

Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are king's - NickPollard
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882

======
eksith
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.

~~~
tomjen3
Honestly the whether we are remembered once we are dead or not doesn't really
matter -- in no shape or form will we be around to care.

Same for the people who are found months after they have died -- the dead
don't care (or do anything else).

~~~
eksith
That's rather nihilistic.

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.

~~~
tjoff
"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?

~~~
eksith
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.

------
timthorn
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.

~~~
NickPollard
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.

------
craig552uk
We've put together a mini-site to further explain the history, archaeology and
science of the discovery.

<http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/>

~~~
hudibras
The archaeology portion of this website makes for some exciting reading. Well
done!

<http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/archaeology.html>

------
davidf18
<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.

~~~
gus_massa
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.

------
hakaaaaak
According to ancestry.com, and yes it has my relatives going back that far, I
am a descendant of Richard III. Wonder how many others are here.

~~~
joshuahedlund
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.

[1]
[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13662242/ns/technology_and_science...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13662242/ns/technology_and_science-
science/#.UQ-xYo5_jao)

~~~
nikcub
Similar with French Canadians, since they are all descendants of a small group
of immigrants, a lot of them claim to be related to Celine Dion.

------
mooze
Now is an excellent time to be reading The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey.

------
jjjdjdjdjdjdj
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.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
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.

~~~
shardling
>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

~~~
arethuza
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.

~~~
buro9
Except in Sweden.

~~~
yesbabyyes
All land is stolen. What in your opinion is different in Sweden?

~~~
buro9
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.

------
Svip
Obligatory: A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!

~~~
kingmanaz
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.

------
motters
Too much to hope that the margin of error on such things will be properly
explained

[https://bristolclassics.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/bah-and-
fur...](https://bristolclassics.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/bah-and-furthermore-
humbug/)

~~~
youngerdryas
He doesn't give any info on the margin of error and just goes on a tirade
about how we only care about artifacts when they are from famous people.

