Well, it seems they are very confident the skeleton is that of the much-maligned Richard. Doesn't throw any light on the "Princes in the Tower" story either way but does show he had a probable slight curvature of the spine not the crookback of Shakespeare's excellent fiction, so he could have capered nimbly in a ladies chamber after all. The winter of my discontent isn't made glorious summer. www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/21261553

Well, it seems they are very confident the skeleton is that of the much-maligned Richard. Doesn't throw any light on the "Princes in the Tower" story either way but does show he had a probable slight curvature of the spine not the crookback of Shakespeare's excellent fiction, so he could have capered nimbly in a ladies chamber after all. The winter of my discontent isn't made glorious summer. www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/21261553

"Probable slight curvature"?

Mate, his spine is like a question-mark! Reckon old Shakespeare had it spot on, especially "crookback" and not "hunchback"

I did mishear the sideways curvature as "slight" curvature, apologies for that

... but, nonetheless, they are saying it was a sideways thing ([iscoliosis rather than the kyphosis that you'd have expected if Richard had been crookbacked or hunchbacked[/i) giving him one shoulder visibly higher than the other, not a crooked back.



So the portrait showing him with a "hump" was not accurate and the stories put around in Tudor times about his appearance were not true either.



What we would need next would be the examination of a) the bones found in the Tower of London and b) the bones in coffins found in Windsor Castle ... to DNA test to see if they are the bones of the Princes (nephews of Richard, i.e. Edward IV's sons) and to see if any cause of death is evident.

Can't see it happening though as it requires the Queen's say-so and, as she is descended from Henry VII (whose army slew Richard), why would she want to?

It is entirely possible that Henry VII killed the princes and then blamed Richard.

thats Lancastrians for you.

honestly, what a total waste of money, time and effort.

Is that what your parents said to you after you turned 18

No, but thanks for your concern, idiot.

Tudors mate, not Lancastrians.

Henry VII's claim to be descended via the Lancastrian line from John O'Gaunt was, erm, putting it kindly, tenuous.

Blimey, what have you got against this then?

No profit in it for multinationals or something?

Now we want to know: was Edward IV a legitimate son of Richard Duke of York and so entitled to be Duke of York/King of England?

All of this history is fascinating to me now, but when I was of an age to take advantage of the free History education that was offered me at my Grammar School, I hated the subject, dull boring lists of dates of Kings and Queens with no connection to reality quoted at us by a dull boring old man who couldn't make the subject interesting if he tried, which he didn't - dropped the subject when I was 13 years old, devour every snippet now.

Well, Richard Duke of York was OK with Edward being his son.



Of course, if Edward hadn't been legitimate, then Richard Duke of Gloucester would have been able to inherit the title and claim to the throne from Richard Duke of York.

But he didn't dispute Edward's succession either.



So, Edward's father accepted him as his son, and Edward's brother accepted him as his brother despite the temptation of the title becoming his.



No-one ever produced any actual evidence otherwise.

I think it's a blind alley.