern Beauforts had a common male ancestor - but for the rest we can not establish anything. One certain false paternity in the modern Beauforts but for the others BOTH lines of descent may be wrong, or in fact BOTH may be right with the problem lying in the DNA testing.

So let us apply your logic of the longer line being more probably false - which is statistically undeniable - to the longest line in question, that of Edward III. His claim to the throne stems from the Kings of England, the Counts of Anjou and of Maine . This is so long that by the purely statistical argument it is actually more likely to be false than not.

Since Richard's test results set me wondering where the true "Plantagenet" YDNA might come from, I came across another recent paper - a doctoral thesis from the University of Le Mans . They appear to have been Franks, and stem from a noble family known as the Rorgonides.

Kind regards

David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

At 11 Dec 2014 10:03:33, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []'> wrote:

That is quite correct. Richard’s
strongest claim was in the Mortimer line, his second strongest in the York male line and his
Beaufort descent was irrelevant.

Statistically, the line to the Regency
Duke of Beaufort is 3.75% more likely to contain the sperm of a “milkman”
than that to Richard. One of the Regency Duke’s “descendants”
definitely isn’t.

Objectively, every link in the Y-chain is
5%+ to be a failure, but Gaunt-Dorset must now be a favourite.

From:

[mailto: ]


Sent: 11 December 2014 05:29

To:

Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: New paper published

“Joan Beautfort
the wife of Richard' s ancestor Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland is also
a candidate for being unfaithful and has had something of a reputation in
various ways. However, if this is where the break is that raises the question of
Richard and the House of Yorks entitlement to the throne.”

There have been
several misunderstandings based on the Beaufort gene not matching
Richard’s, I just caught this latest one and wanted to correct it for the
record here. The Yorkist claim to the throne had nothing to do w/ Joan
Beaufort, and actually the closer descent from the royal line was thru her, not
her husband so infidelity wouldn’t affect that.

In actuality the
Yorkist claim was through Lionel of Antwerp, Edward III’s second son, through
his only child Phillippa. Nothing to do w /Joan Beaufort, daughter of
John of Gaunt, Edward III’s third son. That the crux of the Yorkist
claim, descent from the second son rather than the Lancaster descent from the third son, as was
the scurrilous Tudor claim.

And to continue in my
pedantic corrections...earlier Carol mentioned Henry IV as an ancestor of Henry
Tudor. That isn’t correct either. He didn’t even have
that good a lineage or claim to the throne. I’m sure that was just
a slip in getting all tangled up in what has come to light lately.

Stephen, I’m
surprised, are you asleep on the job here? j/k You’ve very
good.

I appreciate all who
contribute here, just wanted to get corrections on the record. When I
started, before posting I read the entire history of the group so I think the
record needs to be clear. Yeah, I know, OCD or something.

At 11 Dec 2014 10:03:33, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []'> wrote:

That is quite correct. Richard’s
strongest claim was in the Mortimer line, his second strongest in the York male line and his
Beaufort descent was irrelevant.

Statistically, the line to the Regency
Duke of Beaufort is 3.75% more likely to contain the sperm of a “milkman”
than that to Richard. One of the Regency Duke’s “descendants”
definitely isn’t.

Objectively, every link in the Y-chain is
5%+ to be a failure, but Gaunt-Dorset must now be a favourite.

From:

[mailto: ]


Sent: 11 December 2014 05:29

To:

Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: New paper published

“Joan Beautfort
the wife of Richard' s ancestor Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland is also
a candidate for being unfaithful and has had something of a reputation in
various ways. However, if this is where the break is that raises the question of
Richard and the House of Yorks entitlement to the throne.”

There have been
several misunderstandings based on the Beaufort gene not matching
Richard’s, I just caught this latest one and wanted to correct it for the
record here. The Yorkist claim to the throne had nothing to do w/ Joan
Beaufort, and actually the closer descent from the royal line was thru her, not
her husband so infidelity wouldn’t affect that.

In actuality the
Yorkist claim was through Lionel of Antwerp, Edward III’s second son, through
his only child Phillippa. Nothing to do w /Joan Beaufort, daughter of
John of Gaunt, Edward III’s third son. That the crux of the Yorkist
claim, descent from the second son rather than the Lancaster descent from the third son, as was
the scurrilous Tudor claim.

And to continue in my
pedantic corrections...earlier Carol mentioned Henry IV as an ancestor of Henry
Tudor. That isn’t correct either. He didn’t even have
that good a lineage or claim to the throne. I’m sure that was just
a slip in getting all tangled up in what has come to light lately.

Stephen, I’m
surprised, are you asleep on the job here? j/k You’ve very
good.

I appreciate all who
contribute here, just wanted to get corrections on the record. When I
started, before posting I read the entire history of the group so I think the
record needs to be clear. Yeah, I know, OCD or something.

At 11 Dec 2014 10:03:33, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []'> wrote:

That is quite correct. Richard’s
strongest claim was in the Mortimer line, his second strongest in the York male line and his
Beaufort descent was irrelevant.

Statistically, the line to the Regency
Duke of Beaufort is 3.75% more likely to contain the sperm of a “milkman”
than that to Richard. One of the Regency Duke’s “descendants”
definitely isn’t.

Objectively, every link in the Y-chain is
5%+ to be a failure, but Gaunt-Dorset must now be a favourite.

From:

[mailto: ]


Sent: 11 December 2014 05:29

To:

Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: New paper published

“Joan Beautfort
the wife of Richard' s ancestor Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland is also
a candidate for being unfaithful and has had something of a reputation in
various ways. However, if this is where the break is that raises the question of
Richard and the House of Yorks entitlement to the throne.”

There have been
several misunderstandings based on the Beaufort gene not matching
Richard’s, I just caught this latest one and wanted to correct it for the
record here. The Yorkist claim to the throne had nothing to do w/ Joan
Beaufort, and actually the closer descent from the royal line was thru her, not
her husband so infidelity wouldn’t affect that.

In actuality the
Yorkist claim was through Lionel of Antwerp, Edward III’s second son, through
his only child Phillippa. Nothing to do w /Joan Beaufort, daughter of
John of Gaunt, Edward III’s third son. That the crux of the Yorkist
claim, descent from the second son rather than the Lancaster descent from the third son, as was
the scurrilous Tudor claim.

And to continue in my
pedantic corrections...earlier Carol mentioned Henry IV as an ancestor of Henry
Tudor. That isn’t correct either. He didn’t even have
that good a lineage or claim to the throne. I’m sure that was just
a slip in getting all tangled up in what has come to light lately.

Stephen, I’m
surprised, are you asleep on the job here? j/k You’ve very
good.

I appreciate all who
contribute here, just wanted to get corrections on the record. When I
started, before posting I read the entire history of the group so I think the
record needs to be clear. Yeah, I know, OCD or something.

That's very interesting, David. So, are you saying that Richard's Y-chromosome being identified as haplotype G is par for the course with ancient DNA and is, given the French example and the rarity of this haplotype in real life, more likely than not to be an incorrect conclusion based on the way the DNA has degraded or the methods used to fill in the gaps?

I know it was said by ULAS right at the start that getting a result with the Y chromosome DNA would be a lot harder than with the mitochondrial. I don't understand the science in the paper, but it sounds as though coming up with a DNA sequence was challenging, and that worrying word "amplification" appears a couple of times.

I know not everyone will agree, but I surely do hope they have kept back a sufficiently large sample to redo the test when the scientific methods have improved as this result has opened a veritable can of worms.

Marie

Marie said: "I assume you've moved beyond the question of the mismatch between RIII's Y chromosome and those of the 5 modern-day Beauforts because paternity of Henry's mother would not be relevant to this chain, nor would the paternity of Henry Tudor, nor would the paternity of Edward IV. Of all the possible breaks in the chain, however, that between York and RIII seems the least likely as the resemblance between the two was supposedly quite marked and there were absolutely no rumours that Cecily had been engaged in an affair at that time."

Billywubba responded:

"I've been trying to get a handle on all this, but now you have me thoroughly confused. :)

Hi Katia,

Welcome to the forum if you're new.

I'm afraid I'm having a job finding the post to which you were responding - could you possibly copy and paste into your next reply? It would be really helpful as I'm afraid I can't recall what statement of Amy Licence was being discussed.

When you say "considered full term after 37 weeks from the first day of a woman's last monthly cycle", my understanding is that is the cut-off point for maturity as opposed to prematurity, but that "full term" in terms of the expected date of delivery ("due date") is 40 weeks from same (i.e. 38 weeks actual gestation). Would I be right?

Marie