Anyone subscribe to The Times on line?

Dear Sandra & all Forum members,

Jan here.

This is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the Times in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I didn't keep because I had read his arguments somewhere before.

Richard's skeleton

Sir, Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on our research findings, suggests that the skeleton found in Leicester is not that of Richard III. He states that there are lots of candidates yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the boxes [buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle injuries, aged mid-30s, same mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.] He overlooks the fact that the publication represents a detailed analysis of Richard's maternal-line relatives across seven generations in order to account for others sharing the same mtDNA type through known relation  and that this mtDNA type is exceedingly rare and therefore highly unlikely to have shown a match by chance.

Hicks also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of Richard and sought only supporting evidence. A cursory reading of the paper and an examination of our statistical analyses makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true. We considered all relevant lines of evidence and made every effort to weight the analysis against the remains being those of Richard III, yet still produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994 per cent in favour. Lastly, Hicks refers to wild accusations of bastardy. Nowhewere do we make any such accusations.

T.King, University of Leicester

MG Thomas, UCL

K Schürer, University of Leicester

There is a letter in today's edition of the above newspaper that concerns what Hicks says about the remains in Leicester NOT being those of Richard. We know he says this, of course, but I don't subscribe to the paper and so cannot read the letter. Can't anyone on here? It's at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14 Sandra =^..^=

Dear Sandra & all Forum members,

Jan here.

This is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the Times in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I didn't keep because I had read his arguments somewhere before.

Richard's skeleton

Sir, Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on our research findings, suggests that the skeleton found in Leicester is not that of Richard III. He states that there are lots of candidates yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the boxes [buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle injuries, aged mid-30s, same mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.] He overlooks the fact that the publication represents a detailed analysis of Richard's maternal-line relatives across seven generations in order to account for others sharing the same mtDNA type through known relation  and that this mtDNA type is exceedingly rare and therefore highly unlikely to have shown a match by chance.

Hicks also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of Richard and sought only supporting evidence. A cursory reading of the paper and an examination of our statistical analyses makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true. We considered all relevant lines of evidence and made every effort to weight the analysis against the remains being those of Richard III, yet still produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994 per cent in favour. Lastly, Hicks refers to wild accusations of bastardy. Nowhewere do we make any such accusations.

T.King, University of Leicester

MG Thomas, UCL

K Schürer, University of Leicester

There is a letter in today's edition of the above newspaper that concerns what Hicks says about the remains in Leicester NOT being those of Richard. We know he says this, of course, but I don't subscribe to the paper and so cannot read the letter. Can't anyone on here? It's at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14 Sandra =^..^=

Dear Sandra & all Forum members,

Jan here.

This is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the Times in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I didn't keep because I had read his arguments somewhere before. 

Richard's skeleton

Sir, Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on our research findings, suggests that the skeleton found in Leicester is not that of Richard III.  He states that there are lots of candidates yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the boxes [buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle injuries, aged mid-30s, same mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.]  He overlooks the fact that the publication represents a detailed analysis of Richard's maternal-line relatives across seven generations in order to account for others sharing the same mtDNA type through known relation  and that this mtDNA type is exceedingly rare and therefore highly unlikely to have shown a match by chance.

Hicks also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of Richard and sought only supporting evidence.  A cursory reading of the paper and an examination of our statistical analyses makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true.  We considered all relevant lines of evidence and made every effort to weight the analysis against the remains being those of Richard III, yet still produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994 per cent in favour.  Lastly, Hicks refers to wild accusations of bastardy.  Nowhewere do we make any such accusations.

T.King, University of Leicester

MG Thomas, UCL

K Schürer, University of Leicester

He's in love with George of Clarence, and has always believed Shakespeare.....poor thing! :-)
The more he comes out with such nonsense, the fewer will listen to anything he says.
Paul

Dear Sandra & all Forum members,

Jan here.

This is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the Times in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I didn't keep because I had read his arguments somewhere before.

Richard's skeleton

Sir, Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on our research findings, suggests that the skeleton found in Leicester is not that of Richard III. He states that there are lots of candidates yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the boxes [buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle injuries, aged mid-30s, same mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.] He overlooks the fact that the publication represents a detailed analysis of Richard's maternal-line relatives across seven generations in order to account for others sharing the same mtDNA type through known relation  and that this mtDNA type is exceedingly rare and therefore highly unlikely to have shown a match by chance.

Hicks also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of Richard and sought only supporting evidence. A cursory reading of the paper and an examination of our statistical analyses makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true. We considered all relevant lines of evidence and made every effort to weight the analysis against the remains being those of Richard III, yet still produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994 per cent in favour. Lastly, Hicks refers to wild accusations of bastardy. Nowhewere do we make any such accusations.

T.King, University of Leicester

MG Thomas, UCL

K Schürer, University of Leicester

I can't help but think that Professor Hick's is making himself look ridiculous. Why would anyone read his books, or believe anything he says?
He is bringing discredit upon himself.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Dear Sandra & all Forum members,

Jan here.

This is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the Times in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I didn't keep because I had read his arguments somewhere before. 

Richard's skeleton

Sir, Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on our research findings, suggests that the skeleton found in Leicester is not that of Richard III.  He states that there are lots of candidates yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the boxes [buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle injuries, aged mid-30s, same mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.]  He overlooks the fact that the publication represents a detailed analysis of Richard's maternal-line relatives across seven generations in order to account for others sharing the same mtDNA type through known relation  and that this mtDNA type is exceedingly rare and therefore highly unlikely to have shown a match by chance.

Hicks also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of Richard and sought only supporting evidence.  A cursory reading of the paper and an examination of our statistical analyses makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true.  We considered all relevant lines of evidence and made every effort to weight the analysis against the remains being those of Richard III, yet still produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994 per cent in favour.  Lastly, Hicks refers to wild accusations of bastardy.  Nowhewere do we make any such accusations.

T.King, University of Leicester

MG Thomas, UCL

K Schürer, University of Leicester

There is a letter in today's edition of the above newspaper that concerns what Hicks says about the remains in Leicester NOT being those of Richard. We know he says this, of course, but I don't subscribe to the paper and so cannot read the letter. Can't anyone on here? It's at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4297137.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_14     Sandra =^..^=

Jess wrote "I can't help but think that Professor Hick's is making himself look ridiculous. Why would anyone read his books, or believe anything he says?
He is bringing discredit upon himself."

Good, saves us all the hard job and leaves us the funny part, watch him drown in his nonsense. Mac

I can't help but think that Professor Hick's is making himself look ridiculous. Why would anyone read his books, or believe anything he says?
He is bringing discredit upon himself.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Dear Sandra & all Forum members,

Jan here.

This is what appeared in today's newsprint edition of the Times in response to Professor Hicks's letter, which I didn't keep because I had read his arguments somewhere before. 

Richard's skeleton

Sir, Professor Hicks, in his letter [Dec 5] commenting on our research findings, suggests that the skeleton found in Leicester is not that of Richard III.  He states that there are lots of candidates yet seems unable to specify one who ticks all the boxes [buried in the choir of Greyfriars, battle injuries, aged mid-30s, same mitochondrial DNA {mtDNA}, scoliosis, etc.]  He overlooks the fact that the publication represents a detailed analysis of Richard's maternal-line relatives across seven generations in order to account for others sharing the same mtDNA type through known relation  and that this mtDNA type is exceedingly rare and therefore highly unlikely to have shown a match by chance.

Hicks also claims that we presumed the bones to be those of Richard and sought only supporting evidence.  A cursory reading of the paper and an examination of our statistical analyses makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true.  We considered all relevant lines of evidence and made every effort to weight the analysis against the remains being those of Richard III, yet still produce a highly conservative probability of 99.9994 per cent in favour.  Lastly, Hicks refers to wild accusations of bastardy.  Nowhewere do we make any such accusations.

T.King, University of Leicester

MG Thomas, UCL

K Schürer, University of Leicester

I agree about Henry VII being haunted. But I also think Edward IV felt guilty about Clarence's death, at least Crowland says he did. I sometimes wonder whether the reason he avoided hosting the annual Garter bash at Windsor after that was because he couldn't bear either to have someone else sit in Clarence's stall or see it emptily reproaching him. He kept trying to give Clarence's place away to foreign heads of state but without much success. (Cursed chair, anyone? Only one recent careful owner.)

I can't see Richard just doing away with Edward's sons and hiding the bodies: not his style. Whatever happened, it was far more complicated than that.

Marie

Hilary wrote :