E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Dan Kitwood / Getty Images
A facial reconstruction based on the skull of King Richard III is unveiled by the Richard III Society, in London on Feb. 5, 2013.
The face of England's King Richard III was revealed for the first time in more than 500 years on Tuesday following a reconstruction based on a skull unearthed from a parking lot in the city of Leicester.
After carrying out a series of scientific investigations on bones exhumed from the site last year, the University of Leicester announced on Monday that the remains belonged to Richard III, who died in battle in 1485.
Justin Tallis / AFP - Getty Images
Michael Ibsen, a descendant of England's King Richard III, poses for pictures with a plastic model made from the recently discovered skull of the king, during a press conference in London on Feb. 5, 2013.
As detailed by NBC News Science Editor Alan Boyle, DNA was extracted from bone samples and compared with modern-day mitochondrial DNA from two direct descendants of Richard III's family, including Michael Ibsen, a Canadian-born cabinetmaker who is a 17th-generation descendant of Richard III's eldest sister, Anne of York.
The skeleton's relatively delicate structure was consistent with descriptions of Richard III's physical appearance, University of Leicester historian Lin Foxhall said.
The bones of Richard III, who reigned for two years, have been discovered in Leicester, England, and they indicate that his spine was twisted by scoliosis and that he received eight head wounds in battle. NBC's Stephanie Gosk reports.
Leave a Comment:
It's amazing a face can be reconstructed from a skull. I watched a show last week where they reconstructed faces of well-known people and it was incredible to get an idea of what they actually looked like. I've heard that artist portraits of these people tended to be flattering, so they wouldn't be all that accurate. Amazing, really amazing. It brings history to life.
Yawn!
my great grandfather william hyatt ( 17 times removed ) knew king richard .. he looks just like grandfather descrbied him ...
@willie****** and your grandmother is still alive and is reading this article on MSN.com right.. lol..
yes but grand mama( 17 times removed ) does`nt look as good ....
I never knew he was that good looking...much cuter than even his official portrait.
Did they find Shrek too.......................
Hey, why is everyone having a shyte fit? It is history, gone, done, dead, buried and dug up and soon to be buried again. Who really cares what he did or did not do? You fools really make him sound like a Very Bad Guy. They were all Bad Guys, royalty has always bred vicious uncaring kings and queens. Haven't you guys been watching "A Game of Thrones" on AMC TV, I think. The way they kill each other, betray each other, screw each other is the true way that they lived.
And now you wierdos are up in arms about a dead English King who died 500 years ago. And you are whining because he killed Bucking ham and a few other royals. It is no different now except that now politcians are destroyed by he media and public opinion instead of the guillotine and sword. Grow up, get a job, Mcdonalds down the street is hiring geniuses like you.
"King Richard died in battle"... that's the difference between past warfare and today...Today the "Kings" just send everybody else to do the fighting...
Hey fu2u also, you are right, they were real men who went out there and fought and died by their soldiers side. Now you have fat azzzzzz politicians calling the shots, and generals smoking cigars in their offices talking on mobile phones about how the battle is going. i should know, 20 years in the military, and have seen plenty of that. good point and FU2U as well...have a cool day.. dude
The evil that men do lives after,and the good is often in turd with their bones. Shakespeare :
like Caesar,history is written by men with an agenda. The New Testament is a classic case.
The technology today is unreal...just like most of the stories out there!...First of all...History is written by the winners...so it is of course one sided...And William Shakespear...or Francis Bacon...who ever wrote the Plays...what side were they on?
The English have a loyalty to a throne that is not easily understood. I agree that it is very difficult to create the features of a person from a skull. Artists know that the slightest change in any portion of a face can change the whole look. And also there's the factor that the Crown may be quite interested to influence the reconstructors to make his appearance pleasing. After all, after looking at available pictures of the Royal lineage, most of those people have just flat out been hit with the ugly stick. Diana was the one set of genes that helped. I wouldn't be so fast to believe the glories set forth by these reconstruction artists.
@Jersey Kat, you are right, they had "official" paintings made of them, and special poses as well. The paintings were made to make them more flattering, that is true. Look @ Queen Victoria, she was a major dog, and they made her look acceptable.
I had read the same thing before about portraits, so who said that pictures don't lie.. huh?
Jazzman47 - I heard that portrait painters back in the day created more flattering imagines because they wanted to keep the work coming. If they painted portraits that were more true to life, they probably wouldn't have gotten much work. I just read there is an old portrait of Queen Elizabeth that has been hidden for 60 years and a recent official head shot of the Duchess of Cambridge got low marks too. I've seen the official head shot of the Duchess and I think she is actually much prettier.
I think it is very exciting. English as well as all Euopean history really captures the imagination.
I think he deserves his rightful burial as a king of England.
who cares if it is him or not
I'm no scientist, but how can you possibly know how thick their eyebrows were or how thick their lips were. It's just to get some idea. He could have been a unibrow and have lips like JayZee!
I know based on your nationality there are expected ranges in size, thickness etc. of facial features. But you are right, we don't really know - it really is just an intelligent guess. That and I'm guessing they are basing it off any oil paintings of the monarch!
How do they know its him? What if its an imposter bones because they didnt want anyone to find the real bones , and during that time period didnt they burn people?
People were so good looking back then.....beautiful features!
You would think that locations of former monarchs would be, not only remembered but, marked with some sort of monument or historical marker. They need such a department in England, apparently, to keep track. oops! Maybe, the current monarchy can be in charge of such an endeavor. They dont do anything, otherwise. Well, besides go to clubs and patrol expensive secondary education facilities for their next conquests. This would help them earn their keep. Give them park ranger type hats.
To the victor go the spoils, and the right to choose what history will be recorded. Please note that it is extremely unusual for the winner to have history written that will designate him as the bad guy.
The Tudors of old were not the nicest people in the world. Does anyone happen to remember what Henry VIII did to his wives when he tired of them? Royalty, in general, was out for survival and victory. The path to that goal was littered with the bodies of anyone who got in the way.
Richard was probably not a whole lot nice than any of the other would be kings of that time, but he was probably not a whole lot worse, either.
Being an aspiring ruler was hazardous to one's health. Being in competition for a throne didn't end well for anyone other than the victor. Our present day reverence for children's lives is a fairly new phenomenon. Children were considered possessions in that time. They were sold, bartered and frequently buried because of rampant disease and abuse. Getting attached to one's child was avoided because it was unlikely that the child would survive. Children were farmed out to wet nurses and often raised in filth and squalor, even when those children were the offspring of the wealthy. For royalty, children were pawns, disposable pieces in the chess game that conferred power and wealth on the victor. Girl children were promised to doddering princes to cement political alliances. Children were beaten, neglected and imprisoned at the drop of a hat.
Even if Richard did kill the princes, it was not as though there weren't others who wouldn't have done the same thing if those children stood between them and the throne. As one poster noted earlier, Henry had a far better motive.
Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived (Henry). The Wives of Henry VIII that is.
reno19, when the Civil War by Ken Burns showed on public tv years ago, I remember my sister saying how handsome the men were back then. Just sayin.
well, i think he looks like lord farquad from shrek. that is all.
The resemblence between the plastic cast and Michael Ibsen is amazing - you can see it clearly, the chin, the nose, cheek bones, lips/mouth and eyes. He is clearly a descendent IF this cast is accurate. Amazing!
Except he isn't. If you read the article you would know that he is descended from the King's sister. Not the King.
I'm confused as to why he appears to have somewhat of an epicanthal fold and almond shaped eye openings, was he Asian? Or did someone mess up here?
He looks like Lord Farquaad from Shrek.
BAHAHA!! True
SOOOOO why did they do this? Time energy and money...and for what? So we die and can expect to be dug up later. Isnt the name archeologist just a fancy word for grave robber. let the dead lie. They have no business digging up people and taking their belongings. If they wanted someone to own their things they would have willed them off. example: the faro's of Egypt. The things buried in their tombs were for themselves in the after life. They are entitled to believe what they want. So goes the saying you cant take it with you and if you do we will just steal it anyway.
Richard III was a Chinaman?