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. The data “make a strong case,” against the previous work, says Cristian Capelli, a geneticist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom who was not involved with the work.According to legend, when King Louis XVI was beheaded in 1793 during the French Revolution, a witness soaked up his blood with a handkerchief and stored it in a decorated gourd. A few years ago, the family that owned the gourd asked geneticist Carles Lalueza-Fox of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, Spain, to look at the DNA from the remains of the cloth. At the time, all he could say was that the DNA came from a blue-eyed European male because he didn’t have any DNA from any of the king’s relatives. (Louis XVI supposedly had blue eyes.)Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)So Lalueza-Fox turned to the mummified head of Henry IV for help. Henry IV was a direct ancestor of Louis XVI, so a match would provide further evidence that the blood belonged to the French king. 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. Enough of it matched the blood’s Y chromosome for him to conclude that the blood and head came from individuals who were related to each other.French historian Philippe Delorme wasn’t convinced. There was so little Y chromosome from the head that the matchup could have been by chance. He teamed up with geneticist Jean-Jacques Cassiman from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium and identified three living descendants of the French kings, members of the House of Bourbon, to find out what the Y chromosome of that lineage should look like. They analyzed the Y chromosomes of these male relatives, and came up with a “Bourbon” Y chromosome profile. That profile did not match that obtained from the blood and head, Cassiman, Delorme, and their colleagues report today in the European Journal of Human Genetics.Who is right depends in part on what the Bourbon family tree really looks like—and that is also under dispute. Cassiman and Delorme argue that the three relatives they analyzed come from different branches of the tree, so the matching parts of their Y chromosome indicate true Bourbon inheritance. 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. “It seems likely that what we have here is just a case of false paternity within a royal family,” says Lalueza-Fox, who sticks by his original work. “Moreover, we should be cautious with the genealogies claimed by people. These are often less accurate than we may think.”Both sides think the best way to get to the bottom of this forensic tale would be to study the DNA of more living relatives. But neither has the funds to do so. So for now, the new work “leaves still open the hunt for true remains of these historical figures,” Capelli says.
13 Comments Share Grace expects Greinke trade to have emotional impact The 5: Takeaways from the Coyotes’ introduction of Alex Meruelo Quite simply, wrote Sando, much depends on how Wilks maps out a winning culture and winning gameplans around Rosen.That, and the internal development of the Cardinals’ recent draft picks, will go a long way in building depth and filling in roster holes. Top Stories Related LinksPFF: Arizona Cardinals’ projected O-line near bottom of NFLNBC’s Florio: ‘Expect nothing’ from Cardinals QB Sam BradfordCardinals rookie QB Josh Rosen blew Patrick Peterson’s mind in mini-campTo rank and score every team, the panelists take into account the Cardinals’ roster (30 percent), coaching staff (20 percent), quarterback situation (20 percent), draft (15 percent) and front office (15 percent). The final score represents the average results from ESPN’s Louis Riddick, Mike Sando and Field Yates.Because the roster accounts for the biggest chunk of the pie, the talent holes on the Cardinals stick out the most, according to Yates. The areas to watch on the roster include defensive line, wide receiver opposite Larry Fitzgerald and offensive line. There’s a lot of new in Arizona, as the Cardinals are the only team with a new coach who is expected to roll out a new starting quarterback this season.Of course, Wilks’ lack of experience leading an NFL team dings Arizona again.So do the red flags surrounding the long-term health of Bradford, leaving the team’s dependence on Rosen’s development as a key for success in the near future, wrote Riddick, a former NFL safety who later worked in the front office for Washington and Philadelphia.It’s a two-part issue with the Cardinals that could derail everything going forward. First, their ability to draft and develop starters, including overall depth of the quality that will contend for division and conference titles. Second, and more specifically, did they select their QB of the future in Rosen, both in terms of the right profile for their program, and do they have the right coaches in place to develop him? I am very skeptical about part one, but I do believe in Rosen as a prospect. We will see.What’s to bump the Cardinals up in next year’s future power rankings? The unknowns for the Arizona Cardinals give experts pause.Before a minute of preseason action under first-year head coach Steve Wilks and with a newcomer at quarterback — whether it’s veteran Sam Bradford or rookie Josh Rosen — there’s nothing more to evaluate than what’s on paper.What’s on paper elicits even more questions.That’s why Arizona ranked 26th in the NFL in ESPN’s annual future power rankings, which uses a panel of three experts to determine which teams are best positioned for the next three seasons. Derrick Hall satisfied with D-backs’ buying and selling Former Cardinals kicker Phil Dawson retires The Arizona Cardinals introduce their first-round NFL football draft pick Josh Rosen, left, as he stands next to head coach Steve Wilks, right, Friday, April 27, 2018, in Tempe, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)