posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:48 AM
Once again, another fabulous story from my favorite website,
. Interestingly enough, I'm currently
working my way through a biography about Marie Antoinette, so talk about synchronicity!
Two centuries after the French people beheaded Louis XVI and dipped their handkerchiefs in his blood, scientists believe they have authenticated the
remains of one such rag kept as a revolutionary souvenir. Researchers have been trying for years to verify a claim imprinted on an ornately decorated
calabash that it contains a sample of the blood of the French king guillotined in Paris on January 21, 1793. The dried, hollowed squash is adorned
with portraits of revolutionary heroes and the text: "On January 21, Maximilien Bourdaloue dipped his handkerchief in the blood of Louis XVI after his
decapitation". He is then believed to have placed the fabric in the gourd, and had it embellished.
For a long time, scientists wanted to test the fabric for DNA, but had one huge problem...nothing to compare the DNA to, since the familial line ended
Well, apparently scientists managed to positively identify the severed head of King Henri IV (kept as a souvenir and sold, traded, and displayed since
1610). Since Louis and Henri shared a common ancestor, scientists used Henri's DNA and compared it to the blood found in the gourd.
Here's a part that confuses me:
The 2010 study, however, found no DNA and its findings have been contested by some. With the new evidence, "it is about 250 times more likely that the
(owners of the) head and the blood are paternally related, than unrelated," co-author Carles Lalueza Fox of the Institut de Biologia Evolutiva in
Barcelona said by email. Taken together with all the physical and forensic evidence, historical records and folklore, it would be "extremely
surprising" if the remains did not belong to the two assassinated monarchs, he added. "One can say that there is absolutely no doubt anymore," about
the authenticity of the mummified head, added Charlier.
I'm not sure how they managed to compare DNA if none was found in 2010....unless new DNA was recently recovered? Anyway....just thought I'd share a
rather macabre story.
It has been brought to my attention that another member already posted a thread on this subject. You can find that original thread
edit on 2-1-2013 by smyleegrl because: (no reason given)