One day you're king, next day you're a pile of bones under a car park.
Which makes it all the more worthwhile to be remembered for what you've done while you're alive (hopefully postive things) than where your bones rest even if you were born into privilege.
I don't know if this will keep going, but there are people to this day (usually mathematicians or someone with an affinity to that line) who tenderly care for the grave of Thomas Bayes. The man has been gone for almost 250 years.
You're only partly right: The dead won't care. But if you're remembered for good things by others, then by default you've done good while you're alive. That's really the point of living don't you think?
We can all debate the metaphysical on what happens afterwards, but what's real, observable and true is the effect you had on those around you while you're alive and the legacy you leave behind. Bayes obviously won't care what happens today, he can't. But those alive today still do after so many years.
The fact that we won't be around to experience the merits of our actions doesn't mean our actions should be devoid of merit.
"That's really the point of living don't you think?"
Well, in my opinion, you shouldn't base your actions on what you can write on your resume... Do good things, regardless of how broadly it will be received. You can easily portray yourself as a saint but in reality do more harm than good, and get away with it. But why care the about how you will be perceived when you're gone? The time it takes to be forgotten doesn't have anything to do with how "good" you were.
If you did miracles for elderly people you might get forgotten a minute after your death. Does that mean that your actions doesn't count? Why would you even care to think about it?
Of course! :) Do good even if you're remembered or not.
Really anything can be taken from you. Money, status, memories and even life itself, but the one thing no one can ever take away is what you've done. Whether you're remembered or not your actions can never be reversed, so hopefully they better be good ones.
To add some context, the team had established roughly where the remains should be and discovered a skeleton in place; so while neither the DNA test nor the dating could be conclusive, when added to the contextual knowledge the level of confidence is (in the team's language) beyond reasonable doubt.
Also (from the article) the state of the body - that it had wounds consistent with descriptions of Richard's death, that the wounds were confirmed to have been inflicted pre-mortem, and that the other general characteristics of the skeleton were consistent with our knowledge of Richard.
The confluence of factors is what allows such a high probability to be ascribed to the hypothesis.
http://goo.gl/2CH7n from NYtimes: "One of the descendants, Michael Ibsen, is the son of a 16th-generation niece of King Richard’s" which means 18th generation descendant of the King. Each generation has roughly half the DNA of the ancestor (Y Chromosome and mitochondrial (female only) DNA excepted. Thus an 18th generation descendant would have just 1/2^18 or about 1/256,000 of the King's DNA. Of course this amount would actually be larger since other ancestors to the King would have been his ancestor as well.
In the Talmud there is a famous expression, "He who saves a life is as if he saves and entire world and he who destroys a life is as if he destroys an entire world." and this relates to the meaning of this statement.
In the BBC they explain that he is a direct descendant of the mother of the King, by an all female branch. They don't explain why they take all the trouble to find this kind of descendant, and why this detail is important.
But the only reasonable explanation is that they are using mitochondrial DNA. The advantage of the mitochondrial DNA is that it is not mixed so, ignoring a few random mutations, the mitochondrial DNA of this person and the king should be equal.
Perhaps almost everyone: " Some experts estimate that 80 percent of England's present population descends from Edward III." [1] There was an Economist article posted to HN several months back that explained the general principle better but I couldn't immediately find it.
One of the things missing from the BBC report there was that this was a mitochondrial DNA test. While many may (on paper) be a descendant of Richard III, illegitimacy is common and matrilineal heritage is the best bet.
As you can see from the photo of the bones in the ground, kings look no different than peasants when they're eaten by the earth. Still, the hard working people of the UK are happy to sponsor their "princes" and their Vegas expenses.
That's technically not correct. The UK royal house is paid an annuity that was given in exchange for them surrendering the revenues from their private holdings. These revenues are much larger than the annuity they are paid -- by some 5 times. Even if you take the most broad definition of the costs of the royal house, including the security provided to them and the lost revenues from the official properties they use, they still surrender more than £80M more to the state than they cost in upkeep.
There are many good arguments against the British royalty -- cost is not one of them. Were they a private family with private holdings, the people of the UK would pay more taxes than they do now.
The only way you can argue that abolishing the monarchy would save money is if you argue that they should be stripped from their private property. But if you start such land redistribution, just where should you end? Most of the land in the UK is held by aristocrats. And the US is not much better -- in the wealthy areas in the east, most of the land was originally acquired by means that would be less than reputable today.
>And the US is not much better -- in the wealthy areas in the east, most of the land was originally acquired by means that would be less than reputable today.
You could kind of argue that all of the land in the US was acquired by less than reputable means. :P
You could say that about pretty much anywhere - certainly most of Europe. Just chain back through land ownership transfers until you find the last person who got it by cheating/stealing/killing.
The land was re-distributed to the populace over 100 years ago when the ruling class feared that the revolutions sweeping Russia would reach Sweden. They chose to give up land rather than their lives.
No, we quite reputably bought about 1/4 of it from France. They acquired it from the Spanish, who conquered it from the original owners in a quite disreputable way. But while we trafficked in stolen goods, we did so quite above board :)
Should one pay taxes based on how different the rulers look once they are dead? 'Cos if so, I don't think elected rulers look much different from peasants either.
Eyewitnesses of the King's demise at Bosworth recorded him as having bellowed "traitors, traitors, traitors" while personally charging to within feet of Henry Tudor. Both Shakespeare and recorded history appear to be equally dramatic in this case. Richard's death ended the War of the Roses, and historians such as Norman Cantor would claim that also it marked the end of Medieval era and the beginning of the Renaissance.
"The Sunne in Splendour" retells Richard's life and also offers a fascinating look at his older brother Edward IV, a man who warred his entire life and never lost a battle.
Which makes it all the more worthwhile to be remembered for what you've done while you're alive (hopefully postive things) than where your bones rest even if you were born into privilege.
I don't know if this will keep going, but there are people to this day (usually mathematicians or someone with an affinity to that line) who tenderly care for the grave of Thomas Bayes. The man has been gone for almost 250 years.