|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 2, 2014 22:06:53 GMT -5
To those who don't know. Male hg-G is NOT a typical modern European marker. Still don't get it? Well, many of the so-called descendents "relatives" of King Richard III are NOT his relatives. The lies are being exposed. --------- From the study(2014) ... In contrast to the Y-haplotypes of the putative modern relatives, Skeleton 1 belongs to haplogroup G-P287, with a corresponding Y-STR haplotype. Thus, the putative modern patrilinear relatives of Richard III are not genetically related to Skeleton 1 through the male line over the time period considered. However, this is not surprising, given an estimated average false-paternity rate of ~1–2% (refs 12, 17, 18). The putative modern relatives and Richard III are related through a male relative (Edward III) four generations up from Richard III (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Fig. 2), and a false-paternity event could have happened in any of the 19 generations separating Richard III and the 5th Duke of Beaufort, on either branch of the genealogy descending from Edward III. Indeed, even with a conservative false-paternity rate18 (see Supplementary Methods) the chance of a false-paternity occuring in this number of generations is 16%. www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html#supplementary-informationArabs in the Royal family?
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 3, 2014 14:12:10 GMT -5
One the things that stands out from this paper is “hesitation” of the researchers to disclose the MTDNA lineage of Richard III. You need to dig beep in the Supplemental and it is buried away in a parenthesis in a simple sentence. Surprisingly Richards III mother is NOT hg-H the typical modern European lineage but J1 found….where?
So what really happened in Europe during the Middle Ages. What happened to the Black Kings of Europe.
Maybe Bass, Someone in the know can take a bite out of this. What am I on about?
Several pieces of information were disclosed and others strangely NOT included. Are they being deceptive?
1. SLC24A5 and the related SNP was NOT disclosed. They listed SLC24A4. Why? 2. SLC45A2 was disclosed but the related SNP seems different to what is typically used as an indicator. 3. Ditto for TYR/2 4. He was documented as having round face and large teeth and very thin 5. Looks like he did have light eyes, may be blue 6. STR pop affinity was disclosed 7. No LCT was disclosed
What am I blabbering about?.....Richards was NOT your typical modern European. He seems reminiscent of the Otzi Alps Iceman
So…anyone?. See what you get. I don’t have the time now
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 4, 2014 10:19:06 GMT -5
Here are some interesting parts to the paper. I don’t know how this monarchy thing works but the authors seem to be suggesting that the current Monarchy may be illegimate. Furthermore Michael Ibsen is the ONLY one who can claim decent from Richard III. Even more fascinating is the of 26,000 individual in the current EUROPEAN database used NO ONE matches Richard the III and Micheal Ibsen. It is almost like an entire maternal line vanished. O course people on his mother’s side carry the line age. But FASCINATING.!!!!! Also the so called portraits may be …fake???...after all …a portrait made at east 25 years after his death. I wonder where the artist got his image from…many of Richards peers were probably dead by then. Reminds me of that fake portrait of Alexander the Great commissioned >400years after his death. Really? Imaginary Delusional modern Europeans!!!! Tsk! Tsk! --=====================------------- Identification of the remains of King Richard III -Turi E. King1,2 (Dec2014) Quotes from the paper It is also worth noting that we chose to be further conservative and did not include the observation of no matches found in 26,127 European mitochondrial control region haplotypes (LR=6847) (http://empop.org)80. Female mobility among the European nobility is likely to have been much higher than for the general population, because of marriage practices relating to political alliance formation. Such practices would provide some justification for using the European mtDNA database, and so for considering the haplotype found in Skeleton 1 and Michael Ibsen to be extremely rare.We find a perfect mitochondrial DNA match between the sequence obtained from the remains and one living relative, and a single-base substitution when compared with a second relative. Y-chromosome haplotypes from male-line relatives and the remains do not match, which could be attributed to a false paternity event occurring in any of the intervening generations.Richard’s death two years later on August 22nd 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth marked the end of the Plantagenet dynasty, which had ruled for over 300 years, and the beginning of the Tudor period. Richard III was the last English king to be killed in battle, he became one of Shakespeare’s most notorious villains, and is one of the few English monarchs whose precise resting place was lost: the mystery surrounding the fate of his remains persisting to the present day Analysis of the complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence from Skeleton 1 shows a perfect match with the mtDNA sequence of one living female-line relative of Richard III and a single substitution when compared with a second living female-line relative. The Y-chromosome haplotype from Skeleton 1 DOES NOT MATCH that of male-line relatives of Richard III, but this is not remarkable given that a false-paternity event could have occurred in any of the intervening generations. While no contemporary portraits of Richard III survive, the DNA-predicted hair and eye colour are consistent with Richard’s appearance in one early portrait.(XYYMAN COMMENT - ISN”T THIS CONTRADICTORY???) In CONTRAST to the Y-haplotypes of the PUTATIVE MODERN RELATIVES, Skeleton 1 belongs to haplogroup G-P287, with a corresponding Y-STR haplotype. Thus, the putative modern patrilinear relatives of Richard III are NOT genetically related to Skeleton 1 through the male line over the time period considered. However, this is not surprising, given an estimated average false Arched-Frame portrait and the portrait in the Royal Collection, both thought to date within a few years of each other in the 1510s. The SAL portrait is very different from other paintings of the king, which appear to derive(XYYMAN? OXYMORON???) from an original type represented by the portrait held by the Royal Collection. The SAL portrait also has not been subject to significant later overpainting33. Whilst there was no Y-chromosome match between the skeletal remains and five genealogically determined male-line relatives, given the known possibility of a false-paternity over several generations, this did not prove to be a highly significant factor. false-paternity between Edward III (1312–1377) and John would mean that John’s son, Henry IV (1367–1413), and Henry’s direct descendants (Henry V and Henry VI) would have had no legitimate claim to the crown. This would also hold true, indirectly, for the entire Tudor dynasty (Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I) since their claim to the crown also rested, in part, on their descent from John of Gaunt. The claim of the Tudor dynasty would also be brought into question if the false paternity occurred between John of Gaunt and his son, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset. If the false paternity occurred in either of the three generations between Edward III and Richard, Duke of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, then neither of their claims to the crown would have been legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 5, 2014 20:55:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 5, 2014 20:57:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 5, 2014 20:59:03 GMT -5
To the newbies and those who don't get it. The final determination for skin pigmentation is his genetic marker at SLC24A5 at SNP rs1426654. This is the new standard. This was oddly NOT disclosed. All other supporting data indicates he was dark skin ie ancestral except SLC45A2. His TWO parental markers were NOT typical modern European found in the current royal family. Indicating something funky went in in the past. But oddly enough BOTH sex markers are not typical European.
I guess you missed that. Delusional lying "Europeans"
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 8, 2014 15:22:03 GMT -5
For the record, quotes from the ACTUAL paper not a lying message board.
Richard III is yDNA G2 and mtDNA J1c2C3 (Some West Africans are J1b)
>>>>>>>>>>> -----------------------------------
ARTICLE Received 5 Aug 2014 | Accepted 21 Oct 2014 | Published 2 Dec 2014 Identification of the remains of King Richard III Turi E. King1,2, Gloria Gonzalez Fortes3,4
Quote: 1 Y-chromosome haplotypes from male-line relatives and the remains do not match, which could be attributed to a false paternity event occurring in any of the intervening generations.
Quote 2 Four of the modern “relatives” were found to belong to Y-haplogroup R1b-U152 (
Quote 3 In contrast to the Y-haplotypes of the putative modern relatives, Skeleton 1(Richard III) belongs to haplogroup G-P287, with a corresponding Y-STR haplotype
Quote 4
Finally the haplotype assignment (J1c2c3) was determined using Haplogroup ( //haplogrep.uibk.ac.at)52. See Supplementary Table
Quote 5 Next we investigated the probability that the mtDNA match between Skeleton 1 and ML1 could have occurred by chance. No matches with the observed sequence were found in a database of 26,127 European complete mtDNA control region sequences (http://empop.org/)29
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 20, 2014 16:38:26 GMT -5
It seems other people are finally catching on .......They are getting my point. Here are comments/quotes from Dienekes the Caucasoid bigot. Pretty soon he will have his hands full
From Dienekes..
1 – 6 of 6 Nick Patterson (Broad) said... I think that questioning the legitimacy of the British Sovereign is treason. The Tudors would have known what do with researchers in this area... Tuesday, December 02, 2014 9:47:00 pm
===================
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 20, 2014 16:39:43 GMT -5
Grognard said... Another ancient royalty DNA that shows up as G with purported descendents who are r1b. I have to wonder if there is some error in sequencing with this ancient DNA. They are finding a highly unusual amount of G in ancient DNA that is not even that old, when it is pretty rare today. Wednesday, December 03, 2014 10:07:00 pm
-=========================================== Anne Angstadt said... G may be very rare in northern and western Europe, but it's not rare elsewhere. It's the haplogroup of Oetzi the Iceman and its occurrence in modern Europe and W. Asia looks very much like a refugia pattern--a major refugium is the Caucasus where reaches 50% or more among various peoples including the Ossetians and Kartvelians. I can't be the only one who read this paper and immediately thought of Littleton & Malcor's *From Scythia to Camelot,* can I? There's no dispute that the Romans moved people from W. Asia to western Europe including the British Isles, the authors' departure is arguing that these Indo-Iranian steppe peoples retained their identity for some time and affected the development of post-Imperial society in these regions, including forming the nucleus of new local elites. No great stretch from this to the emergence into history of Richard III's Angevin ancestors in the late 9th century, in west central France. Once again we're looking at a fascinating clue to the movements of people. Also interesting if beside the point, Richard's mtdna is a rare variant--J1c2c--supposedly found only in N. England, of a predominately N. African lineage. I'm beginning to think his entire genome was a legacy of the Empire and its remarkable "globalization." Wasn't there a Roman burial in London of a young woman, clad in Chinese silk, whose isotope analysis suggested she grew up in N. Africa? In any case, it appears "the last English King of England" was neither Anglo-Saxon nor Norman. Monday, December 08, 2014 3:38:00 am
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 20, 2014 16:50:21 GMT -5
Another ancient royalty DNA that shows up as G with purported descendents who are r1b. I have to wonder if there is some error in sequencing with this ancient DNA. They are finding a highly unusual amount of G in ancient DNA that is not even that old, when it is pretty rare today. Wednesday, December 03, 2014 10:07:00 pm
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 21, 2014 21:53:43 GMT -5
for the record mtDNA haplogroup J
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 21, 2014 21:59:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 21, 2014 22:18:53 GMT -5
If no matches were found within Europe wouldn't it be prudent for the researches to compare matches to near by regions? But my guess is they were afraid of what they would find.
Quote 5 Next we investigated the probability that the mtDNA match between Skeleton 1 and ML1 could have occurred by chance. NO MATCHES with the observed sequence were found in a database of 26,127 European complete mtDNA control region sequences (http://empop.org/)29
|
|
|
Post by grandcrusader on Apr 23, 2015 0:54:36 GMT -5
To the newbies and those who don't get it. The final determination for skin pigmentation is his genetic marker at SLC24A5 at SNP rs1426654. This is the new standard. This was oddly NOT disclosed. All other supporting data indicates he was dark skin ie ancestral except SLC45A2. His TWO parental markers were NOT typical modern European found in the current royal family. Indicating something funky went in in the past. But oddly enough BOTH sex markers are not typical European. I guess you missed that. Delusional lying "Europeans" Xyyman so you saying he was Black?
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 23, 2015 5:02:43 GMT -5
I am saying he is very different to modern Euroepans and especially the Tudors. He was dark skin. My guess he looked like modern day "North Africans". Did he look like typical Nigerian? Probably not. To the newbies and those who don't get it. The final determination for skin pigmentation is his genetic marker at SLC24A5 at SNP rs1426654. This is the new standard. This was oddly NOT disclosed. All other supporting data indicates he was dark skin ie ancestral except SLC45A2. His TWO parental markers were NOT typical modern European found in the current royal family. Indicating something funky went in in the past. But oddly enough BOTH sex markers are not typical European. I guess you missed that. Delusional lying "Europeans" Xyyman so you saying he was Black?
|
|