Skip to comments.Contemporary “War Of The Roses” Among Academics Over Claimed Richard III Remains Discovery
Posted on 04/01/2014 3:40:34 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Professor Michael Hicks, an expert on Richard III and professor of history at Winchester University, is cited saying he is not convinced that the car park remains are those of the Yorkist monarch, arguing that they could just as well belong to one of many other victims of the Wars of the Roses, and that evidence from DNA testing and radiocarbon dating cited to bolster the claims that Richard had been found places the bones at somewhere between 1450 and 1540, and thus is not specific enough to pin down an exact date. Therefore it cant be relied upon to prove the case. He observes that the remains could belong to one of dozens of descendants of Richards maternal grandmother Cecily Neville, Duchess of York 14151495) wife of Richard Plantagenet, the 3rd Duke of York, and the mother of two kings of England had 16 children, many descendants of whom wouldve been involved in the 15th-Century fighting and perished on the battlefield.
(Excerpt) Read more at bionews-tx.com ...
Jimmy Hoffa, maybe?
I think may be a case of a publicity hound barking out his ass.
I’m no expert, but what are the chances that it is not Dicky the Third? Based on statistical evidence, pretty slim I’d say. I saw the program where they recovered the bones. I mean, the skeleton found where he was reputed to be buried, the reconstruction, the DNA. What are the chances it could be somebody else?
He observes that the remains could belong to one of dozens of descendants of Richards maternal grandmother Cecily Neville, Duchess of York 14151495) wife of Richard Plantagenet, the 3rd Duke of York, and the mother of two kings of England had 16 children, many descendants of whom wouldve been involved in the 15th-Century fighting and perished on the battlefield.
Try diagramming that sentence! Dang! How many online writers bother to proofread these days, I wonder.
A lot of information crammed into one sentence. When I want to be that, uh, wordy, I usually rely on parentheticals to ensure obscurity. :’) Unless this guy can come up with a list of those very suspects who died at the battle, he needs to retire from being an expert on Richard III. What a blowhard.
Warzynsky notes that Leicester University maintains that its identification of the skeleton as Richard IIIs is based on at least six separate lines of evidence, including a contemporary reports of the location of Richards grave and the nature of the skeleton.
Six lines of evidence sounds pretty convincing, but I guess it is wise for the experts to want to see all of the papers first. But this dissenter is not too convincing, IMO.
It approaches zero, not least because the backbone showed signs of scoliosis, and while R3 wasn’t a hunchback, in life he had a back problem of some kind and walked in a kind of sidle, probably similarly to John Wayne.
I agree. If he has knowledge that the whereabouts of these other family members is unknown, it would still behoove him to go look for them; the number of burials at the site of the battle isn’t all that large afaik, and if there are literally sixteen, and all were to be dug up, and tested, and they all showed the same mtDNA, well, then there could be a problem.
Agreed. There is no conclusive evidence but there it would be a stunning number of coincidences if it were not the king.