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.htmlAccording 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.
21 February 2013, 07:44:19 PM