Well, if Dickie had won we would have:-
1. Good King Richard with the straight back and handsome face.
2. Princes in the Tower? Killed by the evil Tudor’s.
3. Cruel, miserly, murderous Henry (without the VII)
3 No VIII for his son, who would just have been ‘the fat bloke with the gammy leg’.
4. Anne Boleyn? Never heard of her.
5. Shakespeare plays entitled, ‘King Richard The Valient’, parts I, II, III, IV and V, and, ‘Henry V: Monster’.
6. The Tudor’s TV show would be limited to one brief episode.
7. Phillippa Gregory would be a sales assistant with Marks and Spencer.
8. A very successful website called ‘The Elizabeth of York Files’.

It seems as if there has been a whole new spanner been put in the works concerning R3?
Some boffin from London university (I Think) has said that he doesn’t believe the body (bones) found is good old dicky. He believes that it is possible that the bones found are from a close relative of Dicky’s such as a cousin. I think his arguement is based on the fact that one of his cousin’s, also had spinal problems or something. He also states that microcondial DNA is not a reliable method of indentification, etc.. well that’s all they have, unless Stephen Hawking invents time travel (Perfectly possible according to some scientists)
Personally I think it’s a case of sour grapes. I think he’s another one like that silly woman, (Who with respect put in the time and tide to actually get Leicester Council to allow her and her team to did up the carpark) who simply won’t accept that Dicky had a deformaty. Personally if this spinal deformaty run in his family, and they all met sticky ends in the various wars that they had, it just goes to prove that they didn’t allow their deformaty to bugger up their lives in anyway. Think that what you call strength of will and sheer determination. Disability is a word not an ailment.

There has actually been speculation about this since the minute the UoL announced that the remains were his. The UoL should probably just publish their findings instead of blustering.

I thought I had read that DNA tests had fully answered that question; and it really is Richard. Does UofL NOT accept that outcome?

To be frank the DNA tests can’t answer that question 100%. The written evidence of where Richard was buried is what backs it up and makes the probability higher. Hicks is correct about the possibility of the remains being of another descendent if you were going on the DNA identification alone. But there is plenty of evidence to back up the location of his grave so it’s a moot point.

Pouring scorn and giving a one paragraph summary of their evidence is not what I am talking about Jasmine. Regardless of how you feel about Hicks this speculation is old news, it is only being addressed now because it’s been featured in the BBC history magazine. Terry Brevetton has already written about it in his book published last year.

They might work a little faster now

Is there just a tinsy winsy chance that the DNA is indeed wrong? I doubt it myself, but that purely my own opinion. But now that M.Hicks has brought up his doubts, I had a little recap/refresher to do with “The King in the Car Park” When they first type/time line tested the bones.
If my rotton stinking memory is right (which is rare) the person who gave out the info on the bones dated them for around 20/30 years before Bosworth, but then went out on some tangent about diet etc which then aged the bones to the right age. This is suggesting to me at least that M.Hicks may have a point. If the Carbon/time dating of those bones was correct, then yes the DNA was correct too, but the bones are not Dicky’s but a close relative, such as a cousin.

DNA is very complecated it does my head in, but I do remember once many years ago, that a DNA test was proformed on a lady who had had a baby with man who had an identical twin brother, the identical twin brother also claimed that he was the father of the ladies child, so he too was given a test. When the results came back it turned out the men were both found to be the child’s father, because of a very rare genetic code that is found in a vey small procentage of ident Twins. However the boffins were able to somehow manage to find out exactly which man fathered the child by Microcondial DNA , which is what has been used in Dicky’s case. and to be honest I don’t think Microcondial DNA is entirely fool proof.

I rather think that the only way we can truly get to the bottom of this new saga in Dicky’s History, is if DNA could be taken from the bones of E4 and his Father and Mother. If the microcondial DNA from the bones in the car park match up with either of E4 or daddy or better yet mummy, which is where microcondial DNA comes from, then yes we can can suck up M.Hicks theory and blow him out in bubbles. But somehow I can’t see the Queen allowing anymore diddling about with the DNA of her relatives sadly.

I agree Bob 100% with the findings of last year in my mind there is no doubt that the bones they found were indeed Dicky’s. Considering the amount of work/time and money that has been put into the search for Dicky it is highly unlikely they could afford to make any mistakes. And bear in mind history spoke of Dicky having a hunch shoulder or twisted back, ok so old Bill Shakespeare did over do the deformaty etc, but then the propagandarists, were out to make Dicky a villian and H7 the hero. In much the same way as the Catholic propagandarists slandered Elizabeth where they could.
Personally I think M.Hicks is clutching at straws and still drowning. all he says is that he doesn’t believe they are dicky’s bones. He’s entitled to his opinion, as we all are, but the way he has said it is in the form of a statement not an opinion and he has nothing to back up his words, that (His words) The bones found aren’t Richard 3rd’s. The question/answer to that one is “Ok well where is your evidence to state otherwise, and to offer a reasonable argement for your doubts, and if they aren’t Richard’s just who do you think the bones belong to, and again, ok so where’s your evidence to back it up.”

Jasmine, it sounds as if M.Hicks is a bit of a bombastic, know it all but knows F all sort of historian. None of us are infallible and we all make mistakes, Jeez I’ve dropped plenty of clangers in my time both historically and in other things but at least I can sit and hold my hands up and say “Hey I’ve messed up here and I’m sorry” learn from it and move on.

I confess I don’t know too much about Dicky as he never really caught my attention, but thanks to people like you and others I have learnt a lot more about him.

Hicks is a good historian Bo. Jasmine and I usually disagree on how anti-Richard he is, but despite that he has done a great deal of invaluable work on George Duke of Clarence, who no-one else cares about.

His book is not out until next year Jasmine Not sure of the month yet but he’s doing a new one on Richard’s family for Amberley. As for why this is coming out after two years it is because the BBC had nothing new on Richard this month. We should be grateful they’re not discussing his intestines again..

I just subscribed to the BBC History magazine, finally, and after reading the article Biddle is actually challenging the archaeological work. Hicks mainly seems to be challenging the accuracy of the radio carbon dating.