Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Richard III's DNA reveals infidelity surprise


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

Analysis of DNA from Richard III has thrown up a surprise: evidence of infidelity in his family tree.

Scientists who studied genetic material from remains found in a Leicester car park say the finding might have profound historical implications.

Depending on where in the family tree it occurred, it could cast doubt on the Tudor claim to the English throne or, indeed, on Richard's.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-30281333

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the article the break in the DNA chain could have occurred at any time AFTER his reign, therefore it is later generations that were as likely to have indulged in infidelity at some point.

Oh well, they are only human after all, at least we know for sure that it was Richard III they found.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm confused. I tried to read the article closely. The infidelity, is it linked up to Richard the third or after him, or is it him? I am still trying to understand what is with the linking of him and Henry the seventh and the fact they both decend from Henry the third. ( by the way, it seems a lot of people today are decended from Henry the third from my observation and reading, but that's something else). So, is it implied of infidelity of Henry the third's line, I always thought of that. I have always been reading how John of gaunt, (atleast Henry the seventh's ancestor) was illegitimate. And questionable about inheriting the throne. That is why I always thought that Henry Tudor married Elizabeth of York, Edward the fourth's daughter, as to make more of a claiment to the throne.

If we are talking about infidelity after Richard the third, well, to me, that would be a duh! The only ligitimate heir to Richard the third's throne, was a very young, not yeet an adult son who predeceased him. I always felt he was cheating to his wife, and I thought there were other children through other women by Richard, but all of them weren't ligitimate to inherit the throne. I would think this would also be thought of for during Richard the third's time.

Ok, so I'm confused what they meant of the DNA and the infidelity.

Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and so the plot thickens !! always find info on Richard 111 fascinating so thanks for sharing :) enjoyed reading !!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh now I get it. I have read here and there, that there was a possiblity that Edward the fourth was not the son of the previous Duke of York, and that the line down from there is probably not the true heirs. But, if this is the case from the link, then both Edward the fourth, (along with Richard the third) Edward's daughter, Elizabeth of York, and Henry the seventh, are all decendents of someone else. This blows the mind!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so I'm confused what they meant of the DNA and the infidelity.

Basically, the paternal line (father) of Richard III and his descendants is different to the paternal line (father) of Henry Tudor and his descendants, and so Richard III's ancestry is different to the 'expected' ancestry of the English royal line.

This could mean either Richard III or Henry Tudor (and so, their respective descendants) were illegitimate, but which was won't be known unless DNA evidence of paternity can be established from one of their royal, male, ancestors.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I'm glad America never had a Royal Family (Post-Revolutionary War America). No confusion about who inherits the throne. Just an increasingly unqualified list of presidents, that we placed into office.

Edited by Karasu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm confused. I tried to read the article closely. The infidelity, is it linked up to Richard the third or after him, or is it him? I am still trying to understand what is with the linking of him and Henry the seventh and the fact they both decend from Henry the third. ( by the way, it seems a lot of people today are decended from Henry the third from my observation and reading, but that's something else). So, is it implied of infidelity of Henry the third's line, I always thought of that. I have always been reading how John of gaunt, (atleast Henry the seventh's ancestor) was illegitimate. And questionable about inheriting the throne. That is why I always thought that Henry Tudor married Elizabeth of York, Edward the fourth's daughter, as to make more of a claiment to the throne.

If we are talking about infidelity after Richard the third, well, to me, that would be a duh! The only ligitimate heir to Richard the third's throne, was a very young, not yeet an adult son who predeceased him. I always felt he was cheating to his wife, and I thought there were other children through other women by Richard, but all of them weren't ligitimate to inherit the throne. I would think this would also be thought of for during Richard the third's time.

Ok, so I'm confused what they meant of the DNA and the infidelity.

The article is confusing.First most people claim to be descended from Edwardthe Third,not Henry the Third.No.Two.

King Henry the Seventh was the son of Lady Margaret Beaufort. It was through her he got a claim to the english throne. She was descended from John of Gaunts's third marriage to his mistress Katherine Swynford. Their childern were given the surname of Beaufort.Her sister Phillipa was married to Geoffrey Chaucer the famous author of Canterbury Tales who had served the royal household.

Alison Weir has written a biography about Katherine and her relationship with John of Gaunt,who was her lover and later second husband after her first one,Sir Hugh Swynford died. I seem to recall Richard the Second barred the Beauforts his uncle's children from claiming the throne at any point in time as the first few were born BEFORE John of Gaunt married Katherine Swynford.

Also Henry the Seventh's grand mother was Catherine of Valois.She was the mother of Henry the Sixth,king of England. She married Owen Tudor after her husband died. At least everyone assumes they were married,as Alison Weir mentions no one seems to have found any marriage license for the two. They had several children,Jasper Tudor and Edmund Tudor who were the half brothers to the king. Edmund married Margaret Beaufort when she was twelve years old. And he didn't waste anytime getting her pregnant. After his death she married another lord,and later Lord Stanley . She never had any other children besides Henry VII.

This is one factor. Another is there were rumors fueled by Richard the Third that his mother Cecily of York had an affair and that his brother King Edward the Fourth wasn't legitamate You can Google that whole deal.This was a move used by Richard so he could usurp the throne from his two nephews,the princes in The Tower.

many people believe he had them murdered,though apologists for Richard say that Henry VII' or his mother Lady Margaret coul;d have had them killed while Henry was living in exile in Britanny before his return to England. There were several imposters of the Princes of the Tower. One was Lambert Simnel who wound up working in Henry VII's kitchen and later managed to become a royal falconer.The other major imposter was Perkin Warbeck who was even wined and dined by King james of Scotland.

John of Gaunt was the son of king Edward the Third and Phillipa of Hanault. Who Phillipa was supposed to be be messing with don't know.Never heard of her having any affairs,unless Chaucer or someone else did the deed.To me this whole business would have to go BACK BEFORE RICHARD THE THIRD TO JOHN OF GAUNT,or CECILEY OF YORK, Richard's mother.

No other place I can picture it.

If you follow this line of reasoning then the Queen doesn't have a true claim to the throne of England.. Of Scotland yes,through her ancestor James the Fourth,who married Henry VII's sister Margaret..That would be a legitimate claim. But if either John of Gaunt or Edward the Fourth was born of an affair, then the Queen has an ilegitamate claim.

Very confusing to follow but it can be done .

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is time for Britain to be called Scottland, huh? Just thinking it all thru, with an admittedly wide-spread lack of education of English history. It is way too complex for a non-brit to memorize or even understand.

Don't know when the lady or queen fooled her spouse. But if I was married to Henry VIII, I would have done whatever I could to save my head. No blame on her there. What a Richard (use the nickname) Henry was! Was probably impotent.

I have been talking about this around town for days. No one realized the deeper implications to the Richard III analysis. We still speculate just who the real king or queen might be. I am sure the lineage has been tracted and recorded. We have speculated just how the Queen should step down and become a food service worker or house-cleaner. We speculate that maybe Diana was from the better line and that William would still be King, but not Chuck. Oh it has been so fun to speculate on this. I don't revere the Queen.

Also I think this is a good reason to go the way of the Navajo, that linage should always be matralinal. Makes me laugh and say, "this is just what you should get for showing such great lack of repect for the woman, for the unnecessary and massively cruel subjugation of women. " You always, or almost always, know who the mother is. THis huge, ancient and skewed trend of paternally social EVERYTHINGs makes me gag, including the pope and the priesthood. It is a overtly male ego thing passed down the vast generations, all of them subjugating the better sex, the women to chattle and horrible lots in life, to even murder and mass extermination, ... for SOOOOOOO long. Obviously my resentment for the paternal ego moves even back to ancient Rome, and all those little Roman boys that the aristrocrats had to warm their beds.

This whole think just makes me laugh. The millenneas of paternalism are due to be laughed at and scorned.

Oh the uglies in me. All resentments well justified.

Edited by regeneratia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the article the break in the DNA chain could have occurred at any time AFTER his reign, therefore it is later generations that were as likely to have indulged in infidelity at some point.

Oh well, they are only human after all, at least we know for sure that it was Richard III they found.

What if it happened more than once? What if even Richard's linage is skewed?

Edited by regeneratia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I'm glad America never had a Royal Family (Post-Revolutionary War America). No confusion about who inherits the throne. Just an increasingly unqualified list of presidents, that we placed into office.

What are you talking about? We have the blasted, blame-worthy Bushes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? We have the blasted, blame-worthy Bushes.

Not a monarchy. They were "democratically elected".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if it happened more than once? What if even Richard's linage is skewed?

It's all possible - they just don't know, there is a significant break in the chain between him and Henry Tudor, that is what they do know.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is confusing.First most people claim to be descended from Edwardthe Third,not Henry the Third.No.Two.

King Henry the Seventh was the son of Lady Margaret Beaufort. It was through her he got a claim to the english throne. She was descended from John of Gaunts's third marriage to his mistress Katherine Swynford. Their childern were given the surname of Beaufort.Her sister Phillipa was married to Geoffrey Chaucer the famous author of Canterbury Tales who had served the royal household.

Alison Weir has written a biography about Katherine and her relationship with John of Gaunt,who was her lover and later second husband after her first one,Sir Hugh Swynford died. I seem to recall Richard the Second barred the Beauforts his uncle's children from claiming the throne at any point in time as the first few were born BEFORE John of Gaunt married Katherine Swynford.

Also Henry the Seventh's grand mother was Catherine of Valois.She was the mother of Henry the Sixth,king of England. She married Owen Tudor after her husband died. At least everyone assumes they were married,as Alison Weir mentions no one seems to have found any marriage license for the two. They had several children,Jasper Tudor and Edmund Tudor who were the half brothers to the king. Edmund married Margaret Beaufort when she was twelve years old. And he didn't waste anytime getting her pregnant. After his death she married another lord,and later Lord Stanley . She never had any other children besides Henry VII.

This is one factor. Another is there were rumors fueled by Richard the Third that his mother Cecily of York had an affair and that his brother King Edward the Fourth wasn't legitamate You can Google that whole deal.This was a move used by Richard so he could usurp the throne from his two nephews,the princes in The Tower.

many people believe he had them murdered,though apologists for Richard say that Henry VII' or his mother Lady Margaret coul;d have had them killed while Henry was living in exile in Britanny before his return to England. There were several imposters of the Princes of the Tower. One was Lambert Simnel who wound up working in Henry VII's kitchen and later managed to become a royal falconer.The other major imposter was Perkin Warbeck who was even wined and dined by King james of Scotland.

John of Gaunt was the son of king Edward the Third and Phillipa of Hanault. Who Phillipa was supposed to be be messing with don't know.Never heard of her having any affairs,unless Chaucer or someone else did the deed.To me this whole business would have to go BACK BEFORE RICHARD THE THIRD TO JOHN OF GAUNT,or CECILEY OF YORK, Richard's mother.

No other place I can picture it.

If you follow this line of reasoning then the Queen doesn't have a true claim to the throne of England.. Of Scotland yes,through her ancestor James the Fourth,who married Henry VII's sister Margaret..That would be a legitimate claim. But if either John of Gaunt or Edward the Fourth was born of an affair, then the Queen has an ilegitamate claim.

Very confusing to follow but it can be done .

Well done. I am more educated now. Thank you.

Not a monarchy. They were "democratically elected".

Just one of them was. Back to the brits.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done. I am more educated now. Thank you.

Just one of them was. Back to the brits.

Hence, the quotation marks for maximum snarkiness.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is confusing.First most people claim to be descended from Edwardthe Third,not Henry the Third.No.Two.

King Henry the Seventh was the son of Lady Margaret Beaufort. It was through her he got a claim to the english throne. She was descended from John of Gaunts's third marriage to his mistress Katherine Swynford. Their childern were given the surname of Beaufort.Her sister Phillipa was married to Geoffrey Chaucer the famous author of Canterbury Tales who had served the royal household.

Alison Weir has written a biography about Katherine and her relationship with John of Gaunt,who was her lover and later second husband after her first one,Sir Hugh Swynford died. I seem to recall Richard the Second barred the Beauforts his uncle's children from claiming the throne at any point in time as the first few were born BEFORE John of Gaunt married Katherine Swynford.

Also Henry the Seventh's grand mother was Catherine of Valois.She was the mother of Henry the Sixth,king of England. She married Owen Tudor after her husband died. At least everyone assumes they were married,as Alison Weir mentions no one seems to have found any marriage license for the two. They had several children,Jasper Tudor and Edmund Tudor who were the half brothers to the king. Edmund married Margaret Beaufort when she was twelve years old. And he didn't waste anytime getting her pregnant. After his death she married another lord,and later Lord Stanley . She never had any other children besides Henry VII.

This is one factor. Another is there were rumors fueled by Richard the Third that his mother Cecily of York had an affair and that his brother King Edward the Fourth wasn't legitamate You can Google that whole deal.This was a move used by Richard so he could usurp the throne from his two nephews,the princes in The Tower.

many people believe he had them murdered,though apologists for Richard say that Henry VII' or his mother Lady Margaret coul;d have had them killed while Henry was living in exile in Britanny before his return to England. There were several imposters of the Princes of the Tower. One was Lambert Simnel who wound up working in Henry VII's kitchen and later managed to become a royal falconer.The other major imposter was Perkin Warbeck who was even wined and dined by King james of Scotland.

John of Gaunt was the son of king Edward the Third and Phillipa of Hanault. Who Phillipa was supposed to be be messing with don't know.Never heard of her having any affairs,unless Chaucer or someone else did the deed.To me this whole business would have to go BACK BEFORE RICHARD THE THIRD TO JOHN OF GAUNT,or CECILEY OF YORK, Richard's mother.

No other place I can picture it.

If you follow this line of reasoning then the Queen doesn't have a true claim to the throne of England.. Of Scotland yes,through her ancestor James the Fourth,who married Henry VII's sister Margaret..That would be a legitimate claim. But if either John of Gaunt or Edward the Fourth was born of an affair, then the Queen has an ilegitamate claim.

Very confusing to follow but it can be done .

Well put. I doubt that anything would be done, even if we could prove there was a split.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put. I doubt that anything would be done, even if we could prove there was a split.

I honestly believe it could be done, and with expedience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't Rich3 be blonde in the lead photo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly believe it could be done, and with expedience.

True. What I meant was; if it was proven the current Queen is not the true claimant, I doubt they'd kick her off the throne.

Edited by Karasu
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, the paternal line (father) of Richard III and his descendants is different to the paternal line (father) of Henry Tudor and his descendants, and so Richard III's ancestry is different to the 'expected' ancestry of the English royal line.

This could mean either Richard III or Henry Tudor (and so, their respective descendants) were illegitimate, but which was won't be known unless DNA evidence of paternity can be established from one of their royal, male, ancestors.

You know, I never thought of linking Henry Tudor through his father's line. I thought he was related to John of Gaunt through his mother.

The article is confusing.First most people claim to be descended from Edwardthe Third,not Henry the Third.

You know your first senstence right there brought a moment of light bulb turning on 'ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh' :D
No.Two.

King Henry the Seventh was the son of Lady Margaret Beaufort. It was through her he got a claim to the english throne. She was descended from John of Gaunts's third marriage to his mistress Katherine Swynford. Their childern were given the surname of Beaufort.Her sister Phillipa was married to Geoffrey Chaucer the famous author of Canterbury Tales who had served the royal household.

Yup, like I said, through the mother, Margaret Beaufort.
Alison Weir has written a biography
I love her, but I have only read her historical fictions though. I need to read her biographies.
about Katherine and her relationship with John of Gaunt,who was her lover and later second husband after her first one,Sir Hugh Swynford died. I seem to recall Richard the Second barred the Beauforts his uncle's children from claiming the throne at any point in time as the first few were born BEFORE John of Gaunt married Katherine Swynford.

Also Henry the Seventh's grand mother was Catherine of Valois.She was the mother of Henry the Sixth,king of England. She married Owen Tudor after her husband died. At least everyone assumes they were married,as Alison Weir mentions no one seems to have found any marriage license for the two. They had several children,Jasper Tudor and Edmund Tudor who were the half brothers to the king. Edmund married Margaret Beaufort when she was twelve years old. And he didn't waste anytime getting her pregnant. After his death she married another lord,and later Lord Stanley . She never had any other children besides Henry VII.

This is one factor. Another is there were rumors fueled by Richard the Third that his mother Cecily of York had an affair and that his brother King Edward the Fourth wasn't legitamate You can Google that whole deal.This was a move used by Richard so he could usurp the throne from his two nephews,the princes in The Tower.

Yup! Pretty much what I know and researched and read about that. It was lovely reading it all again from someone else. :)

many people believe he had them murdered,though apologists for Richard say that Henry VII' or his mother Lady Margaret coul;d have had them killed while Henry was living in exile in Britanny before his return to England. There were several imposters of the Princes of the Tower. One was Lambert Simnel who wound up working in Henry VII's kitchen and later managed to become a royal falconer.The other major imposter was Perkin Warbeck who was even wined and dined by King james of Scotland.

Yup! :tu:
John of Gaunt was the son of king Edward the Third and Phillipa of Hanault. Who Phillipa was supposed to be be messing with don't know.Never heard of her having any affairs,unless Chaucer or someone else did the deed.To me this whole business would have to go BACK BEFORE RICHARD THE THIRD TO JOHN OF GAUNT,or CECILEY OF YORK, Richard's mother.

No other place I can picture it.

If you follow this line of reasoning then the Queen doesn't have a true claim to the throne of England.. Of Scotland yes,through her ancestor James the Fourth,who married Henry VII's sister Margaret..That would be a legitimate claim. But if either John of Gaunt or Edward the Fourth was born of an affair, then the Queen has an ilegitamate claim.

Very confusing to follow but it can be done .

Yes indeed. I have gone over the family tree in various ways, from Edward the fourth to Elizabeth the second. It is a headache. To think, going back through the Plantagenets tree, OMG, I'll need a bottle of ibuprophen nearby.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't Rich3 be blonde in the lead photo?

I read somewhere in one of the articles dealing with the DNA, that it could signify adolescent blond genetics, with him and his hair darkening from toddlerhood into his teenage years.

True. What I meant was; if it was proven the current Queen is not the true claimant, I doubt they'd kick her off the throne.

I believe that to be true. Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I'm glad America never had a Royal Family (Post-Revolutionary War America). No confusion about who inherits the throne. Just an increasingly unqualified list of presidents, that we placed into office.

To be fair, while there was, on occasion, confusion about who had a claim to the throne, the confusion was never caused by questions about paternity; as long as the king acknowledged his paternity, then he was considered the father, regardless of the possibility that some other bloke may have been responsible.

No, when confusion arose regarding succession, it was due to competing claims from cousins. The problem which resulted in the 15th century Wars of the Roses was based on uncertainty over who had a better claim to the throne after the "abdication" of King Richard II in 1399. The Yorkist claim was based on the most senior descent from King Edward III, but this included a female link. The Lancastrian claim was based on the most senior all-male descent from King Edward III. The laws of succession at the time were still unclear on the validity of claims which involved women.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.