Ouch.

That was a classy, professional response to a specious criticism. Thank you, Mr. Boyle!

How about adding a modifier like 'may" so this is not seen as a definitive statement. Ex:"This skeleton may represent the mortal remains of Richard III."

That was actually very educational Alan, thank you!

@ellen56 Why use the word "may"? It IS Richard. The bones are all that is left of him. There is no "may" about it! Alan's writing was just fine.

The use of the word 'represent' is perfectly legitimate. It may not sound correct to some people but if you look up the definition it fits well.

Writing articles is not only about putting words on a page to get the facts out there. Writing is art and in an article like this the feel of the words/ sentences are almost as important as the story itself. They set a mood...

@ Alice Keppel: This statement, "The DNA evidence points to these being the remains of Richard III," said Turi King, a geneticist at the University of Leicester. She said additional DNA tests were still in progress.", does not sound definite to me. So using 'May' would imply the finding is not definite. The other thing was that the article mentioned was "physical characteristics", but did not expound.. Clearly looking at the skeletal remains suggests this person may have had scoliosis. That would have caused this person to have a noticeable curvature in his erectness. If there are writings about him ,surely this would have been an observation noted, one would think.

@Rose Colored Glasses per Merriam Webster the first definition of represent is "to bring clearly before the mind : present <a book which represents the character of early America.

First I love all these Arm Chair Scientist. They probably just barely have a Grade School Certificate. Pick any sociaty that has a king or other name for a ruler and there in many cases are corruption in aquiring the crown. France, The Roman Empire, or anyother country has it's stories of deceit.

For all you Trolls saying this and that can't be done, Poppycock. Your not English your American, so why are you sticking your nose into another countries discovery or issue. There are a good many cases including cases futher back, and up tp some of today where remains are buried secretly to prevent desicrasion. You Trolls will probably say that that is a lie, well if it is where is Michael Jacksons Remains? There not in his grave.

@ 6Dogs, no need for name calling. Why get upset? Does it matter if we're American or English? History is for everyone and as I see it, history is going to be rewritten for a lot of countries including our own, secrets revealed, as the truths reveal themselves.

6dogs, Wow, You sound defencive! Why are you worried about the opinions of the "colonies"? A little insecure of your own history? Oh, by the way, before you criticize us, while trying to come off as one of your Oxford scholars, try using spell check. You sound like an uneducated lout!

@Ellen So your argument is that because its the first definition you should disregard the others? I dont understand your point.

Also, do you know much about King Richard III? Have you read up on him and how he was described? I haven't but what I gathered from what was written in the article ("The skeleton's relatively delicate structure was consistent with descriptions of Richard III's physical appearance, University of Leicester historian Lin Foxhall said. ") it suggests that there was actually descriptions written about how he looked. And considering he reigned in a time way before photography I can undoubtedly say that there was a great deal written about his appearance as people at the time relied a great deal on written description. I find it very unlikely that they would have people who know nothing about English history (ie details about King Richard III that the general public might not have common knowledge of) doing this research and DNA testing....so if they've come out after 6 months and said "We believe that this IS King Richard and we're going to be doing more" I believe them.

I hope that the scientists in charge do a facial reconstruction on the skull. It would be facinating to see the 'real' face of Richard III!

6Dogs;

Then why do you Brits and European constantly comment on that happen in the U.S.? If the discovery of Richard III should be viewed as of no consequence to us Americans, then I would ask that you keep your mouth shut on all things American. But then, thankfully not all Brits as a narrow minded as you. Just as most American aren't the dullards you clearly think wee are. Perhaps if your people didn't announce this to the world, you could have kept your Plantagenet King to yourselves. Blame you BBC.

All this agonizing over "represents" has led me to simplify that opening paragraph. Thanks for the "crowd-editing" ;-)

Alan, such 'agonizing' is what too many people spend too much time doing. Your writing is fine.

Ehh, represents sounds a bit awkward, but honestly it would have never crossed my mind until reading the comments here. I like the slight rewording better. It's really just splitting hairs.

"And that is the Question".

Richard III, buy all unbiased accounts, was a good king who lost his life to his enemies, and history belongs to the victors, since they control what is written about their vanquished foes. Demonizing one's enemies after they have been killed so as to legitimize your own rule is common throughout history, and Henry Tudor was no different than most any other conqueror. The fact that a letter from Richard's sister to their cousin dated after Richard's death stating she had been to see the two Princes after the Tudor's took power and they they were alive and well, was suppressed until early in the 20th Century, when it was rediscovered. By then, however, most people only know Richard from Shakespeare's play, which is utter fabrication based upon propaganda put out by Henry Tudor.

Really, there are few if any "unbiased" accounts about Richard III. Most have some stake in portraying him either as a beast or as conversely as a saint. By all accounts, he did some good things in regards to legal matters. But it also appears that he was as power-hungry as others made him out to be (although probably exaggerated to some extent). A number of accounts even by "neutral" historians have said that Shakespeare's account, though embellished, was not entirely fabrication.

It's not history, but for those interested in a fun detective story about Richard III, I recommend the fiction book "Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey.

Celtic, there were a lot of good leaders of countries but some of them a skeliton or two in the closet.

"The Sunne in Splendour" by Sharon Kay Penman is another good treatment of Richard III. "Daughter of Time" actually looks at it from a scholarly perspective though and does a great job of debunking the pervasive Tudor myths. And I don't think that part of the story actually was fiction, just the action around it. Henry Tudor (VII) had a tenuous claim to the throne and a lot of the things he attributes to Richard are more fitting to his character. The Tudors seemed to have an almost biological need to murder anyone around them that had a claim to the throne. That wasn't how the Plantagenets operated.

Defenders of Richard have sometimes gone too far as well. He was a decent king who doesn't deserve much of his evil reputation, but he was no angel. He was in a dangerous political situation for which the Princes were the chess pieces. We have no idea who killed them, but they did disappear on his watch. It is true that if they had still been alive then the Tudors would have killed them, but that doesn't change any facts.

Actually, history doesn't support that they 'disappeared' on his watch. Most likely the Tudors did kill them.

Well, "last confirmed sighting" then. I was an ardent Richard defender when I was young too, but now I have to admit that we just don't know. He had to seize the princes to save his own skin, and after that who knows.

The book that seems the most objective to me is Giles St. Aubyn's The Year of Three Kings 1483.

Experts agree (through dental evidence) that the the two bodies in the tower were respectively between the ages of 11 and 13 for the older one and 7 and 11 1/2 for the younger, which means that they were dead BEFORE the Tudors came to power. Medical evidence does not identify the cause of death of the two boys, but it does confirm that they were dead by the end of 1483, which again was before the Tudors. Sorry folks, but no way Henry VII did it.

I would think that there are several issues that will have to be re-examined with Richard III. For example, in the few pictures of Richard, he is shown with his left shoulder slightly elevated above his right. His face was normal in all aspects and no contemporaneous mention was made of any serious infirmity. Richard III was by all accounts a good horseman and liked to ride to the hunt. Even Richard's contemporaneous enemies said that he was a good king who ruled well for the common people (but that he had a wicked secret life.)

But by Shakespeare's time he had become a severe hunchback with a shuffling gait and a monstrous and deformed face.

Now that the spine is in the possession of historians, it is already established that he was not a hunchback, most likely walked normally and was fully functional. There appear to be no facial deformities and an excellent match for contemporaneous paintings of him. Having the spine will allow forensic physians to determine the extent of the scholiosis. The point is, it Richard's enemies slandered him wrongly in small things, it is highly likely that they also slandered him wrongly in large things.

The major issue is how his young nephews died and when. But this was a very rough-and-tumble period in English history when two opposing forces were trying to establish primacy over the whole kingdom.

Actually the 'hump' on the portraits was added later. They tested that years ago, there was no hump in the original paintings.

By looking at the skeleton, he does look deformed, though perhaps not as badly as history portrays him. He obviously had an underbite and very prominent cheek bones, with a pointy jaw. And his spine looks significantly curved (unless it was actually the decaying process that added to the curvature of the spine). With a spine as curved as the one as seen on the skeletal remains, maybe he did walk with one shoulder "hunched" higher than the other. It would be really interesting to see a forensic artist's rendition of Richard, given the morphology of the skeletal remains...

He was a man of his times. It's hard to say what was what and who was who, and even where and when. We can trace so much now through modern documentation, but back then, it was a a rarity if someone was even able to read. However, with all the information at hand, it should be interesting to see where it all goes. Like I said, one long-dead Richard is as good as another.

(I did hear that when the Tower of London was being refurbished, many years ago, that two small skeletons were found walled up under a stairway. It was believed that these were the two missing heirs to the throne; and that Richard had ordered their deaths. No one will ever really know, but it's another part of the story.)

Picard:

I think Richard's stature might be compared to that of Peter Gammons'; a sports journalist who covers the Boston Red Sox.

Mr. Gammons' left shoulder is raised higher then his right shoulder. BTW: A hunched shoulder would be lower, and not higher.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/files/2009/12/gammons3.jpg

"The nearly intact skeleton bore obvious traces of trauma to the skull and of scoliosis, a curvature of the spine that matched contemporary descriptions of Richard's appearance" They didn't really know thoracic scoliosis back then.

@Ellen,

All contemporaneous pictures/paintings of Richard III show him with his left shoulder slightly elevated above the right. This would be consistent with moderate, but not disabling scholiosis. This matches contemporansous accounts. Even his contemporaneous enemies said that he was a good king who ruled in a way that was good for the common people and good for trade.

But as time passed and books were written about Richard, his scholiosis slowly becane a hideous hunchback, his face became that of a leering monster, his left foot no longer touched the ground and needed a cushion for support.

History is written by the victors.

@ Lord Dr and Chris thanks. I actually missed that sentence regarding his scoliosis.

"Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped, hacked and put on public display after the battle, Appleby noted." I wonder what happened to his feet? From the looks of the tibias, the distal ends look as though they were cut off pretty evenly with a sharp object. Why would that have been done and not his hands? The teeth are well aligned and in good condition except for the ones missing of course. I think forensic archaeology is just fascinating and I predict more and more things will be discovered and figured out using the advanced knowledge and techniques that scientists are developing. Fascinating.

Yes, he was referred to as the "crookback" king.

Authorities said the skeleton would get a proper interment in Leicester Cathedral, not far from the parking lot where it was found. The cathedral's canon chancellor, David Monteith, said planning for an interment ceremony in 2014 has already begun, and he expressed the hope that after more than 500 years, Richard III "may come to rest in peace, and rise in glory."

I would say that appears not to be the case.

I'm with @Severed. There's at least a year's worth of planning going on for the internment. That doesn't sound like a casual disregard to me. It sounds like he's finally going to get the burial due a King of England.

They had two matches with the mtDNA from two different sources. If either had not been a match, the skeleton would have been proven not to be Richard III. But for both mtDNA samples to match, the chances drop to 1 in about 100,000 that the skeleton was not Richaed III.

The carbon dating of the bones matched the date of death.

Greyfriars Chapel was located and a commemorative garden found exactly where it should be in relation to the chapel. The skeleton was located under the choir floor of the church --- exactly where a priominent person would have been interred by friendly folks.

The skeleton had a major wound to the back of the skull, consistent with accounts of his death. There were also numerous small post-mortem wounds to the body, consistent with a body that was stripped and hacked by the public after death. It is noteworthy that no objects such as scraps of cloth, remains of a coffin, buttons, buckles, etc were found with the body, indicating that it was buried naked consistent with accounts of his burial.

The skeleton had moderate scholiosis and no other deformaties.

The skull was an obvious good match to contemporaneous paintings of the face of Richard III.

Yep, looks like they have a pretty good case.

Obviously you care.

English history cares. Good or bad, it's part of their legacy.

We all should care about history. Knowing where we've been, and why, is a critical element to understanding where we're going.

The article is quite clear about an internment ceremony in 2014.

Basics:

Your entire rant is absurd.

To begin with, the King's bones were never in a box.

You wrote: "Are they going to drag the bones around to museum after museum to prove he actually existed." If they have his bones, and they have a historical record that discusses his life, then I think it's a pretty safe bet that he existed. You, on the other hand, may be a computer generated error.

You seem annoyed that people care about this historical figure. In fact, you're so annoyed that you made the exact same complaint about him on the CBS blog. Is it Richard that irritates you, or is it the idea of people seeking the truth that is getting under your skin?

The dirty, disfigured bones reminded me of Feisty, i.e., twisted and disrespected.

Don't you mean the crown jewels? I've seen both the English ones in The Tower of London. I've also seen the "Honors of Scotland" In Edinburgh Castle. Fascinating!

:)

Jelousy will get you knowhere !

Phil:

What industrialized nations are "ruled" by monarchs?

Maybe he was smart and just trying to be funny.

He wanted to be found.

Slow checkout; long line.

Good suggestion, but lots of luck! "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."

A thousand years from now, someone will look back at football to study "where humankind has been".

Poor Alice; so great was her intellect that she could hardly suffer the dregs of humanity.

Actually, not by all accounts, just by those written at the behest of Henry Tudor. Who had to justify his own claim to the throne. Actually Henry was the one who would do anything to get the throne. And did.

The Tudors would LOVE you. You'd swallow anything dished out by tainted "history." By the way, can I borrow $100 or so? (G B Shaw wrote that one shouldn't call another a "fool." Just borrow money from them.)

Drinking and commenting on Newsvine.....a dangerous combination.

If you check out KSH 66's other posts, he's either drunk most of the time, or has Internet access from whatever asylum he inhabits..hard to tell from the content of his posts.

Shakespeare had another motivating factor, his main patron was old Henry's granddaughter. Anything at all favorable to Richard would not have gone well for William.

Shakespeare had another motivating factor, his main patron was old Henry's granddaughter. Anything at all favorable to Richard would not have gone well for William.

Spot on. It was the same with Macbeth. In the play Duncan is an old man who is killed in his sleep but in reality Duncan was rather young and was killed in action. The only reason Macbeth is depicted as a villainous schemer who is usurping the throne is because the King at the time (James VI & I) was descended from Duncan.

Right you are, John. The Tudors started "eliminating" relatives and friends of the Plantagenets. Henry VII was as thorough as possible during his reign. He even destroyed anything positive that was written about Richard. The "boys in the tower" were murdered by Henry VII, as during Richard's reign, there were still accounts of expenditures for them. These accounts ended abruptly during the first years of HenryVII's reign. Who Henry VII overlooked, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I eliminated what was left of Richard's family, except of course, Richard's sister who was forced to marry Henry VII, thus adding (creating) to his legitimacy as king. It still remains that Henry VII was a bastard who usurped the throne of England.

Experts agree (through dental evidence) that the the two bodies in the tower were respectively between the ages of 11 and 13 for the older one and 7 and 11 1/2 for the younger, which means that they were dead BEFORE the Tudors came to power. Medical evidence does not identify the cause of death of the two boys, but it does confirm that they were dead by the end of 1483, which again was before the Tudors. Sorry folks, but no way Henry VII did it.

Aided by his Welsh relatives.....

Shakespeare took poetic license with history, when writing his plays. Foe instance, The real Prince Hal (future Henry V) in Henry IV was 16 when he rode off to battle with his father, but Shakespeare added about 30 years to his age.

LOL, good one.

I believe the dental misalignment in England may be due to their water or diet lacking something. I read a fascinating book by Dr Weston Price, DDS, who was a dentist from Ohio, who travelled the globe to examine the teeth of people. He found that if the people he examined had a perfectly natural wholesome diet in quantities sufficient to supply proper nutrients, the dentition was perfect with little to no caries. As soon as refined sugars and processing was embarked upon in these societies, the 'bad teeth" started showing up. The photos he took were very revealing.

'

I used to think the same thing until me and this girl went in on a paternity scheme where we lured a professional athlete into sleeping with her and then after realizing that she didn't get pregnant I got her pregnant instead and then had her claim that the athlete owed half of his income to support the child. he asked for her to have the kid d.n.a, tested which i was fine with because i thought that all humans had the same genetics and then everything fell apart in our faces and i haven't talked to her since.

Yep thats true. They should have gone on the name. Richard. I googled it and Richard the III should be related to Richard Nixon same name can't be a coincidence.

Aren't their DNA's all pretty much the same?

Most definitely not. It's isn't even clear that identical twins have the same DNA, a---rand.

Already proven that identical twins have to same DNA. That's why they are identical.

I'm pretty sure a---rand, was making a joke about the rumors of royal families engaging in inbreeding :)

Yes, it was a joke.