On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:13:37 PM UTC-6, Katherine Kennedy wrote: < I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de < Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet < origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing. < < The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains < of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any < time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children < directly. Actually you're wrong. King Richard II allegedly claimed that John of Gaunt's bastard son, John Beaufort, was "gotten" in double adultery. This means that Katherine de Roet was married to Hugh de Swynford at the time John Beaufort was conceived. If John Beaufort was actually Hugh de Swynford's child, then the modern Beaufort line would obviously carry a different male Y-chromosome DNA than the original Plantagenet family. It would also be different from the alleged remains of King Richard III. Which brings us to the obvious: Have the results of the Y-DNA male chromosome for the alleged remains of King Richard III ever been published? If so, what are they? Enquiring minds want to know. Here are the Y Chromosome DNA results currently shown on the University of Leicester website: NONE. Here are the Y-Chromosome results available on John Ashdown-Hill's website, Richard III & DNA. NONE. As best I can tell, besides the original Beaufort testing misfire, in all the years the historians have been working on this, they have reportedly only attempted to match the Y chromosome of one Frenchman named Patrice de Warren to the remains of King Richard III. Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings, not just one person. Why just one Warren tested? If someone knows the exact Y Chromosome sequencing for the alleged remains of King Richard III, I'd appreciate it greatly if they would post this information here on the newsgroup. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Em quarta-feira, 23 de agosto de 2017 21:43:09 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson escreveu: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:13:37 PM UTC-6, Katherine Kennedy wrote: > < I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de > < Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet > < origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing. > < > < The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains < of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any > < time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children > < directly. > > Actually you're wrong. King Richard II allegedly claimed that John of Gaunt's bastard son, John Beaufort, was "gotten" in double adultery. This means that Katherine de Roet was married to Hugh de Swynford at the time John Beaufort was conceived. If John Beaufort was actually Hugh de Swynford's child, then the modern Beaufort line would obviously carry a different male Y-chromosome DNA than the original Plantagenet family. It would also be different from the alleged remains of King Richard III. > > Which brings us to the obvious: Have the results of the Y-DNA male chromosome for the alleged remains of King Richard III ever been published? If so, what are they? Enquiring minds want to know. > > Here are the Y Chromosome DNA results currently shown on the University of Leicester website: NONE. > > Here are the Y-Chromosome results available on John Ashdown-Hill's website, Richard III & DNA. NONE. > > As best I can tell, besides the original Beaufort testing misfire, in all the years the historians have been working on this, they have reportedly only attempted to match the Y chromosome of one Frenchman named Patrice de Warren to the remains of King Richard III. Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings, not just one person. Why just one Warren tested? > > If someone knows the exact Y Chromosome sequencing for the alleged remains of King Richard III, I'd appreciate it greatly if they would post this information here on the newsgroup. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah It seems very unlikely that John of Gaunt would have recognized the child if he wasn't sure it was his.

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 2:47:42 PM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote: < It seems very unlikely that John of Gaunt would have recognized the child if he < wasn't sure it was his. You're assuming that a woman would not be sleeping with both her lawful husband and her lover at the same time. All we know for certain is that both John of Gaunt and Katherine de Roet were probably both guilty of adultery. What John of Gaunt thought about the child's paternity at the time is not in any way pertinent. As a friend used to tell me, Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe. But for modern DNA testing and the pesky remains of King Richard III, we might not ever know the truth. Let's see what the DNA results show and then perhaps we should know the identity of the father of John Beaufort. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

There is a chronological problem with that. The sources agree that John Beaufort was born in 1363 and that Swynford died in 1361 or 1362 if the former is correct there's no way he could be the father of John if the latter it is only barely possible. It seems to me Katherine's affair with John started shortly after Swynford's death.

On 24-Aug-17 7:54 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 2:47:42 PM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote: > < It seems very unlikely that John of Gaunt would have recognized the child if he < wasn't sure it was his. > > You're assuming that a woman would not be sleeping with both her lawful husband and her lover at the same time. All we know for certain is that both John of Gaunt and Katherine de Roet were probably both guilty of adultery. What John of Gaunt thought about the child's paternity at the time is not in any way pertinent. > > As a friend used to tell me, Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe. However, the legal presumption was that the mother's husband was the father - "Pater is est quem nuptiae demonstrant". Richard II - assuming he ever said what what is reported - would surely not be considered a reliable witness in any court of law today. He undercut his own credibility on this specific point by issuing a charter recognising John Beaufort and his full siblings as legitimate offspring of John of Gaunt and Katherine, and the next day made John Beaufort (not Swynford) earl of Somerset, then a marquis twice over in the same year. Having it both ways much? I wonder if he used a teleprompter. Peter Stewart

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 4:43:09 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote: ... > Which brings us to the obvious: Have the results of the Y-DNA male chromosome for the alleged remains of King Richard III ever been published? If so, what are they? Enquiring minds want to know. > > Here are the Y Chromosome DNA results currently shown on the University of Leicester website: NONE. > > Here are the Y-Chromosome results available on John Ashdown-Hill's website, Richard III & DNA. NONE. > > As best I can tell, besides the original Beaufort testing misfire, in all the years the historians have been working on this, they have reportedly only attempted to match the Y chromosome of one Frenchman named Patrice de Warren to the remains of King Richard III. Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings, not just one person. Why just one Warren tested? > > If someone knows the exact Y Chromosome sequencing for the alleged remains of King Richard III, I'd appreciate it greatly if they would post this information here on the newsgroup. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah See https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631 for Richard III's y haplogroup (G-P287).

Dear Jan ~ Thank you for posting a weblink to this interesting article. Your help is much appreciated. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:43:09 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Which brings us to the obvious: Have the results of the Y-DNA male > chromosome for the alleged remains of King Richard III ever been published? > If so, what are they? Enquiring minds want to know. Yes, they have. Jan posted the link. > Here are the Y Chromosome DNA results currently shown on the University of > Leicester website: NONE. They would not have put them on their web site prior to publication because they were embargoed. They wouldn't necessarily put them there afterwards because it was redundant with the publication. > Here are the Y-Chromosome results available on John Ashdown-Hill's website, > Richard III & DNA. NONE. A blog with most recent post before the Y-DNA results were published. Not a surprise it has NONE then. > As best I can tell, besides the original Beaufort testing misfire, in all > the years the historians have been working on this, they have reportedly > only attempted to match the Y chromosome of one Frenchman named Patrice de > Warren to the remains of King Richard III. Yet surely there are hundreds > of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive today in England and America > who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any case, if such a study was > done right, it should include numerous samplings, not just one person. Why > just one Warren tested? It is obvious from the interviews that they never intended such a study. Patrice de Warren walked in, said 'I'm a Plantagenet' so they tested him. It is telling that they reported it to The Guardian and other media sources without formal publication. It indicates it was a one-off lark, not a research goal and that they had no intent to pursue it (else they would have held back the specifics until they had completed the broader study, because as you say, a single result means nothing). Is there a Cornwall or a Warren Y-DNA project? What haplotypes are they seeing? taf

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:43:09 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:13:37 PM UTC-6, Katherine Kennedy wrote: > < I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de > < Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet > < origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing. > < > < The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains < of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any > < time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children > < directly. > > Actually you're wrong. King Richard II allegedly claimed that John of Gaunt's bastard son, John Beaufort, was "gotten" in double adultery. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah What is your source that Richard II "allegedly claimed" this? That's a pretty weak statement...

On 24-Aug-17 10:47 AM, John Higgins wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:43:09 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote: >> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:13:37 PM UTC-6, Katherine Kennedy wrote: >> < I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de >> < Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet >> < origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing. >> < >> < The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains < of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any >> < time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children >> < directly. >> >> Actually you're wrong. King Richard II allegedly claimed that John of Gaunt's bastard son, John Beaufort, was "gotten" in double adultery. >> >> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > What is your source that Richard II "allegedly claimed" this? That's a pretty weak statement... I look forward to Douglas Richardson's answer, but from memory it was Richard III, not II, who was supposed to have said this. An even less reliable witness... Peter Stewart

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:43:09 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive > today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any > case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings, > not just one person. Why just one Warren tested? I note that Family Tree DNA has both a Warren and a Cornwall/Cornwell project, the first with 200+ tests, the latter almost 100. To date, none of them match either Richard's Y, nor that of the matching living Beaufort descendants (well, most of them - one didn't match the other three, and I didn't look for his, because as described int he paper, the Beaufort crypto-paternity event appears to be in his line). It should be said, though that with regard to the Beaufort line, a less extensive test may not turn up a precise match - they may belong to the same group as the Beauforts but didn't have theirs tested at enough sites to tell for sure. Richard's is different enough that this isn't an issue. taf

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:43:09 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:13:37 PM UTC-6, Katherine Kennedy wrote: > < I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de > < Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet > < origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing. > < > < The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains < of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any > < time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children > < directly. > > Actually you're wrong. King Richard II allegedly claimed that John of Gaunt's bastard son, John Beaufort, was "gotten" in double adultery. This means that Katherine de Roet was married to Hugh de Swynford at the time John Beaufort was conceived. If John Beaufort was actually Hugh de Swynford's child, then the modern Beaufort line would obviously carry a different male Y-chromosome DNA than the original Plantagenet family. It would also be different from the alleged remains of King Richard III. > > Which brings us to the obvious: Have the results of the Y-DNA male chromosome for the alleged remains of King Richard III ever been published? If so, what are they? Enquiring minds want to know. > > Here are the Y Chromosome DNA results currently shown on the University of Leicester website: NONE. > > Here are the Y-Chromosome results available on John Ashdown-Hill's website, Richard III & DNA. NONE. > > As best I can tell, besides the original Beaufort testing misfire, in all the years the historians have been working on this, they have reportedly only attempted to match the Y chromosome of one Frenchman named Patrice de Warren to the remains of King Richard III. Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings, not just one person. Why just one Warren tested? > > If someone knows the exact Y Chromosome sequencing for the alleged remains of King Richard III, I'd appreciate it greatly if they would post this information here on the newsgroup. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah By "exact Y Chromosome sequencing" Do you mean the exact SNPs tested and details surrounding it? You can find most of such details here https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631 " DNA extraction of ancient samples DNA was extracted from teeth and bone (femur) samples. All procedures were performed in dedicated ancient DNA laboratories at the University of York and the Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse with appropriate contamination precautions in place. Two extraction blanks were included and treated exactly as if they were extracts throughout the whole process. PCRs and library experiments also included further blank controls. ... SNP typing by PCR The capture approach yielded insufficient coverage for all HIrisPlex and Y-chromosome SNPs and therefore primers were designed to generate amplicons containing these SNPs as well as two SNPs, which further define Y-chromosome haplogroup G: M285 (G1) and P287 (G2) (ref. 14). These were amplified as part of multiplex reactions following Römpler et al.44 or singleplex reactions (using 40 cycles and with no secondary amplification) and sequenced on the Ion Torrent following library preparation using Ion PGM 200 Xpress Template Kit and PGM 200 Sequencing Kit. To increase coverage, singleplex PCR and sequencing of one marker (rs28777) was carried out according to Binladen et al.45 Typing of the haplogroup G defining SNPs (M201, M285 and P287) was repeated in Toulouse using singleplex PCRs. Sequencing of these PCR products was carried out using Big-Dye Terminator V3.1 cycle sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems) analysed by capillary electrophoresis on an ABI Prism 3730 Genetic Analyser (Applied Biosystems) at the genomic technical platform PlaGe (Genopole). " There are also full details of the modern samples tested. They also give many details on the mtDNA testing done, which honestly makes it amazingly likely it's Richard III's DNA or a really crazy coincidence that the mtDNA matches a descendant of his same maternal line. Not impossible but really unlikely. All of these details have been around for years, is there some reason you find any specific methodology they used questionable?