The Last Days of Richard III and the Fate of His DNA

by John Ashdown-Hill

  DNA has a very complicated molecular structure, but four principal components are the heterocyclic bases which are known by their initial letters: A for adenine, C for cytosine, G for guanine and T for thymine. In 1988, thirty-five years after the original discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick, an Oxford University team discovered that it was sometimes possible to extract, replicate and analyse DNA from ancient bones.18

  While our present focus is on human DNA, the same basic rules apply to animals and plants, for all living things have DNA. Their cells contain two kinds of DNA: nuclear DNA, which resides in the cell nucleus, and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Self-evidently, the latter is the DNA of the mitochondria: tiny structures which reside outside the cell nucleus in the surrounding cushion of cytoplasm and which help the cell to use oxygen in order to produce energy. The division in our cells between the two kinds of DNA is by no means equal. Each cell contains far more nuclear DNA than mitochondrial DNA. The latter represents a mere 0.5 per cent of our total.19

  Nuclear DNA is a mixture, fifty per cent of which is inherited from each parent. Conversely, mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, and is normally transmitted unchanged to the child. In addition, ‘mitochondrial DNA mutates at a much higher rate than nuclear DNA … Two organisms will therefore be far more similar in their nuclear DNA than in their mtDNA’.20 For both of these reasons mtDNA is generally more useful than nuclear DNA in tracing genetic relationships in historical contexts. With one exception, nuclear DNA is at present useless for genealogical research over a wide time-gap, because there is currently no way of determining which components of the nuclear DNA are derived from which ancestor. In fact, many ancestors may be represented by no nuclear DNA components in their living descendants. The one certain exception to this rule is the Y-chromosome – and we shall return to this point later, because it is of potential interest in the attempt to establish an overall picture of the DNA of the Yorkist princes.

  For the moment, however, let us consider only mitochondrial DNA. Occasional spontaneous mutations occur in mtDNA, and these are then passed on to descendants, though they may take up to six generations to become firmly established. Such mutation occurs on average once every 10,000 years. Thus it is possible, by comparing the mitochondrial DNA of two individuals, to establish roughly how much time has elapsed since the lifetime of their last common ancestress in the female line. It has been calculated that all human beings now living are descended in the exclusively female line from one single woman, known as Mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa about 150,000 years ago. It is argued that every human being now living on the planet can trace his or her mitochondrial DNA back to Mitochondrial Eve. Of course, the latter was not the only living woman of her time and place. What is unique about her is the fact that she is the only one of her contemporaries to have living descendants in the female line.

  It is likewise posited that most of the historic native population of Europe can trace their female line ancestry back to one of only seven ‘clan mothers’ who lived between 45,000 and 10,000 years ago. Each of these clan mothers was a descendant of Mitochondrial Eve. The seven clan mothers of Europe are usually referred to by letters, or names, as follows:21

  U (‘Ursula’) – ancestress of about eleven per cent of the European population. She probably lived in Greece about 45,000 years ago. Her descendants are especially to be found in western Britain.

  X (‘Xenia’) – probably lived in Russia about 25,000 years ago. Her descendants (about six per cent of the population) are to be found today mostly in central and Eastern Europe.

  H (‘Helena’) – lived in the Bordeaux region of France about 20,000 years ago. Hers is the most widespread European clan, with about forty-seven per cent of the modern population descending from her in the female line.

  V (‘Velda’) – probably lived 17,000 years ago in northern Spain, near Santander. About five per cent of native Europeans belong to this clan, which is found mainly in Western Europe.

  T (‘Tara’) was more or less a contemporary of Velda. She probably lived in Tuscany. Her descendants, who account for about nine per cent of the modern population of Europe, live mostly along the Mediterranean coast or the western edge of the continent, including western Britain and Ireland.

  K (‘Katrine’) – probably lived 15,000 years ago, in the Venice region. She is the clan mother of six per cent of modern Europeans who are most likely to be found around the Mediterranean. ‘Ötzi’ the ‘iceman’ was one of her descendants.

  J (‘Jasmine’) – thought to have lived in Syria about 10,000 years ago. Her people were the ones who introduced farming to Europe. Her descendants are found today either in Spain, Portugal and western Britain, or in central Europe. They seem to represent about seventeen per cent of the European native population.

  When DNA is being used to attempt to identify long-dead bones, the first thing to note is that it cannot prove the identity of an individual. Mitochondrial DNA has to be compared with a sample from a known relative, as was done recently in the case of the bones thought to be those of the Russian Imperial family. A mismatch proves for certain that the bones cannot be the person sought, but a match does not prove identity, merely that the bones are those of a person with similar mitochondrial DNA to – and thus a relative in some degree of – the person being searched for. Depending on factors such as how widespread the resulting mitochondrial DNA sequence is in the modern European population, and on the precise set of mutations present, that information will be of greater or lesser significance.

  However, the final decision about the identity of archaeologically recovered remains will also depend on a variety of other factors: such as location, age at death, the era from which the remains date, and other evidence suggesting identity. Thus, for example, in the case of the Russian Imperial bones, evidence of ages at death, the location of the remains, how the individuals had died, and how their bodies had been treated after death, all supported the identification of the bones as Romanov remains, in addition to the DNA evidence from multiple sources, which confirmed their possible identification.

  FAMILY TREE 2: The female line of descent from Catherine de Roët to Joy Brown (Ibsen).

  The mitochondrial DNA of Margaret of York and of all her siblings, including Richard III, was that of her mother, Cecily Neville. Cecily received it from her mother, Joan Beaufort, who in turn had received it from her mother, Catherine de Roët. Rather unfortunately, the beautiful Catherine is very widely referred to by her first husband’s surname, ‘Catherine Swynford’. Genealogically, however, it is always preferable to refer to women by their birth surnames, and in the present instance this is particularly essential, since Richard III and his family were not the descendants of Sir Hugh Swynford, but of Catherine de Roët’s second husband, John of Gaunt. For our purposes it is Catherine’s birth family which is important.

  Catherine’s mitochondrial DNA may have come from the mainland of Europe; perhaps from the area we now call Belgium, from the Netherlands, or possibly from Germany or France. Catherine’s father was a knight from Hainault. He is usually named as Sir Payne (or Paon) de Roët (or Roelt), and is often said to have come to England from Hainault with Edward III’s wife, Queen Philippa, of whom he was probably a relative. In fact, his real first name seems to have been Gilles. ‘Paon’ (‘Peacock’?) was merely a nickname.22 Perhaps he liked to look his best. There appears to be no real record surviving of his having served in England. However, he did serve Queen Philippa’s sister, Margaret, the Holy Roman Empress, in Germany, and he also served Edward III as a herald and as Guienne King of Arms in the Aquitaine. Ultimately he died in England, and was buried at old St Paul’s Cathedral.23

  But it was not Catherine’s father, but her unknown mother who was the source of her daughter’s (and thus of Richard III’s) mitochondrial DNA. In modern terms this lady might have been French, German, Belgian or Dutch.24 She seems unlikely to have been English.25 Dame de Roët seems to have borne her husband three daughters,
and at least one son. All of these children inherited from their mother the mitochondrial DNA which was in due course to be transmitted by Catherine, the youngest daughter of the de Roët family, to her great-grandson Richard III.

  The eldest de Roët daughter, Isabelle (or Elizabeth), seems never to have left her homeland. She entered the convent of the Canonesses at Mons, where she lived, died and was buried. Gilles’ two younger daughters, like their father, lie interred in England. The aristocratic Philippa de Roët attracted the attention of the young poet Geoffrey Chaucer, who was the son of mere merchant stock from Ipswich. ‘It may well have been to highborn, theoretically unreachable Philippa that Chaucer wrote some of his love songs.’26 Chaucer did eventually marry Philippa and had children by her. Philippa died in the late summer or autumn of 1387 and lies buried in the chancel of the church of St Mary the Virgin, East Worldham in Hampshire.27

  FAMILY TREE 3: The Chaucer connection.

  Her younger sister, Catherine de Roët, was a member of the household of John of Gaunt, where she was employed since at least 1365 as one of the ladies attending on his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster. Soon after entering Blanche’s service, Catherine de Roët married Sir Hugh Swynford of Coleby and Kettlethorpe in Lincolnshire, by whom she had a son, Thomas, and a daughter, Blanche. In 1371 Sir Hugh Swynford died while serving abroad, leaving Catherine a young widow. She was then in her early twenties, and despite his second marriage to Constance of Castile, John of Gaunt soon made Catherine his mistress. Meanwhile, her official position in his household was now that of governess to his children. There have been allegations that Catherine became John’s mistress while her first husband was still alive, but this appears unlikely. Their liaison probably began in 1372, after Hugh Swynford’s death, and Catherine’s first child by John of Gaunt was born in 1373.28 The affair was viewed askance at the time, and Catherine was denounced as a seductress. Nevertheless, the couple’s relationship proved enduring.

  After various vicissitudes (and following the death of Constance of Castile), on 13 December 1396 John of Gaunt finally married Catherine in Lincoln Cathedral. This marriage, which made Catherine the second lady in the land, after the queen, caused universal astonishment. It has been described as a mésalliance, but that seems hardly just. Catherine was, after all, probably a relative of John of Gaunt’s mother, the late queen, Philippa of Hainault, and thus a distant cousin of her new husband. One important outcome of their marriage was that Catherine’s illegitimate children by John of Gaunt, all of whom had been given the surname ‘Beaufort’, were legitimised by the Pope in 1396 and by King Richard II in 1397.

  Mitochondrial DNA identical to that of Richard III would have been found in all four of Catherine de Roët’s sons: Sir Thomas Swynford, John Beaufort, first Earl of Somerset,29 Henry, Cardinal Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, and Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter. However, as males none of these was able to pass on this mitochondrial DNA. Nevertheless, in the following generation the same DNA would have been found in all of the numerous Neville and Ferrers children of their sister, Joan Beaufort. Richard III also shared his mitochondrial DNA with the three children of the poet, Geoffrey Chaucer, since Chaucer’s wife Philippa was Catherine de Roët’s sister. Although this relationship with the Chaucers has sometimes been questioned, it was explicitly acknowledged by Cardinal Beaufort, who, in a letter, referred to the poet’s son, Thomas Chaucer, as his cousin.30

  Unfortunately, no mitochondrial DNA line of descent from Philippa de Roët (Chaucer) survives to the present day, for Philippa had only one daughter and she became a nun (see Family Tree 3). From Catherine de Roët, Duchess of Lancaster, however, the mtDNA line continues through her daughter, Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. The latter had many daughters, including Cecily, Duchess of York. I traced female lines of descent from Cecily and all her sisters, producing a huge family tree resembling a spider’s web on my computer. It was necessary to attempt to trace all the possible female lines of descent, because there was no way at the outset of knowing which line (if any) would prove to be continuous down to the present day. In the event, none of the lines from Cecily’s sisters proved to continue to the present.

  Of Cecily Neville’s own daughters, two produced children: Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter, and Elizabeth of York, Duchess of Suffolk. At first, Elizabeth looked the most hopeful candidate to have living female line descendants because she had a number of children including several daughters. However, her female lines of descent soon petered out. Anne of York, on the other hand, looked less hopeful initially. She had only two children – both daughters – and the elder of these two had no descendants. Nevertheless, it was the line of Anne of York which was to preserve the mtDNA of Cecily Neville’s children until the present day. I traced an unbroken line of descent, mother to daughter, from Cecily Neville’s eldest daughter, Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter, to Mrs Joy Ibsen in Canada.31 This line of descent has a number of interesting features, and in the next chapter we shall follow its history in some detail.

  15

  Richard III’s Genes part II – the mtDNA line

  Anne of York died in 1476, leaving her surviving new-born daughter and namesake to be brought up by her second husband, Sir Thomas St Leger (who was the baby’s father). But seven years later, in September 1483, St Leger found himself caught up in the Duke of Buckingham’s rebellion against Richard III. In the aftermath of the rebellion Sir Thomas St Leger was captured, and ‘though large sums of money were offered to ransom St Leger’s life, Richard saw no reason to spare the second husband of his eldest sister’.1 Thomas was duly executed. The fact that we have just told Thomas’ story sets a precedent for the greater part of this chapter. For, rightly or wrongly, in the past men were much more important in the world than women. Thus, although we are tracing a female line of descent, on the whole little is known about most of the girls descended from Anne of York, beyond their names. It is the stories of the husbands and fathers and brothers of these girls that tend to have been preserved.

  Several years after Richard’s fall at Bosworth the orphaned Anne St Leger was married, at the age of 14, to George Manners of Belvoir and Helmsley, the 20-year-old son of Sir Robert Manners. Young George was the grandson on his mother’s side of Thomas, tenth Lord Roos, and was eventually to fall heir to his maternal grandfather’s title. At the time of his marriage, however, George had no titles at all. In 1497 he was knighted by Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, for his service in the expedition against the Scots. Sir George attended Henry VII to his meeting with the Archduke Philip, just outside Calais, in 1500, and in 1501 he was one of those appointed to receive the Infanta Catherine of Aragon, bride of Henry VII’s eldest son, Prince Arthur. In 1512 George became Lord Roos, but did not enjoy the title for long, dying the following year of a sickness he had taken while on military service in France. Lord Roos was buried in St George’s Chapel, Windsor, near the tomb of his mother-in-law, Anne of York, and subsequently his wife was buried beside him.

  FAMILY TREE 4: The first six generations of Anne of York’s line of descent.

  Anne St Leger was the first cousin of Henry VII’s queen, Elizabeth of York, a relationship sufficiently close to the new reigning dynasty to carry some prestige – and some potential danger. However, being female, Anne was not perceived as too much of a threat. Unlike most of the other descendants of the House of York, therefore, Anne St Leger and her children were suffered to live in peace. Anne bore George Manners two sons and five daughters. Only the line of her daughter, Catherine, concerns us here, as only Catherine has living all-female-line descendants.

  Catherine Manners married Sir Robert Constable, a member of the well-known Yorkshire family of Constable, and the eldest son and heir of Sir Marmaduke Constable of Flamborough in the East Riding. Sir Robert is thought to have been born only two years after Catherine’s mother, so he must have been a good deal older than his young bride – who would eventually bear her husband a numerous progeny: seven sons and five daughters. Cathe
rine and Robert were probably married before 1518, in which year Sir Marmaduke Constable died, leaving Robert his estates.

  A soldier by nature, Robert Constable had taken part in the defeat of the Cornish supporters of the second Yorkist pretender, generally known as ‘Perkin Warbeck’, in 1497. For this service he was knighted. As a member of the Yorkshire gentry he also served as a justice of the peace and a member of the king’s council of the north. However, he has been described as ‘volatile’, as having a ‘dangerous disposition’, and as being involved in a number of local feuds and disputes.2 This led to his being summoned before the court of Star Chamber on more than one occasion.

  Royal authority in the north of England, always somewhat equivocal, was rendered the more uncertain by Henry VIII’s religious policies, which alienated conservative northern opinion. Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of Durham (whose steward was none other than Sir Robert Constable) forfeited the king’s favour by defending the cause of Queen Catherine of Aragon. Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, who was a distant cousin of Lady Constable (Catherine Manners), and to whose affinity Sir Robert belonged, also favoured the Catholic faith. Sir Robert Constable shared the earl’s point of view. ‘Along with his old friends Darcy and John Hussey, Baron Hussey, [Constable] maintained a traditional stance. In 1534 all three men had agreed upon their aversion towards heresy and their determination to die as “Christian men”.’3

  As a result, Sir Robert Constable found himself drawn into the movement known as the ‘Pilgrimage of Grace’. This movement was for the defence of the Church in the face of Henry VIII’s break with Rome and his attack upon the monasteries. Its supporters demanded ‘that the king should suppress no more abbeys, should impose no more taxation, should surrender Cromwell to the people, and get rid of the heretical bishops’.4 Having been drawn into the ‘Pilgrimage’, Constable soon became one of its leaders. Although he accepted Henry VIII’s royal pardon under the terms of the agreement reached at Doncaster in early December 1535, Constable was later summoned to London where he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was subsequently tried, not for his activities in the main phase of the rebellion, but for offences allegedly committed after his pardon. Condemned to death, Constable was transported to Hull for execution. On 6 July 1537, he was taken to the town’s Beverley Gate and there hanged in chains.5