Experts from the University of Leicester said DNA from the bones matched that of descendants of the monarch's family.
Lead archaeologist Richard Buckley, from the University of Leicester, told a press conference to applause: "Beyond reasonable doubt it's Richard."
Richard, who died in battle 1485, will be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral.
bbc: richard III dig: dna confirms bones as king's
(following placed as a comment, by ed, beneath aforelinked article)
Some have suggested a state funeral for this bloke.
Well, to validate the exploitative class hierarchies of the past is to perpetuate it. Yes, this bloke is a part of 'our heritage', a heritage of subservient kow-towing. If you're alright with that, then stop whinnying about cuts and such. Or, you can opt to grow up and smell the democracy. Go ahead and give this comment a 'thumbs down', but i'd like to see you prove this perspective wrong.
(comments by other dissenters)
Capsule: Hah! If that's a king then where's his crown? Next thing they'll be telling us he lost it somewhere.
Empiredown: If this skeleton deserves a decent burial so does every other ancient Englishman dug up by archaeological teams across the land? Some of these bones may belong to a long lost relative of yours or mine. So what are they doing on a shelf in a museum?
Gatecrasher: surely the next step will be to clone him and stick him in some historical theme park...
Walks with Turkeys: The sad truth is that the Kings of that era were a bunch of roques, who happily slaughtered others, including close relatives, and whose primary goal was to accrue land and tax the people. They were little more than parasites. And many post conquest kings, especially plantagenets, were not even English, but French.
Theworldhasgoneinsane: There are NO English monarchs because they are ALL made up of foreigners, Scots, Danes, Germans, French, Spanish, Norweigans. Mongrels like the rest of us which is how it should be.
end comment -------
And they say religion is dead. When the royal house in England made itself the head of the Church, it simply meant that it was placing itself in the place of God, and not just the papacy. It is not possible for privilege and wealth acquired through exploitation to place itself at the helm of the church if it did not seek to, or as a consequence, redirect the worship of wo/man from the humble baby in the stable to a diamond-emblazoned and crowned monarch.
Well, that has been achieved....and its hence, no wonder, that the alleged finding of some privileged and exploitative king is being treated as if it was the finding of the cross of the Christ.