Tuesday, 2 December 2014

Isn't this what we'd expect?

From the Telegraph

When the body of Richard III was discovered in a car park in Leicester in 2012 archaeologists knew it was a momentous find.

But little did they realise that it might expose the skeletons in the cupboard of the British aristocracy, and even call into question the bloodline of the Royal family.

In order to prove that the skeleton really was Richard III, scientists needed to take a DNA sample and match it to his descendants.

Genetic testing through his maternal DNA proved conclusively that the body was the King. However, when they checked the male line they discovered something odd. The DNA did not match showing that at some point in history an adulterous affair had broken the paternal chain.

Queen that had a bloke on the side, gay/impotent king who got his wife to shag another bloke to get an heir. In 700 years, I'd expect it to happen a few times.


Mark Wadsworth said...

It's not surprising, but the premise of the article is a load of burbling fawning crap about "royal bloodline" and "right to the throne".

There is no such things as "royal blood" and no-one has the "right to the throne".

Even if there were such a thing as "royal blood", that still doesn't explain where, when and why it started. Or has it been around since the dawn of creation?

Iceland, USA and Switzerland have always managed just without these twats, and I'm told that applies to many other foreign countries as well.

The Stigler said...

The right to the throne was based on who could win a war. If you could put together an army and usurp the king, you could become the king.

Of course, once kings got into power they then did things like get their churches to create a load of propaganda about being god's chosen people.

Mark Wadsworth said...

TS, up until 1066, that was how it worked.

The "king" was chosen by a select few who could either go along with the majority decision or try and put together their own army etc. Not exactly democratic but better than this "divine right" nonsense.

Ben Jamin' said...


Like the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons etc?


Mark Wadsworth said...

BJ, broadly speaking, yes.

Or ilke the Kurfürsten in Germany, the dozen or so most powerful landowners, who would get together to elect a new king/emperor when the old one died. Nine times out of ten, they elected the Prussian Kurfürst, but there you go, he was the best at oppressing the peasants and had the biggest army.

fraggle said...

Premise: To prove that these bones are Richard III, we need to compare DNA with his living descendants.

Result: DNA is not comparable

Conclusion: Living people tested are not descendants of Richard III.

Am I the only one who sees the basic problem with this chain of reasoning?

fraggle said...

Ahhh...scrap that - reading comprehension fail on my part...

fraggle said...

"Genetic testing through his maternal DNA proved conclusively that the body was the King."

On a less serious note, I'm disappointed that this wasn't posted as an Elvis parody!

The Stigler said...


The monarchists are all shook up. Someone on the throne is the devil in disguise because one of their ancestors was a hound dog.

fraggle said...


Much better. Many thanks, I was caught in a trap.

Bayard said...

"TS, up until 1066, that was how it worked."

and a long time after: Henry VII's claim to the throne was pretty tenuous, but when he'd knocked off Richard III and disposed of his close relatives, there wasn't much anyone could do about it. Cromwell had no claim to the throne at all, but he had the better army.

Robin Smith said...

Has this been checked with the Vatican?

They have blood lines all the way through Constantine.