Just been listening to my local radio station. Professor Martin Biddle,
Professor of Medieval Archaeology at Oxford University, is involved in
producing a map of Winchester in 1800 is doubting that the bones were those
of Richard III. He claims that the excavation wasn't done properly - in fact
nothing was done properly - and that the DNA results presented were not
convincing, although he admits he isn't a geneticist. He was asked if there
was something sinister in the person with the DNA match from the other line
wanting to remain anonymous, and he said he just thought they didn't want to
be involved in all the fuss. The only thing he agreed with was the facial
reconstruction which was done by a "very good friend" of his. Wonder why he
agreed with that and nothing else?
He was asked about the possible finding of Alfred the Great. He said he
thought it was doubtful because his remains were moved so many times, but
they had recovered and genetically identified Alfred's grand daughter so if
they do find him they already have DNA for comparison. Bet he was involved
in that discovery and everything was absolutely marvellous.
It just came across as sour grapes on his part as well as pompous.
Devon, the Daily Mail has a reputation for jumping on any bandwagon and
campaigning for just about anything that can be campaigned about, especially
when a well-known person says something on TV that causes offence and they
can head a campaign to get them sacked. It isn't generally regarded as a
particularly serious newspaper. So I doubt that much weight would be put on
anything that newspaper says.
Jean in Poole, Dorset, UK
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace-chat [email protected]. For help, write to
[email protected]. Photo site:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
