Richard III's remains....

21 to 40 of 85 messages
04/02/2013 at 12:42
Wilkie wrote (see)

There's a programme on the telly about it tonight 

 

Oh good I was wondering when that would be on.

 

04/02/2013 at 12:50

Channel 4, I think - at nine o'clock.

04/02/2013 at 12:56

Thanks Wilkie!

David - what did you think the Tudors were? Something that goes in sandwiches with sweetcorn?

04/02/2013 at 13:01

I'm quite surprised that they only recovered two skeletons from the excavation though (Probably-Richard-III and one they think was an abbess) you'd think as it was the grounds of an abbey there would be more remains knocking around.

04/02/2013 at 13:06
 
Wilkie wrote (see)

There's a programme on the telly about it tonight 

 

I'm really looking forward to the facial reconstruction - be interesting to see how close it is to the portrait.

 

Edited: 04/02/2013 at 13:06
04/02/2013 at 13:07
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

I always thought the plantagenets were a type of fruit that Carribean people used in their cooking.

No, you're thinking of those wooden things Flamenco dancers use 

04/02/2013 at 13:13
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)
Beth Roberts wrote (see)

LOL.....

Anyway, how can they prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it's him?  I'm presuming they didn't have DNA screening when old Dickie was alive................!?!?!?

If they could find a relative of his, they could do it .......


They were able to get a DNA sample from a direct living descendant of Richard's sister, Anne of York.

Can't wait to see the programme tonight, the facial reconstruction will be very interesting.

Edited: 04/02/2013 at 13:15
04/02/2013 at 13:22

"my hearse, my hearse, my kingdom for a hearse"

 

cougie    pirate
04/02/2013 at 13:45
04/02/2013 at 14:51

i love it when a plantaganet comes together..

04/02/2013 at 15:01

King Richard remains........

the dude abides.....

Any relation?

04/02/2013 at 17:27

Hmmmm I'm still sceptical, it's a long time ago to be trawling back through ancestry which may, or may not, be accurate.

I shall however watch the programme with interest.

04/02/2013 at 19:13

Breaking: Ed Miliband calls for an independent, judge-led inquiry to determine how many more Monarchs lie underneath car parks.

04/02/2013 at 20:00
Beth Roberts wrote (see)

Hmmmm I'm still sceptical, it's a long time ago to be trawling back through ancestry which may, or may not, be accurate.

I shall however watch the programme with interest.

Leicester University is where DNA testing was developed. If you can trust anyone's results to be accurate it's theirs. And given that the chances are probably billions to one that all 3 important sources of DNA match who else could it possibly be?

There are plenty of things to be sceptical about -  but I don't think this is one of them, especially given all the other corroborative evidence.

Edited: 04/02/2013 at 20:02
04/02/2013 at 20:04

like most archaeological and historical finds, they are mainly guessing...but it makes for a fun story

Blisters    pirate
04/02/2013 at 23:02

Call me a sceptic, but if they gave the fascial rebuilder a a picture of Gerard Depardieu and said that skeleton was a relative the outcome would look like the King Frog.

....and in breaking news, they have discovered from a microscopic trace of DNA that the skeleton is related to a biological technician in Leicester.....

05/02/2013 at 08:05

Great programme. The face recreation was a pile of pony but rest was very interesting. My favourite bit was when the mad lady wanted to cover the box of bones with the King's standard and the clever scientist lady said she didn't want to do it, quality look on her face when she said it.

05/02/2013 at 08:34
the dude abides wrote (see)

like most archaeological and historical finds, they are mainly guessing...but it makes for a fun story

 

Um..no they aren't Dude, modern archaeology relies on scientific evidence. And the bottom line is that experts are experts for a reason. If a significant number of them agree on something then they are probably right. If a single piece of evidence had countered what they found it would have been game over. They would lose their entire academic credibility if they made a claim for something they knew to be untrue.  

Maxpower North West wrote (see)

Great programme. The face recreation was a pile of pony but rest was very interesting. My favourite bit was when the mad lady wanted to cover the box of bones with the King's standard and the clever scientist lady said she didn't want to do it, quality look on her face when she said it.

 

I actually thought it was a bit dumbed-down with not enough time devoted to the science and the historical context and I didn't like the presenter one bit but Philippa Langley was the highlight for me - amazingly dedicated but totally potty, bless her.

I quite agree with the you about the bit with the standard, but the best bit for me was when she got all teary in the lab. The osteologists were looking at her like she'd gone completely bonkers! 

I'm not sure the reconstruction can be dismissed entirely. The woman who does them is the absolute expert at it and has remodelled unknown murder victims that have later been identified. Given that she had near contemporary portraits to work with, she actually had more information than she usually does so I'd say it was reasonably accurate.

 

05/02/2013 at 08:56

Given the potential for this programme, I thought it was rubbish. Having been an Archaeologist many moons ago, I still love the scientific evidence building into a hypothesis. The emotions of those involved should not really form part of the picture, other than a bit of excitement.

05/02/2013 at 09:22

ok screama. I'm just going by what wor lass says. and she's an archeologist. i'll tell her.

21 to 40 of 85 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums