The 'Princes' skeletons of 1483: why no scientific DNA testing?

[Electerrific]

Phillipa Gregory, whose historical books films such as The Other Boleyn Girl and the recent BBC/HBO The White Queen were based, has always suggested that someone else (like the Constable of the Tower on Margaret Beaufort's, mother of the later Henry VII, orders) killed the two Princes (or one of and a changeling) instead of Richard III, whom Tudor propaganda and history always blamed for the deed.

 

The skeletons of two pubescent boys were found in the Tower (a comfortable residence in the 1480's) some time in the 1960's (?) and even analysed by a top forensic expert, who, presumably by lack of cutting or other skeletal bone cuts or marks, concluded that the two had been smothered?

So, like was recently scientifically proven with the skeleton of KIng Richard III (whoever supplied the DNA comparison analysis?), why won't Queen Liz II, the Church and Ministers allow DNA testing on the skeletons to exclude them at least?

 

Is it more than simply being alarmed at starting a disinternment of Royal bodies or being undecided what to do with potentially ''bogus'' Princes bones??

[medusa]

Well, the first reason is that some skeletons degrade sufficiently over time to not have any viable DNA to sample and the younger the person who died, the more likely that this may happen. In fact, there are lots of things which make the preservation of DNA less likely, including how the bodies were buried and the atmospherics of how they were preserved.

 

The other thing that may affect the ability to recover DNA is the fact that the most likely place of being able to find even a little DNA in a state with is not degraded is inside the crowns of fully developed adult molar teeth. These skeletons may be young enough to not actually have developed any adult molar teeth yet, so the chances of finding any DNA are very much reduced even if the skeletons are in otherwise good condition.

 

I agree that to determine whether the boys were indeed brothers would be the simpler task as all you would need is a little mitochondrial DNA to compare, since that is far more stable than nuclear DNA, but there's no guarantee that even that would be in good enough condition to compare and if you had that then it would not help with identification unless nuclear DNA could also be found and compared with previously identified living descendants.

[Electerrific]

Thanks, medusa, that explains the science (which that nutter woman from the RIII Society got in the way of during the king's excavation) but what about the Royal and Ministerial reasoning for continually and, apparently, finally, denying access to the skeletons?

[geared]

Historical specimens/artefacts??

They probably don't want them cut on, probed and examined due to their historical significance and the limited possibility of any proper outcome.

 

and the slight worry that they might actually prove they are nothing more than a couple of old peasant skeletons, as science tends to have a way of proving long held artefacts are nothing more than useless junk.

[Plain Talker]

Well, the first reason is that some skeletons degrade sufficiently over time to not have any viable DNA to sample and the younger the person who died, the more likely that this may happen. In fact, there are lots of things which make the preservation of DNA less likely, including how the bodies were buried and the atmospherics of how they were preserved.

 

The other thing that may affect the ability to recover DNA is the fact that the most likely place of being able to find even a little DNA in a state with is not degraded is inside the crowns of fully developed adult molar teeth. These skeletons may be young enough to not actually have developed any adult molar teeth yet, so the chances of finding any DNA are very much reduced even if the skeletons are in otherwise good condition.

 

I agree that to determine whether the boys were indeed brothers would be the simpler task as all you would need is a little mitochondrial DNA to compare, since that is far more stable than nuclear DNA, but there's no guarantee that even that would be in good enough condition to compare and if you had that then it would not help with identification unless nuclear DNA could also be found and compared with previously identified living descendants.

 

Hmm, they did that with the remains of the Romanovs,(the Russian Tzar's family) didn't they? They identified the remains of the slaughtered family by comparing their DNA with the living relative (some say it was the Duke of Kent, others say the Duke of Edinburgh's DNA) that proved a familial match.

 

Extrapolating that, if they proved the remains in the Leicester car park were Richard III's by familial DNA, could the same test be used on the bones that are alleged to be the princes in the Tower to be linked to Richard, and therefore proven to be the Princes?

[medusa]

Hmm, they did that with the remains of the Romanovs,(the Russian Tzar's family) didn't they? They identified the remains of the slaughtered family by comparing their DNA with the living relative (some say it was the Duke of Kent, others say the Duke of Edinburgh's DNA) that proved a familial match.

 

Extrapolating that, if they proved the remains in the Leicester car park were Richard III's by familial DNA, could the same test be used on the bones that are alleged to be the princes in the Tower to be linked to Richard, and therefore proven to be the Princes?

 

Theoretically if they could find enough viable DNA then they could, but this is all dependent on them being given permission to exhume the remains (which they are not currently being given) and permission to drill into the remains to find any potential remaining DNA, as well as there being sufficient DNA which hasn't been degraded.

 

Of course, even if they were to do this there is no guarantee that they will receive the answer that they are seeking, because uncle/nephew DNA isn't as close as they would like and to my knowledge there's no direct link (parent/child) DNA reference available for their parents' known descendants.

 

And even if you found a reference DNA sample, there's always a chance that along the line between then and now a child was born as a product of an affair in the intervening hundreds of years, making all of the above meaningless.

[Nagel]

Theoretically if they could find enough viable DNA then they could, but this is all dependent on them being given permission to exhume the remains (which they are not currently being given) and permission to drill into the remains to find any potential remaining DNA, as well as there being sufficient DNA which hasn't been degraded.

 

Of course, even if they were to do this there is no guarantee that they will receive the answer that they are seeking, because uncle/nephew DNA isn't as close as they would like and to my knowledge there's no direct link (parent/child) DNA reference available for their parents' known descendants.

 

And even if you found a reference DNA sample, there's always a chance that along the line between then and now a child was born as a product of an affair in the intervening hundreds of years, making all of the above meaningless.

 

Wow!

 

If the Richard III investigators had started from with the same negativity they would never have got anywhere. Probably it's worth a try with the Tower of London skeletons and maybe they'll get round to it. Who knows, someone may be working on it already.

[taxman]

Look, I've informed my lizard masters about this thread so either it will be deleted and there will be lots of queries to the helpdesk...or I'll manage to liquidate you before you get a chance to complain.

 

Either way, just pretend you never saw anything.

[jfish1936]

The important issue is:

Who killed them?

 

Consider Richard III; he has already had the princes declared illegitimate; they are no threat to him.

 

Now: Henry Tudor; he is reaching for the throne on the premise that R.III is a usurper.

To him, the boys are an obstacle, because his propaganda is that Richard faked the proof of their bastardry. So having them alive means they are between him and the throne. He had problems with pretenders who claimed to be one of the princes.

 

There's a lot of "evidence", but it's written down in Henry VII's reign by his people.

 

No way we'll know, but..........

[medusa]

Wow!

 

If the Richard III investigators had started from with the same negativity they would never have got anywhere. Probably it's worth a try with the Tower of London skeletons and maybe they'll get round to it. Who knows, someone may be working on it already.

 

That's the point though, isn't it? Permission to look at the skeletons has been denied consistently, so whatever we decide about testing is conjecture.

 

Who knows? Maybe they are in perfect condition and were mummified in a sterile atmosphere to reduce bacterial actions on the bodies and preserve their remains for thousands of years? If the scientists are refused permission to examine them then we'll never know, will we?