×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

DNA Confirms Parking Lot Remains Belong To King Richard III

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the it's-just-like-poltergeist-for-drivers dept.

United Kingdom 212

An anonymous reader writes "It turns out that the remains found in a parking lot in Leicester, England belong to none other than King Richard III, one of the most reviled monarchs of English history. Scientists announced on Monday that they were able to confirm the identity of the skeleton through DNA testing."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh dear... (5, Funny)

magarity (164372) | about 2 years ago | (#42785521)

Oh dear, Richard the third.

Re:Oh dear... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785539)

Yes its Richard III.. not my ex-wife

Dear Mr Researcher,
    The donation to your research fund has been paid.

Re:Oh dear... (1)

wjousts (1529427) | about 2 years ago | (#42785997)

Somebody clearly hasn't seen Black Adder.

actually... (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#42785523)

the hump is what gave it away.

Re:actually... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785619)

the hump is what gave it away.

What hump?

Walk this way.

Re:actually... (2)

jamiesan (715069) | about 2 years ago | (#42785777)

If I could walk that way...

Re:actually... (1)

denvergeek (1184943) | about 2 years ago | (#42786213)

Didn't you, didn't you use to have that on the other side?

Re:actually... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786385)

Backstroke lover always hidin' 'neath the covers
Till I talked to your daddy, he say
He said "you ain't seen nothin' till you're down on a muffin
Then you're sure to be a-changin' your ways"
I met a cheerleader, was a real young bleeder
Oh, the times I could reminisce
'Cause the best things of lovin' with her sister and her cousin
Only started with a little kiss
Like this!

Seesaw swingin' with the boys in the school
And your feet flyin' up in the air
Singin' "hey diddle diddle"
With your kitty in the middle of the swing
Like you didn't care
So I took a big chance at the high school dance
With a missy who was ready to play
Wasn't me she was foolin'
'Cause she knew what she was doin'
And I knowed love was here to stay
When she told me to

Walk this way
Just gimme a kiss
Like this!

Schoolgirl sweetie with a classy kinda sassy
Little skirt's climbin' way up the knee
There was three young ladies in the school gym locker
When I noticed they was lookin' at me
I was a high school loser, never made it with a lady
Till the boys told me somethin' I missed
Then my next door neighbor with a daughter had a favor
So I gave her just a little kiss
Like this!

Seesaw swingin' with the boys in the school
And your feet flyin' up in the air
Singin' "hey diddle diddle"
With your kitty in the middle of the swing
Like you didn't care
So I took a big chance at the high school dance
With a missy who was ready to play
Wasn't me she was foolin'
'Cause she knew what she was doin'
And I knowed love was here to stay
When she told me to

When she told me how to walk this way, she told me to

Walk this way
Walk this way
Walk this way
Walk this way
Walk this way
Walk this way
Walk this way
Walk this way

Just gimme a kiss
Like this!

Re:actually... (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#42785953)

>>the hump is what gave it away.

Scoliosis AND the fact that his feet (or at least the bones of his feet) were missing.
Maybe the coffin that was ordered was a little bit to small and someone took off the feet.
Yet another mystery that needs to be solved by future time-travellers!

Re:actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786383)

Yet another mystery that needs to be solved by future time-travellers!

Actually, it has already been solved by time travelers, but they haven't existed yet to have already solved it. Paradoxical.

Re:actually... (2)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 2 years ago | (#42786041)

this researcher is going to get quite rich off guessing the location of the remains. he'll say "the hunch paid off!"

lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785537)

lol

My name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785543)

I share a name with this monarch

Re:My name (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785557)

Shut up, you Dick.

Re:My name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785625)

AC the third?

Why? (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42785547)

I haven't gotten a straight answer from MSM accounts as to why they even suspected this might be KR3.

Certainly, every time someone is dug up they don't say, "Oh look we found a body, better test it to see if this one is King Richard III maybe its him this time?"

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785581)

From TFA

"but the location of his grave was lost when the building was demolished in the 16th century.
A team of historians, though, were determined to find the body. Archaeologists used ground-penetrating radar on the site of the former priory, and were able to locate the skeleton beneath a parking lot after only a few days of digging."

Re:Why? (0)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42786329)

Ah I see. I clicked on the article and video started playing so I closed it. I hate that. The MSM infotainment providers I saw the story on this morning either didn't go into the "why" or they went all crazy about value judgments about monarchies as a political system blah blah blah.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785605)

Don't let reading the article stand in the way of your ignorance.

From the article:
...with his death on the battlefield at Bosworth in 1485. He was given a low-key burial in the church of Greyfriars in the center of Leicester, but the location of his grave was lost when the building was demolished in the 16th century.

A team of historians, though, were determined to find the body. Archaeologists used ground-penetrating radar on the site of the former priory, and were able to locate the skeleton beneath a parking lot after only a few days of digging.

Re:Why? (1)

GiMP (10923) | about 2 years ago | (#42785607)

The suspicion was based on where they were digging and the presence of a humpback. Interestingly, many believed the hump was a fabrication by his enemies and used a tool of propaganda. Turns out: he really did have one.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

lochnessie (1291986) | about 2 years ago | (#42785621)

From TFA: "...his reign lasted just 26 months and ended with his death on the battlefield at Bosworth in 1485. He was given a low-key burial in the church of Greyfriars in the center of Leicester, but the location of his grave was lost when the building was demolished in the 16th century. A team of historians, though, were determined to find the body. Archaeologists used ground-penetrating radar on the site of the former priory, and were able to locate the skeleton beneath a parking lot after only a few days of digging."

Re:Why? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#42785623)

More then likely, he was found with jewelry or something that gave the hint.

My question is, why would he be buried under a parking lot? I mean without looking up how he met his end, I would assume royalty, whether hated or not, would have been buried somewhere that we knew of and could simply say, permit to build X denied because it's on a grave yard.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

Andrewkov (140579) | about 2 years ago | (#42785707)

Actual cause of death: Run over by a paving machine.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#42785727)

Because some countries have more than a couple of hundred years of history. Oddly, it wasn't always a parking lot.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786083)

You must have missed his user name.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

Narcocide (102829) | about 2 years ago | (#42785737)

The article answers this question; he was buried under a church which was destroyed around a century later and the knowledge of the location was lost to time. They knew he had to be buried somewhere in town but no longer knew where.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

Zephyn (415698) | about 2 years ago | (#42785847)

More then likely, he was found with jewelry or something that gave the hint.

My question is, why would he be buried under a parking lot?

Because fate loves irony. He died shortly after offering his kingdom for a horse, and he was found under the wheels of a Mustang.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786013)

More then likely, he was found with jewelry or something that gave the hint.

My question is, why would he be buried under a parking lot?

Because fate loves irony. He died shortly after offering his kingdom for a horse, and he was found under the wheels of a Mustang.

That's not ironic, that's a coincidence (if it were true).

Re:Why? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786367)

More then likely, he was found with jewelry or something that gave the hint.

My question is, why would he be buried under a parking lot?

Because fate loves irony. He died shortly after offering his kingdom for a horse, and he was found under the wheels of a Mustang.

That's not ironic, that's a coincidence (if it were true).

Except it is not true. He was offered the chance to escape on a horse but he chose to fight on. The accepted history comes from the Lancastrian propagandist the Earl of Oxford a playwright.

Re:Why? (1)

jimicus (737525) | about 2 years ago | (#42785995)

I'm not sure that 16th Century England had particularly strong planning law.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#42786027)

My question is, why would he be buried under a parking lot?

I don't know, but I'm always amazed that the ancient Romans insisted on building their villas below 20th Century office blocks. I mean, what gives?

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

davidshewitt (1552163) | about 2 years ago | (#42786549)

They weren't thinking 4th-dimensionally. ;-)

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785649)

What are the chances that, over on the western side of the pond, that every corpse found at a football field is tested for whether it used to be Jimmy Hoffa?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785963)

Out by us we have projects regularly delayed by finding Indian remains from the times before white people arrived.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#42786001)

The difference being that in the case of Richard III, they didn't just dig everywhere and submitted each found corpse for testing, they were digging where ground radar were indicating the foundations of a destroyed abbey in the vincinity of exactly the place where documents and history books were saying Richard III was buried in an abbey. With Jimmy Hoffa, there is no single account of his end and no indication of a place where his remainings are buried.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

SoTerrified (660807) | about 2 years ago | (#42785675)

I haven't gotten a straight answer from MSM accounts as to why they even suspected this might be KR3.

1) They have DNA from a descendant of King Richard III. They were able to get a DNA sample from the skeleton. It's a match.
2) Skeleton is a man in his early 30s. King Richard III died at 32.
3) History indicated King Richard III suffered from scoliosis. Skeleton has curved back consistent with scoliosis.
4) Skeleton was killed by blows to the head, then suffered a sword thrust upward through the buttock. King Richard III died due to a head wound, and as a war leader, it is consistent that his body would've been subject to 'humiliation wounds'.
5) They knew King Richard had been buried beneath the church of Greyfriars in the centre of Leicester. However that building was destroyed so the exact location was unknown. However the place the body was found was one of the potential sites of that structure.
6) Bone analysis showed a high protein diet, consistent with nobility of the era.

Why it might not be King Richard III?
1) History indicates he had a withered right arm. The skeleton shows the right arm to be completely normal.

But really, the DNA match is the smoking gun. It proves that the skeleton must've shared a maternal ancestor with King Richard III, and combined with the other evidence, it seems very likely that it's certainly King Richard III

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

Motard (1553251) | about 2 years ago | (#42785825)

Good. Now we can clone him and open Plantagenet Park.

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

Wansu (846) | about 2 years ago | (#42785887)

"How do you know he's king?"

"He hasn't got shit all over him."

-- Monty Python, The Holy Grail

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785895)

The withered right arm was contrived by Shakespeare. Many historians never believed it to be the case.

Re:Why? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 2 years ago | (#42785989)

Well, that wouldn't be surprising. Shakespeare was writing after that had happened when the Tudors were running things. So, making Richard III worse than he was probably was a good career move. But, until now, we didn't really know for sure as anybody writing during Richard III time would probably omit that for the same reasons that people afterwards would be more inclined to concoct something like that.

But, now that the body has been located, the truth is revealed.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42786321)

Many scholars over the past few centuries have come to the conclusion that all of Shakespeare's historical plays of English kings were largely Tudor propaganda. Remember that Henry VII's claim to the throne was somewhat dubious and that even in his granddaughter Elizabeth's time, there was some sensitivity over how the Tudors had come to the throne. Building up the grandeur of Henry VII's ancestors whilst simultaneously making Richard III into almost the most loathsome creature in the history of the the theater was all part and parcel of the Tudor's solidifying their claim to the throne.

Of course the ultimate irony is that after Henry VII, the Tudor line just withered away and Henry VIII had no legitimate grandchildren, and thus the crown got passed on to the Stuarts.

Re:Why? (1)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | about 2 years ago | (#42785919)

Why should he have had a withered right arm?

There was a tennis player around 50 years ago called Rod Laver. He played and practiced so much that his right arm was twice as thick as his left. Richard was similar - except that it was because of sword use. I don't know about tennis players but a lot of the nobility back then trained that much. Richard was an excellent general and led from the front. That approach pretty much died with Richard. Henry VII was a politician whose army was provided by relatives and the King of France. He relied on bodyguards and keeping well away from the fighting.

Re:Why? (2)

Andyvan (824761) | about 2 years ago | (#42786259)

Rod Laver was/is left-handed.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786007)

I wonder how much of that DNA coresponds to a good portion of Brittains population. Because really, history is all about drinking and wenching, which kings did more than anyone else.
Just because you found a corpse with similar DNA doesn't mean much.
~30 was the average lifespan.
Scoliosis, while not exactly common, was just like any other disease at that time, impossible to cure.
Diet doesn't mean much, because it mostly depended on profession. Do you think butchers eat less protein or more? How about hunters? Or sheepherders?

Re:Why? (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42786319)

Scoliosis, while not exactly common, was just like any other disease at that time, impossible to cure.

Which is not much different from today. I'd welcome a cure, but there isn't one.

Re:Why? (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42786341)

The DNA is but one link. The location of the grave near the battle sight, the account that Richard had been buried by Fransiscans in a place of honor, these all make a pretty compelling case that the skeleton that was discovered was Richard III's.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786053)

Don't you think it is possible that he is some other relative of the decendent of his sister? If we assume four generations per century, that's a million different people. Any nobleman would have been likely to have a high protein diet and all sorts died of battle wounds.

Unless you have good reason to believe you have the remains of a close relative you've got nothing.

Re:Why? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 2 years ago | (#42786195)

That's what I was thinking too. How do you prove his identity using the DNA of a descendant 20 generations later? If each child gets half the DNA of each parent, that works out to one millionth in the end. And since this DNA is inherited with whole chromosomes at a time, chances are pretty low of even a single chromosome being inherited. On the other hand, there's a million other ancestors who could match just as well as Richard the third. So how exactly did they "prove" they were dealing with the real Richard the Third?

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786417)

That's what I was thinking too. How do you prove his identity using the DNA of a descendant 20 generations later? If each child gets half the DNA of each parent, that works out to one millionth in the end. And since this DNA is inherited with whole chromosomes at a time, chances are pretty low of even a single chromosome being inherited. On the other hand, there's a million other ancestors who could match just as well as Richard the third. So how exactly did they "prove" they were dealing with the real Richard the Third?

Mitochondrial DNA, it requires the person to be his sisters [daughters, daughters, ..., daughters, child].
however, that might also fit a fair few people.

Re:Why? (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42786057)

He didn't have a withered arm. He made guests touch his "funny arm", which back then was referred to as the whither arm.

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

Vreejack (68778) | about 2 years ago | (#42785745)

He would have been buried under a large paving stone in the floor of the church. It would have been engraved with his name, but was probably lost when the church was demolished. The Tudors had no interest in preserving his memory, which was a threat to their legitimacy.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786583)

Nope the history says his body was dragged from the battlefield and then buried without any ceremony, don't forget the people who buried him were the opposing side and they hated him, which also ties in with these remains having numerous wounds on the bones, who'd waste their energy on some average foot soldier?, looks from the evidence they flung him into a hole dug in the cathedral and covered it up, doubt they bothered with a stone.

Re:Why? (2)

milkmage (795746) | about 2 years ago | (#42786153)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882 [bbc.co.uk]

However, a team of enthusiasts and historians managed to trace the likely area - and, crucially, after painstaking genealogical research, they found a 17th-generation descendant of Richard's sister with whose DNA they could compare any remains.

Joy Ibsen, from Canada, died several years ago but her son, Michael, who now works in London, provided a sample.

Re:Why? (2)

bob_jordan (39836) | about 2 years ago | (#42786375)

Maybe it was just a hunch.

Bob.

Re:Why? (1)

milkmage (795746) | about 2 years ago | (#42786593)

my other comment was a cut/paste failure

basically, they had a pretty good idea the location they were digging was the church where he was buried

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882 [bbc.co.uk]

"In August 2012, an excavation began in a city council car park - the only open space remaining in the likely area - which quickly identified buildings connected to the church."

Now is the winter of our discontent (5, Funny)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 2 years ago | (#42785575)

"Validation! Validation! My kingdom for validated parking!"

Re:Now is the winter of our discontent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785757)

It's not funny. I used to live near Lancaster, and now I'm in deep shit.

See this news for details: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/richard-iii-to-pick-up-where-he-left-off-2013020458569

Obligatory Blackadder quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785611)

"Oh dear, Richard the Third."

Re:Obligatory Blackadder quote (4, Funny)

SoTerrified (660807) | about 2 years ago | (#42785731)

Better Blackadder quote:

Prince Edmund: "Well, frankly, everyone thought you were dead."
Richard III: "Well, frankly, I am."

Purebred KR the Third? (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 2 years ago | (#42785641)

Well at least today, we have inbred royals who don't pose the same sort of threat.

Wrong: all your (DNA) base are belong to us (1)

Liquid Len (739188) | about 2 years ago | (#42785651)

n/t

Car Park (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785659)

This is England, we don't have parking lots. We have car parks

Re:Car Park (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#42785897)

So what's Richard III doing in a car park?

Re:Car Park (2)

tom17 (659054) | about 2 years ago | (#42785983)

Parking cars, what else does one do in a car park?

Re:Car Park (2)

DrXym (126579) | about 2 years ago | (#42786281)

Huff glue.

Re:Car Park (1)

mfraz74 (1151215) | about 2 years ago | (#42786113)

Exactly, it is where we park cars. What do you do in a parking lot, bid on cars?

He may have been the most reviled... (2)

tippe (1136385) | about 2 years ago | (#42785669)

but surely he deserved better than to be buried in a parking lot!

*ducks*

Reburial Where? (1)

kiehlster (844523) | about 2 years ago | (#42785699)

"Currently, plans are underway for a reburial ceremony for the remains."

Well yeah, but where? Back under the parking lot where he's been resting comfortably for centuries? Another outlying low-key area where he'll be lost again until the 28th century?

Re:Reburial Where? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#42785851)

"Currently, plans are underway for a reburial ceremony for the remains."

Well yeah, but where? Back under the parking lot where he's been resting comfortably for centuries? Another outlying low-key area where he'll be lost again until the 28th century?

That's right British people, make sure this murderer of the true heir to the English throne gets a royal burial with all the pomp and ceremony due him. In other words, dump his body in the nearest sewer.

Re:Reburial Where? (2)

wjousts (1529427) | about 2 years ago | (#42786039)

Leicester Cathedral. Which I'm assuming they are not likely to lose track of.

Re:Reburial Where? (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about 2 years ago | (#42786189)

Not likely. Of course they did lose track of the church he was buried under the first time....

Re:Reburial Where? (1)

wjousts (1529427) | about 2 years ago | (#42786629)

They didn't have Google Maps then.

Also, it seems unlikely that the current or future government of England will actively try and erase him from history again.

A parking lot, a parking lot... (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | about 2 years ago | (#42785713)

...my kingdom for a parking lot!

Reserved Parking Lot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785721)

Does that make it his reserved parking lot spot for eternity?

Re:Reserved Parking Lot? (2)

DrXym (126579) | about 2 years ago | (#42785805)

Didn't you know? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Do you take the Tudors as historians? (4, Interesting)

tylikcat (1578365) | about 2 years ago | (#42785729)

"Most reviled"... but also among the most defended (though the former lead to the latter).

Not that I'm particular thrilled with the idea of kings in general, but most everything bad about him was written by people with a vested interest in running him down.

Re:Do you take the Tudors as historians? (5, Interesting)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | about 2 years ago | (#42786091)

He was responsible for the North of England while his brother was king. There were laws protecting the weak from the strong, laws which were habitually ignored. He changed that and as the king's brother had the muscle to make it stick. When the French persuaded the Scottish king to distract the English by conducting raids in the border areas, he took an army to Edinburgh and did some serious damage there. The people in the north loved him. Unfortunately the Duke of Northumberland did not like the competition and betrayed Richard. The City of York tried to provide an army to support Richard but Northumberland was the one who should have led it and he simply left those soldiers behind so he could change sides.
The new king Henry sent Northumberland out to raise taxes. His bodyguard left him unprotected. Commoners dragged him from his horse and killed him. Two generations after Richard's death, the king's reprasentative in the North was complaining that he was being measured against Richard and no-one could live up to that example.

Who killed the Princes in the Tower? It may have been Richard, it was most certainly not the knight who subsequently confessed to it but it was probably Lord Buckingham. He was Richard's must trusted subordinate, had access and seems to have done the deed immediately before he rebelled against Richard and tried to become king himself. He was utterly outclassed as a general and his army was no match for Richard's.

Re:Do you take the Tudors as historians? (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42786393)

The killing of the princes was a dark deed, and while some suggest that perhaps Henry VII might have had a hand in it, it does seem largely to point to Richard. But all in all, Richard was, by the standards of the 15th century, a pretty enlightened man, and most certainly in the North his name was far more honored than it was in the rest of England.

Richard probably did some pretty awful things, but a survey of Medieval kings will show anyone interested in history that Richard was no worse than many and a good deal better than some.

King of Parking Lot Castle (2)

WilyCoder (736280) | about 2 years ago | (#42785743)

King of Parking Lot Castle III: When I first came here, this was all parking lot. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a parking lot, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the parking lot. So I built a second one. That sank into the parking lot. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the parking lot. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.

A corpse, a corpse, my kingdom for a corpse! (1)

Anonymous Meoward (665631) | about 2 years ago | (#42785747)

A corpse is a corpse, of course of course..

Still no explanation (2, Funny)

fredrated (639554) | about 2 years ago | (#42785823)

as to why he was buried in a parking lot.

Re:Still no explanation (4, Funny)

Wovel (964431) | about 2 years ago | (#42785947)

Obviously someone hired Tony Soprano to take him out.

Re:Still no explanation (1)

jimicus (737525) | about 2 years ago | (#42786009)

Yes there is. It used to be a church about five hundred years ago.

Re:Still no explanation (3, Informative)

wjousts (1529427) | about 2 years ago | (#42786077)

He wasn't. He was buried at a chapel. A chapel that was later knocked down and replaced with a house. A house that was later bought by the council, knocked down and replaced with a car park.

Re: Still no explanation (1)

multi io (640409) | about 2 years ago | (#42786237)

Suffocation in the cement mixer?

Re:Still no explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786469)

They had to have somewhere to get rid of the original Stigg from Top Gear.

Oh, the irony. Captcha is clutches

Re:Still no explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786675)

007 must've been stuck in his impromptu jousting match with the French.

I came here for Hoffa (1)

kdogg73 (771674) | about 2 years ago | (#42785829)

But all I got was this lousy king.

Title Ambiguity (5, Funny)

Chiller (1883) | about 2 years ago | (#42785845)

Hey, King Richard III, the DNA says the remains of this here parking lot are yours.

Re:Title Ambiguity (1)

Grand Facade (35180) | about 2 years ago | (#42786135)

"his remains were found in a parking lot"

I'm thinking "WTF who dumped KR3 in a parking lot"

Title should read "lost remains of KR3 found under parking lot"

Then I could have come to the appropriate conclusion without having to read the article, "Oh, BFD..."

Fuck a king (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785917)

eat a dick straight up limeys.
Sincerely,
all the adults in the world

How does one properly prepare dick straight up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786087)

My good man, I'm quite the fan of spotted dick, but I am unsure as to how it is to be prepared "straight up" as you say?
Now then old boy if you could perhaps reveal us of your prepatory techniques we could better avail ourselves of what does indeed sound like a splendid dish!

By the way old man, have you tried the pork faggots in sauce?

So (1)

conscarcdr (1429747) | about 2 years ago | (#42785977)

he was the victim of a botched parking stunt?

Oh damn it all! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42785981)

This just spoiled the Time Team special for me tonight!

Stupid news being current and updated quickly when I don't want it to be!

Shoot?? (1)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about 2 years ago | (#42786045)

On the BBC website when I looked at it a few minutes ago, underneath the teaser for:

Richard III - Bones found in Car Park

was the headline:

Man arrested in shooting death

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42786059)

That's going to be a hell of a Parking Ticket!

Richard III or a relative? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#42786185)

From the article:

With the new evidence, though, researchers were able to find a DNA match between the maternal DNA of the descendants and the remains. It turned out that the skeleton had indeed once been Richard III.

How does the maternal DNA match "prove" it is Richard III versus a relative?

Poor Dick (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 2 years ago | (#42786261)

He lost a kingdom and didn't even get his horse.

Ground-penetrating radar operator quote (1)

paiute (550198) | about 2 years ago | (#42786665)

"I think we have spotted Dick!"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?