Richard III reburial

[Atheling]

As Arlequin has said it is a legal requirement before the excavation could take place.

My original wording could have clearer- sorry.

No, no, don't be daft..... it's probably me just not thinking straight 

Darrell.

[Paul]

Rumour has it that Raggerty may have sprouted from the wrong side of the seed bed 

..but after branching out, going nuts and  barking up the wrong tree (euphamism alert?) apparently he turned over a new leaf.

[janner]

..but after branching out, going nuts and  barking up the wrong tree (euphamism alert?) apparently he turned over a new leaf.

Okay, this is getting a bit twisted now...

[Atheling]

Okay, this is getting a bit twisted now...

Maybe I was barking up the wrong tree when I argued that his burial should be in York Minster...... got coat, heading out of door!

Darrell.

[Metternich]

Atheling, I think you had the right piece of forest after all.  Based on everything I've read about Richard, he would have preferred York for his final resting place.  He had a special relationship with the city, which remained loyal to him even after his death.

[Paul]

On the theme of Richard III,,
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/england-of-richard-third

Don´t expect too much (I completed the course when it first came out) the "tutors" don´t always answer (even when directly PM´d) or join in much the Student discussion, especially if you query the given line and the accuracy of thier assumptions, and they do assume a lot.
Some, well a lot,  of the "students" have a  hollywood view of the period  which can sidetrack or bog the discussions down and are  best ignored ..There´s better informed discussion  here.
But, that said, it´s free and you can get a completion certificate (for the outlay of 25 quid)
This one´s
http://www.saylor.org/courses/hist302/
better..if you have the time and have completed two other courses first.

[Paul]

Now it´s really getting beyond a joke..
http://kriii.com/king-richard-iii-updated/
What´s next? An anchor Tattoo, piercings and pink Highlights?

[janner]

They've changed the eye and hair colour based on the latest research.

What's the big deal, Paul?

[Arlequín]

Y'know 530 years, same style, same colour and then wham! Welcome the new you! Big day out coming up too, it's only natural he'd want to pamper.

[Metternich]

Blonde hair    I thought Richard was dark, like his father (in contrast to his brother, Edward IV, who was blonde).  The famous portrait shows dark hair.

[Arlequín]

The earliest one shows a sort of mid-brown, somewhat less dark than the famous one... but still not 'strawberry blonde'. 

[carlos marighela]

The reinterment of Richard III. Proudly brought to you by Clairol.

[Tactalvanic]

The most important thing, is this time, remembering where they put him.

Otherwise in a few more hundred years we will have this repeated all over again.

Better record keeping please, and watch were you put the disabled parking..

[Paul]

They've changed the eye and hair colour based on the latest research.

What's the big deal, Paul?

This;

The earliest one shows a sort of mid-brown, somewhat less dark than the famous one... but still not 'strawberry blonde'.  

and, they were bleating at some Point that he was (like a lot of People) blonde as a child and his hair darkened .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/11268218/Richard-III-DNA-shows-British-Royal-family-may-not-have-royal-bloodline.html
According to Dr T King

The DNA evidence indicates that he has a high probability of having blue eye colour and blond hair. That would be a childhood hair colour, and hair can darken with age.

Note high probability but not conclusive proof.
Ignored by the press (and not further mentioned by leicester) he ( Dr Turi King) explained that the gene is primarily associated with hair colour in youth, rather than adulthood, and provided a chart of hair colour possibilities for Richard. The latter two were firmly in the brown spectrum.

As part of thier trying to prove the paintings of him didn´t fit with the blonde marker;

There are no contemporary portraits of Richard — they all post–date his death by about 25 to 30 years onwards

So what, the artists all thought "hair colour? F it..well go for something dark cos like, who could possibly remember what hair colour he actually had after such a Long time after his death"

They´ve (Leicester) possited that the potraits Show him with dark hair as "it is a medieval way to  protray his evil nature". This is, in short,  Cobblers. There´s no evidence of artists doing this, to say they did ignores the facts entirely. Edward II and Richard II,  both highly disliked and deposed are protrayed with guess what? Blonde hair.

In fact, they seem a bit scizophrenic about the paintings..on one Hand they use gobble -de -Asian to say the artists were using artistic licence but on the other Hand;

A further result is that the DNA-predicted hair and eye colour are consistent with Richard’s appearance in an early portrait

So what..one painting was okay-ish but now it´s  crap cos  it doesn´t fit with thier Publicity, sorry, narrative based on evidence?

Ok..he had a blond marker gene  but to say he was barbie doll blonde at death on the Basis of that ignores what everyone sees around them (and thier original Statements that fitted with the paintings ) ..children with blonde hair tend not to have blonde hair later in life due to  increase of eumelanin, which changes hair colour...it gets darker. If he´s this blonde in their representation, how blonde was he as a child? White blonde! ? Did they have peroxide back then?

Thier result ignores recent gene tests that Show nearly a third of those recently tested in Europe and shown to have a ‘blond’ marker, were not in fact blond, there´s a 70% Chance that he was blonde at death but  barbie doll blonde. ??

Protraying him as being barbie doll blonde at time of death is speculation and without 100% proof, is artistic licence..as bad as they have accused the medieval painters of.

As I posted above, they (leicester) do a course on "England of richard III" which was (and probably still is) chocker full of mistakes, suppositions and assumptions...They were happy to discuss "safe" stuff but question them  on something that they had obviously supposed with no evidence to back it up,  it all went very quiet.  Seems par for the course ..if anyone questions it..ignore them, or call nutter or jealous.

The reinterment of Richard III. Proudly brought to you by Clairol.

.. At least the hearse will be okay. If it gets a flat they can use Leicester Publicity Units tyre Lever. The same one they use to make the "Facts" fit thier narrative.

[Paul]

Found the paper....
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html
Figure 2: Hair and eye colour prediction from genetic data
The question is; Why go for the barbie doll blonde when other choices are available, ones that are closer the painting ?

It isn´t 100% definate, not the obvious choice but what the hell..it  Looks sensational !!!
 (Sensational as in create a Sensation ie; create Publicity? )