No idea why multifaith, or why Leicester. I’d say he should be buried at York Minster.

We have a curved-spine skeleton like the one Richard III had, buried in the (now-destroyed) Catholic church where sources say Richard III was buried, a skeleton which dates from the same time Richard III was buried, with wounds typical of a battle like the one Richard III fought, with more wounds typical of the gruesome parade Richard III was subjected back in Leicester after the battle, buried with arms still shackled like Richard III was, with a lot of other characteristics typical of a rich person (high-protein and high-sugar diet, not very common back then) which Richard III certainly was, matching mitochondrial DNA from Richard III descendants.

But no, can’t be Richard III. It’s all a plot from freemasons at Channel 4, covering for templars at BBC and University of Leicester; the Bilderberg group must certainly be involved. Everyone knows Richard III is buried at Area 51!

(I’d really like a good long look at the list of “proofs” you’d want before accepting the body is of Richard III Plantagenet. Should he have had a birth certificate on himself? a driving licence perhaps?)

1) The location matches the historical evidence of where Richard was buried.
2) The dating of the skeleton matches the correct time.
3) The age of the person matched Richard’s
4) The facial features match the historical drawings
5) The cause of death was consistent with how Richard died
6) The dietary analysis matches someone of very high class
7) The skeletal deformation matches what is known about Richard.

The DNA is corroborative, not definitive.

You have someone of the right size, build, appearance, and age of Richard. Who died the same way at the same time buried in the same place as Richard…

Even without the DNA evidence, Richard is, by far, the most likely candidate.

2) The same article says they already have several proven paternal descendants who have volunteered their DNA, so the Y-DNA haplogroup should be determined pretty soon.  Y-DNA haplogroups are still old, but due to mutations are usually very useful for pinning down the ancestral male line.

3) Autosomal DNA (chromosomes 1-22 and the X) will show segment matches to about the 5th or 6th cousin range in most cases.  DNA is tricky: some bona fide 3rd cousins will have no segment matches in common, and occasionally a much more distant relationship will still have one or two segments that have held together over many generations (there are a couple of reasons for this: cold spots or inversion being the most likely).  While the NYTimes article did not specify which test was used with the 16th generation descendant, the article linked by Wherley did: it was the mitochondrial test, which makes sense, because 16 generations is too long ago to match at the autosomal level.  (And of course you can’t match Y-DNA with a niece!)

Basically, haplogroups show deep ancestry whereas autosomal DNA is useful for recent genealogy….but rare haplogroups can be very useful for the mid-range.

A skeleton with a curved spine is not special, nor its location, nor the wounds (for the time).

I will await the findings of those without a vested interest, not connected to Channel 4 or the BBC.  

Researcher: He hasn’t got shit all over him.

I think Y chromosome DNA is more commonly used when researching males. IIRC, this is what proved the link between the Hemmings family and Thomas Jefferson (or a close male relative)

Edit: oops. I should have read the linked article before commenting. It was mitochondrial DNA that was used to link the skeleton to Richard III. Mea culpa.

I would love to have them tackle “The Two Princes in the Tower.” That is, the two boys of Edward IV who were supposedly murdered by Uncle Richard. Unfortunately, royal permission is needed and there seems to be some waffling on the royal side.