Researchers conservatively estimate that the chances of the skull at left not being that of Richard III (right) are 6.7 million to 1.
Photographs by University of Leicester and Universal History Archive, Getty Images
Published December 2, 2014
Ancient bones discovered under a parking lot have been confirmed as those of the medieval king Richard III, through a DNA test that also raises questions about the legitimacy of Henry VIII and other famous English royals.
The team of genetics detectives reported Tuesday that DNA from the skeleton shows that the bones were Richard III's, with a probability of 99.9994 percent. This is the first genetic identification of a particular individual so long after death—527 years.
Archaeologists had peeled back a parking lot in 2012 to excavate the skeleton, which was among buried relics of the Greyfriars Friary in Leicester, England, long the reputed burial site of Richard III. (See "The Real Richard III.")
Most people know the hunched-shouldered king through Shakespeare's play Richard III, in which the maligned ruler utters such memorable lines as "Now is the winter of our discontent/Made glorious summer by this son of York," and "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"
Earlier this year, a forensic study of the remains revealed that the doomed king—the last English monarch to die in combat—suffered 11 wounds at the time of his death, in a 1485 battle with the Tudors that ended England's War of the Roses
But there had been lingering questions about whether the skeleton was really that of Richard III.
"The evidence directly indicates that these are the remains of Richard III," says geneticist Turi King of the University of Leicester in the U.K., who led the team reporting the results in the journal Nature Communications. (Related: "Richard III Mania: Understanding a Kingly Obsession.")
The scientists examined DNA inherited along maternal lines, known as mitochondrial DNA, from two distantly related modern-day relatives of Richard III's sister. That DNA is a near perfect match for the maternal genes of the hunchbacked skeleton buried at the friary. What's more, the DNA was "unusual," King adds, containing stretches that don't quite match anything in registries of European genes.
A statistical analysis led by David Balding and Mark Thomas of University College London took those genetic results and calculated the chances that a man of Richard III's age with battle wounds and a curved spine could turn up at Greyfriars and not be the slain king. They conservatively estimated that chance at 6.7 million to 1.
"It is surprising how many people initially argued that these skeletal remains weren't those of Richard III," says bioanthropologist Piers Mitchell of the U.K.'s University of Cambridge, who was not part of the study team. "Well, here it is."
In 2012 archaeologists peeled back a parking lot to excavate this skeleton, buried among relics of the Greyfriars Friary in Leicester, England. Photograph by University of Leicester
In 2012 archaeologists peeled back a parking lot to excavate this skeleton, buried among relics of the Greyfriars Friary in Leicester, England.
Photograph by University of Leicester
Risqué Royalty
However, Richard III's Y chromosome, which is inherited along the paternal lines, seems to have turned up some dirt on ancient aristocrats.
Because Richard III died without leaving any male heirs, the researchers had to trace his lineage back in time to find an ancestor of his who had inherited the same Y chromosome paternally and who had modern-day descendants. They found five men living today who are paternally descended from Richard III's great uncle, John of Gaunt, who died in 1399.
All five of those men should have inherited the same Y chromosome as Richard III through their more recent ancestor, the fifth Duke of Beaufort, who died in 1803. Thus they also should have the same Y chromosome as Richard III. Or so the researchers thought.
Yet none of the men had the same Y chromosome as Richard III, and only four of them had descended from the duke. This isn't too surprising, King says, given estimates of false-paternity rates, meaning "when someone's father is not who we think is their father."
The paternity problems don't shake the statistical probability that the Greyfriars skeleton belongs to Richard III, say the study authors.
But they say the Y chromosome finding "could be of key historical significance." False paternity in John of Gaunt's family could mean that Plantagenet kings such as Henry V had no genetic claim to their thrones. The study states, "This would also hold true, indirectly, for the entire Tudor line," including Elizabeth I and Henry VIII.
Still, the genes can't reveal exactly when the break in paternity occurred. And fortunately for today's royal-watchers, Queen Elizabeth II descended from a different family line.
Portrait of a King
The genes on Richard III's Y chromosome were unusual in English families and are seen more often in the Mediterranean, King notes, though Mark Thomas cautions about ascribing geographic provenances to chromosomes or genes.
Though the study doesn't say anything about the genetic health of Richard III, who was afflicted with scoliosis, it does say there's a 95 percent chance that he had blue eyes and a 77 percent chance that he had brown hair as a child. That closely matches his appearance in a Society of Antiquaries of London portrait from the early 1500s.
When this genetic evidence is added to all the other findings, including the shape of his back and the injuries he sustained in battle, Mitchell says, "now those performing Shakespeare's play about Richard III will have all the evidence they need to make it as authentic as possible."
Follow Dan Vergano on Twitter.
27 comments
"Though the study doesn't say anything about the genetic health of Richard III, who was afflicted with scoliosis, it does say there's a 95 percent chance that he had blue eyes and a 77 percent chance that he had brown hair as a child."
Believe the part about the brown hair is incorrect, the DNA indicated blond hair, however since most portraits portray dark hair, it is thought he had blond hair as a child and that his hair darkened in adolescence, which is not uncommon.
So there are no living male Plantagenet descendants from lines other than the John of Gaunt's? can't they find those descendants and test their DNA? The break could have easily come from a descendant of John of Gaunt.
Correct me if I am wrong, please, somebody. How can the mtDNA be a "near perfect" match? As I understand it, mtDNA does not recombine and is passed from mother to offspring unchanged. It is either a match or it isn' t.
Richard III wasn't related to Henry VII. Richard was the brother to Edward V, they were both Yorks and Henry the VII was a Tudor who later fathered Henry the VIII with Elizabeth York, Edward V's daughter. So Richard would have been Henry the VII's great uncle but that would prove illegitimacy. It would be interesting to see if Richard and Edward shared the same DNA.
For a fascinating examination of Richard III from the viewpoint of a modern detective, read Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time". One of my favorite books, just re-read it in light of the recent discovery at Greyfriars.
For a wonderful examination of Richard III from the viewpoint of a modern detective read Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time". One of my favorites, and re-read it in light of this recent discovery.
Below the picture it says. The chances of skull NOT being that of Richard is 6.7 million to 1. Shouldn't it be 6.7 in 1 million?
It never ceases to amaze me of the things that can be revealed about the past through genetic studies! Now if only the people on the Jerry Springer show could figure it out...
The legitimacy of the Tudors or any other monarchy doesn't depend on genetics at all, all it depends on is power, force, and military success - Richard III's story proves that, long before any "new news" about his parentage.
I thought blue bloods did a lot of inbreeding to keep the royal bloodlines untainted. Hence why only a prince could marry a princess and so on. King of Spain is distantly related to the king of France and the king of France related to the King of England, etc. creating a very small and very specific gene pool. (The royal gene pool is so small that if it were any other animal it would go extinct). Could this inbreeding method be the reason why the mitochondrial DNA was so unusual ?
This article would be so much more interesting with a bit more detail. Why is the mitochondrial DNA unusual - what were the stretches of DNA that don't match typical European genes? What haplogroups were in the maternal line? the paternal line?
Answering those questions would make a full article to read - as it stands, I barely know a thing more than before I started reading.
A follow up article, possibly??
I suppose in context of the time...though for most modern free people the fact that someone claimed rule based on their bloodline also casts doubt on their legitimacy. Though that may be a bit anachronistic.
@Kelly Haynes-Green the line has to go from male to male to male and so on. So there may be other descendants of Edward III's for whom some point the descent went through the female line so the Y-chromosome would not have descended through. So they could not be used for this study. Most everybody who had direct male to male etc descent from Edward III were killed under the Tudors anyway as they would have had possibly a stronger claim to the throne than the Tudors. The Beaufort lines which were tested I think are the only ones known that met this requirement of male to male continuous descent.
@Lorri Nelson I surmise that the "near perfect" match is because mtDNAs, like their nuclear DNA counterparts, do mutate over time. As a matter of fact, mtDNA mutations are more common because their mutations are more likely to pass onto their descendants, while less favorable nuclear DNA mutations are more likely to result in death in embryonic stage, thus loss of detectable mutations. Putting it together, a "near perfect" mtDNA, whatever it means, is as close as you can get to ascertain someone's maternal lineage.
@Kerri Strouse Were not the Tudors descended from John of Gaunt and Katherine Sywnford through one of their illegitimate children?
As I think you say in your latter sentence that Richard was Henry's great-uncle. Correct?
@David Alan McPartland this mitochondrial DNA traces directly back to Katherine Swynford, 3rd wife of John of Gaunt (third son of Edward III). Katherine had been John's mistress for decades before he finally married her and legitimized their numerous children, one of which was Joan Beaufort, the mother of Cecily Neville who was in turn, Richard III's mother. Far from being royal or even noble, Katherine was barely of the knightly class, she was born on the continent, in Hainault, I don't think there is any info about her mother. So whatever is unusual about this DNA comes from Katherine and all her maternal female ancestors.
@Anna F. Great to learn there is a reader (or two) out there interested in Haplogroup G-P287, with a Y-STR haplotype for Richard III.
The mtDNA is described more fully at http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html, as the story indicated.
Thanks for reading.
@Jeremy Pike Exactly - legitimacy of a monarchy rests on victory and successfully holding and defending the position, nothing else, always has.
@Michael Sun @Lorri Nelson Looking into it, I would guess you could see a mutation in mtDNA in what would amount to about 25 generations. Also as it turns out, some mtDNA from the father can sneak in too. The geneticists studying the human clock have had to go back to the drawing board!
@Patty Brown @Jeremy Pike With the curious exception of King Arthur, who based his claim to kingliness on the fact that some moistened bint happened to lob a scimitar in his general direction.
Advertisement
Popular Stories
-
Do Rising Seas Mean Sinking Islands?
For low-lying islands, what's needed is less alarmism, more planning.
-
Antarctic Huts Restored to Heroic Era
Whiskey and all, the wooden dwellings of early explorers now look as they did during the first treks to the continent, thanks to a decade-long restoration effort.
-
Photojournalism on the Front Lines of History
When Lynsey Addario started out, journalists were respected as neutral observers. Now you can be beheaded.
The Future of Food
-
Why Food Matters
How do we feed nine billion people by 2050, and how do we do so sustainably?
-
Download: Free iPad App
We've made our magazine's best stories about the future of food available in a free iPad app.
