Quickbeam

It makes perfect sense, what was the question, again?

I watched the programme last night and I found it very interesting but I think that I must have missed something.

The evidence showed the bones of a man with a spinal condition with very feminine traits whose probable cause of death was several head injuries with at least one of these being a fatal injury. I understand that there was also DNA evidence linking him to a distant relation in Canada

Is there any evidence that Richard III had a sevear spinal condition or that he wasn’t a particularly masculine person? Wouldn’t there have possibly been other relatives of RIII in battle with him on that day who would share DNA similarities with him? I suppose what I’m trying to say is that the person that they found could be any one of the soldiers that were in battle with him on that day.

Also the bit about him being stabbed in the buttock whilst being ridden on horseback was, well, just made up. Sometime I wish these programmes would concentrate on just the facts. My personal conclusion is that he bones might be Richard III but they just as easily might not.

The feminine traits bit was picked up from one of the pathologists or archeologists or whatever she was who on examination of the pelvis mentioned the pelvic gap being more like a females pelvis. Also some of the bones were described as being slender – more like a womans than a mans – That’s what I meant by feminine traits.

Of course the bit about him being stabbed whilst being ridden on horseback was pure fiction. Yes he was stabbed after death but that’s all that is known. We were told that valuable armor was often removed after death so if I was given the task of removing a dead mans armor I’d want to be 100% certain that he was dead first. A stab in the backside with something very hard and very sharp would probably convince me. Of course my made up story is just as plausible as theirs but the fact is no-one knows.

I understand that the DNA found “matched” Richard III but what I am saying is that if he went to battle with a relative or two at his side, which probably would have been the case, then couldn’t their DNA also be similar to the Canadian mans DNA? I think that it could.

Also I loved the carbon dating of the bones sequence – The date of the bones didn’t fit with the date they were all “expecting” so they made the assumption that he ate a lot of fish which then miraculously put the carbon dating smack bang in the middle of his reign!

In any event its been decided that the bones are of Richard III so I guess it matters not what I think.