Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bloody Rag May Not Have Touched Louis XVI's Severed Head

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the brains-delicious-brains dept.

Science 87

sciencehabit writes "It seemed like the perfect forensic tale. Earlier this year, a geneticist concluded that the remains of a blood-soaked cloth stored for centuries in an 18th century gourd likely belonged to the severed head of the last French king, Louis XVI — a conclusion supported by the fact that the DNA matched that taken from a mummified head belonging to his direct ancestor, King Henry IV. So confident were some people about the findings that a company now offers a blood test for anyone who wants to see if they, too, are descendants of this royal family. But new research released today calls into question the identities of both the blood and the head, arguing that the DNA in those samples does not match the DNA in living relatives of these kings."

cancel ×

87 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obvious solution. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45081571)

Your great great great great great great great grandmommy was a whore.

Re:Obvious solution. (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#45081597)

I know it is a first post, and I know it is an AC using crude language. But his point stands. It is an entirely plausible explanation.

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

Pirulo (621010) | about a year ago | (#45081665)

Agree to that. You can guaranty DNA match. Nobody can guaranty the whole lineage has been always faithful.

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45081715)

More than plausible. From the article:

But Lalueza-Fox and his French historian collaborator Philippe Charlier think that the living relatives all trace back to Philippe I, who was homosexual and thus perhaps unlikely to have actually fathered the next generation.

Re:Obvious solution. (0)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#45082561)

...who was homosexual and thus perhaps unlikely to have actually fathered the next generation.

Philipe [wikipedia.org] , Duke of Orleans, brother to Louis XIV, the most powerful Duke of the Realm, was flamingly homosexual and didn't even try to hide it. Still, he married twice (to women), and had four children; Marie Louise, later to become the Queen of Spain, Anne Marie, who became the Queen of Sardinia, Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, who would serve as Regent of France, and Élisabeth Charlotte, who would become the Duchess of Lorraine. He was also a very crafty duke, his sexual peccadillos not withstanding, having commanded several victorious battles, and through his 3 daughters has genes sprinkled thorughout several of the royal houses of Europe.

Do I'd check that ignorance if I were you.

Re:Obvious solution. (3, Interesting)

Garridan (597129) | about a year ago | (#45082625)

GP was quoting TFA, which was quoting a historian who knew more than what you gleaned from Wikipedia in 30 seconds. Check your own ignorance, friend. Nobody's questioning the existence of those children, merely the true identity of the father.

Re:Obvious solution. (2)

CdBee (742846) | about a year ago | (#45083761)

Also, a word for your personal safety, using phrases like 'check your ignorance' will get you bitchslapped in polite society

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#45084333)

Because being a husband to a woman automagically makes you a biological father to her children.

You were talking about ignorance?

Re:Obvious solution. (4, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45081745)

What I find interesting is that the AC gave a plausible number of "greats" to match Louis XVI's generation.

Re:Obvious solution. (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#45081831)

I'd expect no less from an Anonymous Chronologist.

Re:Obvious solution. (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45082635)

What I find interesting is that the AC gave a plausible number of "greats" to match Louis XVI's generation.

What I find interesting is the massively huge assumption staring everyone in the face but nobody sees it: The idea that the living relatives might be an invented fairy tale. It wouldn't be the first time a royal lineage met its end and the "secret sauce" was switched and records altered to maintain the appearance of an unbroken line.

This 'forensic evidence' is based on records that are hundreds of years old; Altering birth and death records was a time-honored tradition back then. It was the Photoshop of the Dark Ages, and churches had just as much reason to perpetuate a fraud as anyone -- their power was often derived from royal mandate. You don't think, at a time when chopping heads off and torturing people was called 'Tuesday', that a little re-inking of a few geneology documents would be beyond the morality of these people, do you?

Re:Obvious solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45083567)

It is really not that long ago. Mentioning the 'Dark Ages' shows that you have again over reached yourself and are talking out of your arse.

Re:Obvious solution. (2)

azcoyote (1101073) | about a year ago | (#45085599)

It's easy to point broad fingers at multiple centuries of people without any real evidence. To accuse the church of a coverup is just wild hearsay because the church makes an easy villain. In the first place, your premise is faulty: the medieval church did not obtain its power from royal mandate. I recommend reading Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners for a better understanding of the complexities of the relationship between church and state in the middle ages.

Re:Obvious solution. (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#45081795)

the living relatives all trace back to Philippe I, who was homosexual and thus perhaps unlikely to have actually fathered the next generation

More like great great great great grandaddy was A queen who had an understanding with THE queen.

I mean its one thing to have someone else sire the children in a hetero marriage, anything short of being on the magnitude of "black kid to white parents" can generally be glossed over. However, if the couple isn't having sex at all, any kid at all is a bit of a dead giveaway.

So if that is the allegation, then he clearly knew; and she knew he knew; Calling her a whore seems a bit extreme, more like.... its complicated :)

Re:Obvious solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45081911)

complicated? no they are french they are just being awkward.

Re:Obvious solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45085937)

At least they know how to use capital letters.

Re:Obvious solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082425)

Oh gee, thanks for validating it. You must be an expert!

Re:Obvious solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45084467)

Even a bastard knows this.

Re:Obvious solution. (4, Funny)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45081859)

Your great great great great great great great grandmommy was a whore.

Calling the bloodline of the king into question? You bastards!

Re:Obvious solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45083751)

No but he certainly may have been.

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45081903)

If there wasn't some random kid swapped in to either replace a dead child or abducted child for political reasons. Which would, of course, have probably been noted by someone, but with royalty, you never know.

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about a year ago | (#45082783)

Honest question, has this sort of thing ever been actually documented outside of Game of Thrones and Klingon history [memory-alpha.org] ?

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45083619)

I think not documenting it is the point of the entire operation. I'm not saying it's likely in this case (the rag is more likely to be a fraud, or possibly the "Louis" they beheaded being a look-alike). I'm just pointing out a possibility.

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about a year ago | (#45084847)

It's been alleged in the case of Elizabeth I, where the young girl is meant to have died and been replaced by a boy who didn't even resemble her. This is used to explain why the young Elizabeth was a mild-mannered high achiever, whereas the teenaged and older Elizabeth was a vindictive woman with no great evidence of scholarship, and to explain why she went to such lengths not to marry, and why she looks so odd in her portraits.

Of course, there are more straightforward explanations, such as being imprisoned by her older sister, taking a throne that was at constant risk of being usurped by a Spanish monarch significantly more powerful than her, living in a court full of intrigues, not marrying because there was no match that didn't come with too many strings attached, or else that staying single opened more opportunities for alliances with monarchs with marriable princes, and looking odd because she may well have been inbred, had been quite sick at quite a few times, and our portraits date (self evidently) from the Tudor age where exact likenesses were not that common.

But those explanations are really boring compared to the idea that some low-born boy became one of the most famous queens of all time.

Re:Obvious solution. (3, Funny)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year ago | (#45081955)

One word "Bastard!"

Re:Obvious solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45084195)

One word "Bastard!"

That's three words

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about a year ago | (#45084477)

What a coincidence, that's three words too!

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

tinkerton (199273) | about a year ago | (#45084907)

No four actually :)

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year ago | (#45081969)

Although even so there should be at least a small match on the mitochondrial DNA

Re:Obvious solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082939)

Those bastards!

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

Pallas Athena (2855215) | about a year ago | (#45083941)

Actually, the researchers didn't find any matching DNA, not from the male side and not from the female side. So your obvious solution is not correct - unless, of course, the living relatives that he contacted are not really relatives.

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about a year ago | (#45089351)

Not necessarily. If King Louis had a son that married a girl who was impregnated by a guard then there is no genetic connection between King Louis and the child, since neither the father nor the mother were related to him.
By the way this is difficult research. Aside from all the factors that cause someone to have a name without the genetic connection it's only 1/256 th of the identifiable dna that matches.

Re:Obvious solution. (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about a year ago | (#45089317)

While the core of your post is probably correct, "whore" is not the word I'd choose. Those marriages were often purely political, with no love involved.
And that is beside the point offered by my sibling posters: one of the lineage was not interested in women. He may have had an understanding with his wife where they both got to do as they wished.
In both cases "whore" is not a correct term IMHO, although she violated the terms of her marriage.

So What? (3, Insightful)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about a year ago | (#45081585)

This isn't a story about the science, it's about the provenance of some old rag, and a reminder that the chain of evidence matters.

The only people who should care are the posers and jerkoffs who like to trade on some accidental genetic connection to a dead king from an obsolete form of government. Isn't France on a republic or two beyond that one by now?

Re:So What? (3, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | about a year ago | (#45081687)

PEDIGREE, n. The known part of the route from an arboreal ancestor with a swim bladder to an urban descendant with a cigarette.

--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Re:So What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45081695)

It would be amusing if the "bloody rag" turned out to be just a 300 year old kotex.

Re:So What? (1)

stud9920 (236753) | about a year ago | (#45081785)

Isn't France on a republic or two beyond that one by now?

You're fooling yourself! They're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Re:So What? (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#45081849)

You're fooling yourself! They're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Working classes? In France? Preposterous! They'd never allow that.

Re:So What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082019)

You're fooling yourself! They're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Working classes? In France? Preposterous! They'd never allow that.

Yeah nobody in France actually works.

You know what this means??!! (1)

BillCable (1464383) | about a year ago | (#45081635)

Louis XVI faked his death!

Re:You know what this means??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082801)

I bet he's still running around somewhere! Maybe hanging out with Elvis, Amelia and Tupac?

Re:You know what this means??!! (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#45084789)

Louis XVI faked his death!

That was actually my conclusion as well. How do we know that the person they executed was, in fact, the king and not a royal double? Finding someone who looks enough like the king to fool the peasants in the event of a revolt has been a time-honored tradition among royalty for centuries.

Maybe it was a long-lost ancestor of Mel Brooks. :-D

living relatives proof of anything? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#45081645)

maybe way back when, a woman thought to have been impregnated by a king instead spread her legs for someone else. been known to happen, in the courts in france

Louis XVI wasn't the last French King (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45081699)

Louis XVI wasn't the last French king. He had several successors after the fall of Napoleon. Getting that detail wrong makes me question the accuracy of the rest of the article.

Re:Louis XVI wasn't the last French King (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#45081779)

He was the last one that counted as far as many people are concerned. He was certainly the last of the dynastic ones.

Re:Louis XVI wasn't the last French King (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#45081853)

To clarify that, he was the last of the Ancien Regime before all the Republics and Empires got mixed in there.

Re:Louis XVI wasn't the last French King (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about a year ago | (#45084973)

That's clearer than saying he was the last of the "dynastic ones" given that the next king of France was his younger brother [wikipedia.org] , and the one following was the youngest of the three. (If you're interested, Louis XVII never reigned and died a few years after his father, but he's counted in the same way that France was ruled both by a Napoleon and his nephew, Napleon III, but never by Napoleon II.) The [wikipedia.org] following king [wikipedia.org] was also descended from Louis XIV, albeit distantly.

What I'd probably revise your statement to is that Louis XVI was the last autocratic monarch in France, ruling without a constitution limiting or justifying his powers in some way. Napoleon was autocratic, but no monarch, etc. etc., and spoke revolutionary language, etc. etc. (The distinction between the last kings of the ancien regime and the government of Napoleon and, when he claimed the throne, Louis-Napoleon, is one that could be debated for the rest of time, as with that old question "Was Stalin 'The Red Czar'?")

Re:Louis XVI wasn't the last French King (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#45085579)

Thank you. French history is not an area of expertise I will ever hope to claim... seems like they had a revolution every twenty years like clockwork in the 19th century and it turns into a giant jumbled mess.

Re:Louis XVI wasn't the last French King (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about a year ago | (#45085873)

I can't claim any great expertise myself, I studied it for two years at A level - 1785 to 1794 in depth for a year, then 1795-1871 in a bit less depth, so it covered all this period. But it was a longer time back than I like to remember. I might track down some histories.

As I recall, there were revolutions in 1789, 1791, 1792, 1794 (for a given value of "revolution"; those were at least major constitutional changes), seizure of power by Napoleon in a year I forget around 1800, restoration in 1815 and 1816, then a revolution again in 1831, and another in 1848 which brought Louis-Napoleon to power, though it was another decade before he claimed the title of Emperor. I *think* Les Miserables is set in the '31, which put Louis-Philippe on the throne; it certainly isn't the '89 and I don't think it was the '48. The '48 revolution was widely mirrored across Europe. I think there weren't many more until 1871 when Napoleon III was humiliated by the nascent German Empire (captured along with his army), Paris was stormed, and a revolution followed on.

I think it was then fairly placid until after the First World War.

I may have dates a bit wrong, but the major ones, ~1790, ~1830, ~1850, ~1870. All we're missing is an 1810.

Re:Louis XVI wasn't the last French King (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#45087783)

France had a lot of revolutions and counter-revolutions between 1789 and 1871. There have been 3 dynastic kings: Charles X, Louis XVIII and Louis-Philippe, two emperors (Napoleon I and III), and three republics (1st in 1789/1792, 2nd in 1848, 3rd in 1971)

Re:Louis XVI wasn't the last French King (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#45087793)

and three republics (1st in 1789/1792, 2nd in 1848, 3rd in 1971)

I meant 1871 for 3rd republic (I count it as unstable during 1870)

Louis XVI wasn't the last French king (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45081749)

Louis-Philippe was.

Louis XVI was not the last French King (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45081789)

There was Louis XVIII, Charles X, and Louis-Phillipe I.

Re:Louis XVI was not the last French King (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45081803)

You're forgetting the three Napoleons.

Re:Louis XVI was not the last French King (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45081883)

One of Sherlock Holmes' best cases

Re:Louis XVI was not the last French King (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#45081925)

You're forgetting the three Napoleons.

The Napoleons had the title "Emperor". And the second of those was a child who only had it for a few days.

Re:Louis XVI was not the last French King (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082083)

Monarchy was restored between 1814 and 1830. Louis XVIII and Charles X who reigned during that time were both brothers of Louis XVI.

Next they'll be telling us... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45081855)

...that the Russians didn't clone Hitler.

Re:Next they'll be telling us... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082731)

That was the Brazilians.

Re:Next they'll be telling us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082833)

Raelians [wikipedia.org] should take note as well. That's not Jesus you're cloning, it's just some random goat-herder!

LOL ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45081867)

But new research released today calls into question the identities of both the blood and the head, arguing that the DNA in those samples does not match the DNA in living relatives of these kings.

Maybe that just means the descendants of kings have been screwing around just like kings did.

Just sayin'.

Title (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45081915)

His title was not French king but King of France, and he was not the last one.
His brother Louis XVIII succeeded him with that title.
His other brother reigned as Charles X, same title and the real last one.
After him came king Louis-Philippe I, but with 'King of the French' as title.

Re:Title with extra pedantry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082293)

His title was not French king but King of France, and he was not the last one.

If you're gonna be pedantic about the title vs. description (call by name vs. call by value?) then Louis XVI was not "French king" or "King of France". He was "King of France and Navarre," then "King of the French." But since we are being pedantic, we really should go all out and say that he was not those either. He was "Roi de France et de Navarre" and "Roi des Français."

Re:Title with extra pedantry (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#45084281)

Technically, the latter title indicates he was a royal king with claims based on the Frankish invaders, and not a native Celt.

If the head doesn't fit... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#45082045)

So, if the DNA doesn't match the royalty... Maybe they're not REALLY Royalty?!

Re:If the head doesn't fit... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45082231)

So, if the DNA doesn't match the royalty... Maybe they're not REALLY Royalty?!

Nobody is 'really' royalty ... a family conquers and sets themselves up as a dynasty by asserting themselves to be kings and queens.

To some of us, anybody who professes to be royalty is an in-bred idiot with a sense of entitlement who should STFU and go away.

To quote Monty Python ... Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Re:If the head doesn't fit... (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#45084273)

Nobody is 'really' royalty ... a family conquers and sets themselves up as a dynasty by asserting themselves to be kings and queens.

To some of us, anybody who professes to be royalty is an in-bred idiot with a sense of entitlement who should STFU and go away.

To quote Monty Python ... Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Strange women don't lie in ponds, they hover mysteriously after dwelling beneath the surface in a mystical connection between water and air.

And then everyone suspends disbelief and doesn't demand they see if they weigh more than a wooden duck.

Re:If the head doesn't fit... (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#45085229)

I'm a watery tart, you insensitive clod!

The French will have to change their flag (3, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#45082117)

The French will have to change their flag back to include the Fleur de Lys

(But it could be in white on a background of white so it will still look like their usual flag

Viva La France

Re:The French will have to change their flag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082761)

Viva Las Vegas!

Re:The French will have to change their flag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45085671)

Vive la France !

FTFY.

King? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082155)

Ooooh! I didn't know France had a king back then. I thought they were an autonomous collective ...

Bad link in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082163)

I can't get the link in TFA (in sciencemag.org) that points to the article in nature.com to work. I think this [nature.com] is the article in question.

Gyou insens1tive clod! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082355)

lead to 'clEaner [goat.cx]

oversight (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#45082457)

So, never in history was one of the extended royal family members adopted without telling them or writing it down? That many generations is universally intact and spotless? They never accidentally swapped a Duke's (or whatever) baby at the hospital with their amazing pre-computer, pre-bracelet printing records keeping? Testing people too far apart in generations shouldn't even be considered. Now the hand vs rag one, that I can believe and respect because they're a lot closer in time and more direct so I still think it's correct.

Re:oversight (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | about a year ago | (#45083249)

And the queen never fucked a servant and didn't tell the king...

Re:oversight (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year ago | (#45084469)

It's interesting when you get down to it and consider it using Occam's Razor.

1. A very old bloody gourd with very old blood, has a DNA match to a very old mummified head thought to be person Y
2. A modern person claiming to be related to person Y has DNA which does NOT match the blood in the gourd or the mummified head.

Which seems more likely:

A: The random chance that some 200+ yr old piece of bloody cloth just happens to match the DNA of a very specific 200+ yr old mummified head. But actual origins of those items were false and it was just random chance that the blood happened to match the forgery head DNA. In addition, the records surrounding the tomb that the mummified head was kept in were wrong. In addition, the records and accounts of the geneological history of the modern person they tested against was perfectly recorded.
B: At sometime in the past 250 years, someone lied about the paternity of a child.

I'm kind of thinking that the least convoluted explanation is B.

Wet nurse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082615)

There are stories of wet nurses "swapping" kids so their blood kin would have a better life. It would be pretty easy to see this being able to happen if a queen died in childbirth and the king wasn't very involved in day to day dealings of the child raising.

Re:Wet nurse (1)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about a year ago | (#45083091)

There are stories of wet nurses "swapping" kids so their blood kin would have a better life. It would be pretty easy to see this being able to happen if a queen died in childbirth and the king wasn't very involved in day to day dealings of the child raising.

Sounds like a plot from some kindda comic opera:

    Oh, bitter is my cup!
    However could I do it?
    I mixed those children up,
    And not a creature knew it

    In time each little waif
    Forsook his foster-mother,
    The well born babe was Ralph —
    Your captain was the other!

- from H.M.S. Pinafore, lyric by W. S. Gilbert

He was not the last King of France (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year ago | (#45082719)

After the Revolution and Bonaparte, the monarchy was restored

Louis XVIII (1815-1824)
Charles X (1824-1830)
Louis Philippe (1830-1848) (deposed)

Napoleon III (1848-1870) was President then Emperor IIRC

Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45082899)

I guess there's no reason to add this to my bloody rag collection.

You Went the Wrong Way, Old King Louie (1)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about a year ago | (#45082973)

This gives me an excuse to trot out a favorite lyric by Alan Sherman:

If you had been a nicer king,
We wouldn't do a thing,
But you were bad, you must admit.
We're gonna take you and the Queen
Down to the guillotine,
And shorten you a little bit.

Re:You Went the Wrong Way, Old King Louie (1)

fredrated (639554) | about a year ago | (#45083841)

you went the wrong way old king louie
so we must put you on the shelf
that's why the people are revolting
'cause louie you're pretty revolting yourself!

Oblig Horatio Caine (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#45083529)

This evidence is compelling, but let's not...

[sunglasses]

Get ahead of ourselves.

[air boat, YAHHHHHHHHHHHH!]

Good thing nobody tested the Shroud of Turin (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#45084247)

You know, the one where the body spontaneously vaporized in a flash of disbelief ...

Startling New Discovery (1)

Capt.Albatross (1301561) | about a year ago | (#45085747)

"Lalueza-Fox was able to isolate a small amount of Y chromosome from the inner part of the head, which is transmitted from male to male each generation."

Royal descent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45087213)

I read, many years ago, that Louis XIII was found on autopsy to have been incapable of begetting children. Presumably Cardinal Richelieu arranged for a stud, likely Jules (later Cardinal) Mazarin, unless Richelieu decided to do the job right, i.e. himself. Surviving letters indicate strongly that Mazarin (a cardinal deacon) and the queen mother/dowager were married. ~ J. S. Ayer

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>