Does anyone know if there are any further developments in the Kevin Schürer and/or Turi King research on Richard III's DNA? The last information I could find indicates the Plantagenet line itself could be in jeopardy. 25 March 2015 When scientists revealed last year that an adulterous affair had apparently broken the male line in Richard III’s family tree, they vowed to investigate further. But rather than clear up the mystery, their latest genetic tests have uncovered evidence of another royal sex scandal. This time, the indiscretion could potentially undermine the legitimacy of the entire House of Plantagenet.... For all the scientists know, Patrice de Warren carries the ‘true’ Plantagenet Y chromosome, and those found in Richard III and the extended family of Henry Somerset were inherited from another man. “The problem is that we cannot say where the break occurs. All it tells us is that we have to keep looking, and that is what we are doing,” said Kevin Schürer, a genealogy expert at Leicester who is working on the case. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/25/richard-iii-dna-tests-uncover-evidence-of-further-royal-scandal See also: http://www.iflscience.com/technology/dna-tests-uncover-more-evidence-infidelity-richard-iiis-family-tree/ Thanks!

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:47:09 PM UTC-7, gets...@gmail.com wrote: > Does anyone know if there are any further developments in the Kevin > Schürer and/or Turi King research on Richard III's DNA? The last > information I could find indicates the Plantagenet line itself could > be in jeopardy. > > 25 March 2015 > > When scientists revealed last year that an adulterous affair had > apparently broken the male line in Richard III’s family tree, they > vowed to investigate further. > > But rather than clear up the mystery, their latest genetic tests have > uncovered evidence of another royal sex scandal. This time, the > indiscretion could potentially undermine the legitimacy of the entire > House of Plantagenet.... > > For all the scientists know, Patrice de Warren carries the ‘true’ > Plantagenet Y chromosome, and those found in Richard III and the > extended family of Henry Somerset were inherited from another man. > “The problem is that we cannot say where the break occurs. All it > tells us is that we have to keep looking, and that is what we are > doing,” said Kevin Schürer, a genealogy expert at Leicester who is > working on the case. The Plantagenet line itself is not in jeopardy - well, no more so than it was before this result. Here is what happened. Patrice de Warren walked in off the street proclaiming himself to be a true descendant of Geoffrey Plantagenet. They tested his DNA and it matched neither Richard III nor the Beaufort descendant. Rather than reaching the patently obvious conclusion that Patrice was not a descendant of Geoffrey Plantagenet, they took his undocumented claim completely at face value and instead declared that there was further crypto-paternity in the Plantagenet royal line. One of three things happened here: 1) they were tragically credulous when it came to accepting Patrice de Warren's claim as if it was real; 2) they cynically made the calculation that if they announced that the guy who walked in off the street claiming to be a Plantagenet was making it up, The Guardian would tell them to come back when they have something worth reporting, so they selected a more juicy narrative, or 3) they reached a more authentic conclusion, but The Guardian decided to give it a 'better' spin. As of March this year the team announced they had turned their attention to one of Jack the Ripper's victims. taf

I just read a book from the Library and it shows his DNA etc The Last Days of Richard III and the Fate of His DNA The Book That Inspired the Dig Ashdown-Hill, John From: "getsmarrt@gmail.com" <getsmarrt@gmail.com> To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 5:50 PM Subject: Richard III DNA Investigation Does anyone know if there are any further developments in the Kevin Schürer and/or Turi King research on Richard III's DNA? The last information I could find indicates the Plantagenet line itself could be in jeopardy. 25 March 2015 When scientists revealed last year that an adulterous affair had apparently broken the male line in Richard III’s family tree, they vowed to investigate further. But rather than clear up the mystery, their latest genetic tests have uncovered evidence of another royal sex scandal. This time, the indiscretion could potentially undermine the legitimacy of the entire House of Plantagenet.... For all the scientists know, Patrice de Warren carries the ‘true’ Plantagenet Y chromosome, and those found in Richard III and the extended family of Henry Somerset were inherited from another man. “The problem is that we cannot say where the break occurs. All it tells us is that we have to keep looking, and that is what we are doing,” said Kevin Schürer, a genealogy expert at Leicester who is working on the case. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/25/richard-iii-dna-tests-uncover-evidence-of-further-royal-scandal See also: http://www.iflscience.com/technology/dna-tests-uncover-more-evidence-infidelity-richard-iiis-family-tree/ Thanks! ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

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. Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester was born illegitimate, so that generation could be a cause for concern. Also, to be perfectly honest, English women in the 18th century weren't known for their chastity, so it wouldn't surprise me if the break occurred that late.

Em quarta-feira, 23 de agosto de 2017 20:13:37 UTC+1, Katherine Kennedy escreveu: > 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. Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester was born illegitimate, so that generation could be a cause for concern. Also, to be perfectly honest, English women in the 18th century weren't known for their chastity, so it wouldn't surprise me if the break occurred that late. There is a suggestion that Richard III's grandfather Richard of Conisburgh was illegitimate.

>From "Y DNA of the British Monarchy" an interesting scholarly research paper published in 2013: >>The Plantagenets are a bit more difficult to predict as some speculate that they are related to the Carpetian (sic) kings of France and descended from Roman citizens in the haplogroup J2 or G2. However, early sources attribute them as Germanic Franks13 and thus more likely to be another branch of R1b-U106. We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This article associates this type with Roman citizens. Apparently because it is uncommon in Gaul from where the Plantagenet ancestors, including Robert le Fort, were from. But why Roman Y? Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type. Then again, as I have said all along, perhaps the Romans did have a hand in the mix when they brought mercenaries from Alania, known today for a maximization of this type relative to most other locations, specifically into Gaul in the 4th and 5th centuries, long before Robert's reign began.

Oh I am certainly an advocate of doing *both* Autosomal and Y testing I'm not saying you should not do Y testing if you are a genetic genealogist. However to *rely* on Y testing *alone* is the task of a foolish person I'm quite certain there are Y testers on this very newsgroup who have never done Autosomal testing because well... great-grandma just did *not* fool around with the neighbor. And yet she did. So you're a fool. Chasing a family line to which you do not belong. On the topic of R3, it's surprising to hear someone claim that the line must be pre-Roman or something, when *anywhere* within a two thousand year history, some grandma could have fooled around with the milkman. Anywhere. Any of them. Thirty generations of them. The Y tells you very little about *when* and *where* this occurred.

I would never have guessed this thread would become so strange.

I have no idea why people put up straw men arguments. Did any of what I said, say that I *do not* use a paper trail? No. I said that using a paper trail and Y-DNA to support each other is a fool's task without the additional use of Autosomal DNA I think I've said this now several times. Y-DNA cannot properly support a paper trail because there is almost no way to confirm where someone goes in that tree. Autosomal DNA *can* properly support a paper trail. And Todd I do know that *on average* each generation inherits one half, however if every generation has multiple descendants, than you have a good chance that *the vast majority* of the DNA is *preserved* across the entire population. You keep dividing, without multiplying. You have to do both.

On 31-Aug-17 12:55 PM, wjhonson wrote: > I have no idea why people put up straw men arguments. > > Did any of what I said, say that I *do not* use a paper trail? No. I asked if you used a paper trail and in reply you posted "I don't". Peter Stewart