Genetic comparison of the head of Henri IV and the presumptive blood from Louis XVI (both Kings of France) (original) (raw)
Related papers
European Journal of Human Genetics, 2014
Genetic analysis strongly increases the opportunity to identify skeletal remains or other biological samples from historical figures. However, validation of this identification is essential and should be done by DNA typing of living relatives. Based on the similarity of a limited set of Y-STRs, a blood sample and a head were recently identified as those belonging respectively to King Louis XVI and his paternal ancestor King Henry IV. Here, we collected DNA samples from three living males of the House of Bourbon to validate the since then controversial identification of these remains. The three living relatives revealed the Bourbon's Y-chromosomal variant on a high phylogenetic resolution for several members of the lineage between Henry IV and Louis XVI. This 'true' Bourbon's variant is different from the published Y-STR profiles of the blood as well as of the head. The earlier identifications of these samples can therefore not be validated. Moreover, matrilineal genealogical data revealed that the published mtDNA sequence of the head was also different from the one of a series of relatives. This therefore leads to the conclusion that the analyzed samples were not from the French kings. Our study once again demonstrated that in order to realize an accurate genetic identification of historical remains DNA typing of living persons, who are paternally or maternally related with the presumed donor of the samples, is required.
Genomic analysis of the blood attributed to Louis XVI (1754-1793), king of France
Scientific reports, 2014
A pyrographically decorated gourd, dated to the French Revolution period, has been alleged to contain a handkerchief dipped into the blood of the French king Louis XVI (1754-1793) after his beheading but recent analyses of living males from two Bourbon branches cast doubts on its authenticity. We sequenced the complete genome of the DNA contained in the gourd at low coverage (,2.53) with coding sequences enriched at a higher ,7.33 coverage. We found that the ancestry of the gourd's genome does not seem compatible with Louis XVI's known ancestry. From a functional perspective, we did not find an excess of alleles contributing to height despite being described as the tallest person in Court. In addition, the eye colour prediction supported brown eyes, while Louis XVI had blue eyes. This is the first draft genome generated from a person who lived in a recent historical period; however, our results suggest that this sample may not correspond to the alleged king.
Identification of the French Kings’ Heads : Henry IV and Louis XVII
The recreation of the face of a king from his skull is the most subjective, and thus controversial, technique in the field of forensic anthropology. Despite this, positive identification can be established when a unique set of biological characteristics are present.This type of identification has recently proved its interest in discovering "lost” historical figures of Henry IV and the ‘Temple Child’ considered as a missing-link in the case of Louis XVII. The forensic sciences involve numerous sciences and techniques to produce a true identification: anthropology, pathology, odontology, DNA as well as history. But you have to probe the truths of history, get the facts. In search of the true head of Henri IV, Gino Fornaciari of the University of Pisa questions the medical point of view of the identification as well as the historic record since it was said that the exhumations of the French kings in Saint Denis in October 1793 revealed that the skull of Henri IV had been sawed. And, precisely, the identified skull had not been sawed. However, Jacqueline Vons recall that the report of the visit of the body observed that “Almost all (surgeons) have found the only wound and necessary cause of death”. It was no need to saw the skull and, because it was the custom not to alter the kings head of France, indeed he probably was not sawed. http://umr6576.cesr.univ-tours.fr/publications/HasardetProvidence/fichiers/pdf/Vons.pdf Superimposition was the technique of identification of Henri IV because investigators had good knowledge about the supposed identity of the skull. The method is opposed to reconstruction as it was the case for the Temple Child skeletal remains that are completely unknown¨. Forensic superimpositions practiced for Henri IV have been declared relevant having anatomical skull features of the face aligned accurately to a funerary mask and a statue kept at Pau. But Franco Rollo, Professor of Physical Anthropology, find that: “Unfortunately, as far as one can judge on the basis of the published figures, the … comparison evidences several elements of incompatibility between skull and plaster mould, namely in the forehead curve, the depth of the nasal bridge, the shape and projection of the nasal bones. These are precisely the areas indicated (by Austin Smith and Maples) to be of particular importance for comparison on lateral photographs." Forensic reconstructions are only produced to aid the process of identification. Louis XVII supposedly died in the Temple prison during the Revolution at the age of 10 victim to tuberculosis in 1795. The remains of the alleged Louis XVII were dug up and photographed and a 2D reconstructed portrait made resembling the painting made by Joseph-Marie Vien in 1793. The paint is considered to be the one of a substituted boy aged between 13 and 16 that render a possible hypothesis that Louis XVII was replaced. A position that raises the question: what happened to Louis XVII?
International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2001
Amplification of mtDNA D-loop fragments with a length of 200 bp or more from ancient and even from fairly recent biological samples, can lead to erroneous results. This was clearly illustrated in our investigation of the putative heart of Louis XVII. By selecting different sets of primers which amplified shorter fragments of mtDNA (length 109 bp–201 bp), authentic polymorphisms could be visualised which remained undetected with the more classical primers for fragment sizes > 210 bp. Here we have extended those findings to other biological materials. A competitive PCR assay for quantitation of the amount of mtDNA for different fragment lengths, using a 10 bp deletion construct, was applied to ancient material and on a set of hairs of various ages of sampling (1966 up to the present). The results showed that DNA degradation started a few years after sampling. In the DNA extracts of the older hair shafts (1983–1995), the proportion of the number of short fragments to the number of long fragments is on average 4 in contrast to the most recent hair shafts. The numbers of amplifiable mtDNA copies for the hairs from 1975 and older were too small to show a clear difference. Use of long PCR fragments in such cases can yield misleading results. Use of short PCR fragments for the analysis of mtDNA from shed hair, in combination with a competitive PCR assay to determine the state of degradation, should improve the reliability of forensic mtDNA analysis considerably.
European Journal of Human Genetics, 1998
Carl Wilhelm Naundorff was buried in 1845 in Delft as Louis Charles, Duc de Normandie, 'Louis XVII'. However, the son of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette -Louis XVII -officially died in the Temple of Paris in 1795. In order to resolve the identity of Naundorff, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) D-loop sequences of his remains were compared with the sequences obtained from the hairs of two sisters of Marie-Antoinette, Marie-Antoinette herself, and with the sequences obtained from DNA samples of two living maternal relatives. The mtDNA sequence of a bone sample from Naundorff showed two nucleotide differences from the sequences of the three sisters and four differences from the sequences of living maternal relatives. Based on this evidence it becomes very unlikely that Naundorff is the son of Marie-Antoinette.
Discussion Surrounding the Identification of Henry IV’s Alleged Skull
Journal of Forensic Research, 2014
September 2013, he was an hospital practitioner in the department of forensic medicine at Raymond Poincaré university hospital in Garches, France. Today, he manages a multidisciplinary team working on anthropology, paleopathology, and pathography. He also manages the "Pathographies" Collection at the De Boccard Editions. He received an award from the French Academy and the National Academy of Medicine for two of his books, and worked particularly on the alleged remains of Agnès Sorel, of Fulk III of Anjou, of Diane de Poitiers, on false relics of Joan of Arc and on the alleged head of Henry IV. Stéphane Gabet is a journalist, former editor-in-chief of the programme called "Secrets d'Histoire" and current editor-in-chief at Galaxie Presse. These two men published several major articles on this matter: • A documentary entitled The mystery of Henry IV's head, Galaxie Presse, Meeting of National Museums, 2011, broadcast on France 5. • Charlier P et al. [1]: Multidisciplinary medical identification of a French king's head (Henri IV) • Charlier P et al. [2]: Genetic comparison of the head of Henri IV and the presumptive blood from Louis XVI (both Kings of France). • Charlier P et al. [3]: La tête momifiée d'Henri IV. Une identification médico-légale. • Charlier P et al. [4]: Henri IV, l' énigme du roi sans tête, Vuibert (éd.) :156 and many others which are less important Historical rationale 23 arguments (24 if we consider the whole route this relic took) have been presented, formally identifying the skull as Henry IV's, or at least, with a probability "above 99.9%" according to Gabet and Charlier [4]. Which facts have been historically proven? In 1610, Henry IV's body was placed into the crypt of Saint-Denis Basilica. The coffin was desecrated in 1793 during revolution's pillages. In 1919, a certain Joseph
International journal of scientific research, 2014
French public national television channel France 5 broadcast a documentary relating the investigation which allegedly had led to the "formal" identification of Henry IV's skull. It had been conducted by a team of scientists led by Doctor Philippe Charlier, a forensic medical examiner-a well-known anthropologist. Throughout the programme, many factors were introduced and proved the identification. In the foreground, Doctor Philippe Charlier was playing the lead role as an investigator, with a voice over which intended to develop the arguments with a little suspense. In spite of all, inconsistencies appeared quickly. In 2012, the same documentary was broadcast on the same channel, this time introduced by one of the authors, the journalist Stéphane Gabet, close collaborator of Doctor Charier. Some time later, in February 2013, both men even published a book together on this matter. Each time, arguments were presented, then developed, through media language which seems consistent, as a police investigation for all audiences, leading inevitably to identifying Henry IV's skull... according to the authors. And yet, taking a scientific step back and looking at things from a distance with historical knowledge, these factors seem to be questionable. A new perspective which sowed the seeds of doubt on the showcasing of absolute certainty. The objective of this study is to provide an exhaustive counter-argument which does not intend to be polemical.
Forensic Science International Reports , 2023
DNA analysis is useful for investigation of many different types of objects, which can be particularly challenging for older articles, especially those of indefinite provenance. The Shroud of Turin is an aged linen cloth with the faint image of a man containing bloodstains. It is widely reported that the blood is of male origin; however, a modern reexamination of the previous methods and deductions indicate that the results are at best, inconclusive. This example illustrates that the limitations that may exist in the DNA analysis of bloodstains, particularly in relation to aged samples.