GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:
So, it was confirmed to be him then?
Not 'confirmed' as such. DNA profiling can never be 100%, all you can expect is degrees of probability (as I know from my days studying a Bsc in Crime Scene Science
).
However, it is known that:
(a) the remains found have a DNA profile which closely matches that of a
known descendant of Richard III (a man named Michael Ibsen, via one of the Kings mistresses IIRC).
(b) IIRC, the bones were found to contain high traces of certain minerals etc, indicating a meat/fish rich diet.
(c) The remains were found in the vicinity of the known burial place of Richard III. Contemporary writers mention that the King was buried near some monastary or abbey. The structure was later demolished in Henry VIII (himself a Tudor and the son of the king who deposed Richard) so the exact location was not known, but it was known to be in the general area.
(d) The skeleton features damage which resembles battle wounds, such as a portion of the skull cut off; as well as "humiliation injuries".This is similar to contemporary accounts of the Kings death.
(e) the skeleton features a curved spine, causing one shoulder to appear higher than the other resulting in a hunched appearance. Tudor propaganda and contemporary popular culture from Shakespeare et al depicted the King as a hideous Hunchback.
All of which tends to the obvious conclusion that the skeleton is
very probably Richard III himself.
Although it is of course vaguely possible that some other Nobleman descended from the same line as Michael Ibsen with a deformed spine and living on a rich diet was also killed violently around the same period of history and buried in the same general area.