today on the ancestral findings podcast did richard iii have a real
genetic claim to the throne of england testing on his why dna calls it into
question
[Music]
it is now well known in the genealogical world that the long-missing remains of richard iii
king of england from 1483 to 1485 were discovered underneath a parking lot in the united kingdom a
few years ago while the appearance and condition of the skeleton would have provided enough
anecdotal evidence consistent with contemporary accounts of his appearance and the battle that
killed him to identify it as richard it was the mitochondrial dna that gave researchers
a definitive identification of this infamous king the mitochondrial dna used to identify
richard comes from the mother's side of the family and is passed down to daughters and sons
however only daughters can pass it on to their children sons cannot researchers who unearthed
the skeleton and did the tests necessary to identify it included genealogy in their methods
to identify richard based on his mitochondrial dna they needed a direct line female descendant of his
mother cecily neville cecily had many children 13 or even 14 by some accounts only two of them
outlived her genealogical researchers looked at the lines of descent of all of cecily's daughters
who were known to have had their own children and kept looking for daughters who had daughters
all of these daughters would have the same mitochondrial dna as richard as they would
have inherited it from cecily just as richard did eventually one of richard's sisters anne of york
was discovered to have a direct female line of descent extending into the present day members
of two different lines of anne's descendants gave dna samples and their mitochondrial dna
matched the mitochondrial dna in the skeleton presumed to be richard it was even an uncommon
mitochondrial dna type making the identification that much more sure while the mitochondrial dna
provided the definitive identification of richard there was still another type of dna to explore
that was richard's why dna why dna is a paternal dna it is only passed down from fathers to sons
daughters do not inherit y dna at all using y dna you can trace a line of men far into the past and
right up into the present while researchers did not need richard's wide dna to identify him
they had a curiosity about his male line dna and where it would lead them what would it tell them
about his male ancestry and descendants on the male side of his family while richard left no
known male descendants himself his only legitimate male heir died at around 10 or 11 years old
and his known legitimate sons did not leave any known children there was still y dna to be had
that should match richard's it wouldn't come from his brothers either his brother edmund was killed
at 17 before he could have children of his own his brother george left a son and daughter but only
the daughter left descendants his brother edward who was king of england before richard as edward
iv had three sons but none left descendants either in fact two of edward's sons were the infamous
princes in the tower who disappeared shortly after edward died giving richard the opportunity to
become king so where did the y dna used to compare to richard come from it came from his father's
uncles they had the same male line heritage is richard and the y dna of their male descendants
should match richards perfectly except it didn't researchers discovered two breaks in the wide dna
of richard's male line while they were able to get a sample of y dna directly from richard's skeleton
it did not match up where it should on the dna samples they tested using five
living male descendants of king edward iii who was richard's direct mail line third great grandfather
the y dna of one of the living men did not match those of the others when a sixth man came forward
with a solid family tree linking him to richard's mail line his why dna was different from both
richards as well as the man in the first group whose why dna didn't match the others this means
the male line was broken by affairs twice this was an interesting development other studies
of historical rates of illegitimacy show that the father was actually the real father far more often
than was usually assumed women in the past had to be very careful if they had an affair they and or
their lover could be killed for it sometimes and in some cultures even if they were allowed
to live the man would often suffer some kind of mutilation as penance or at least pay a heavy fine
and the woman would be sent to a nunnery if the errant lovers were of the noble class
and especially if the woman was it was an even more severe matter men needed to
know their heirs were really their heirs and the question of paternity had to be secure
women did not have much opportunity to actually get out and mess around for much of human history
however human nature being what it is and much the same over the centuries there were times when
love did conquer all and women and their lovers found ways of being together not getting caught
and actually successfully passing any resulting children off as that of the husband these
secrets were so successfully kept that we would never know the truth if it were not for why dna
what researchers do not yet know is whether these breaks occurred before richard's birth or after
or one of each the implications of this are intriguing if one or both of the wide dna breaks
happened before richard was born it might put his royal status into question
richard's entire family based their claim to the throne of england the claim that would
lead to the war of the roses on their supposed descendancy from an elder son of edward iii
whereas the king at the time the war started was a descendant of a younger son of edward iii
what if richard his brother and his father had no biological claim to the throne at all well
the war of the roses would have been fought for naught and even the tudors and the stewarts who
came after them would have had no biological claim to the throne there is also the possibility being
that he was richard's cousin that the king henry vi he and his brothers overthrew might not have
been a legitimate heir either furthermore would it call the claim of the current royal family
into question they are direct descendants of richard's niece elizabeth of york his brother
edward iv's daughter if elizabeth had no claim to the throne would that mean the current elizabeth
ii doesn't either much genealogical work would have to be done to determine it as the current
royal family claims descent from more than one royal family line it would involve testing other
royal skeletons from pastimes which is something elizabeth ii has been unwilling to allow to be
done just for historical curiosity's sake maybe future kings and queens of england will allow it
if the break in the y dna came after richard then his legitimacy for the throne and that of
the current royal family is safe however it does call into question the legitimacy of the current
thanks for listening to the ancestral findings podcast you can subscribe to
the podcast on youtube and itunes also check out ancestralfindings.com for free genealogy lookups
e-books and weekly giveaways happy [Music] searching