What do the latest DNA results show?
They show that Richard III had a different Y-chromosome than his supposed living male-line relations in the modern Somerset family (illegitimate descendants of the Beauforts – legitimised descendants of the Plantagenets).
What does this prove?
It proves that somewhere between Edward III and the present day one of the mothers in one of these lines of descent had had sex with another man (not her husband or recognised lover).
There is no way of knowing whether this misdemeanour took place in Richard III’s ancestry or in the ancestry of the modern Somersets. However, the number of generations involved makes it much more likely that the misdemeanour occurred somewhere in the Somerset family tree.
Also, since the Y-chromosome results from the living Somersets revealed two DIFFERENT Y-chromosomes in what is supposed to be the same modern family, the most likely explanation is that this sexual misbehaviour was comparatively recent (C18th or C19th?).
Another possibility of course (since the Beaufort descent from the Plantagenets and the Somerset descent from the Beauforts pass through two known illegitimacies) is that either John Beaufort was not the real son of John of Gaunt or that Charles Somerset was not the real son of Henry Beaufort.
Some people have suggested that this new evidence shows that HM the Queen has no right to the throne.
But actually her (and her family’s) right to the throne is based purely on an eighteenth-century Act of Parliament (the Act of Settlement of 1701).
As for HM’s descent from medieval English royalty, she has descent via many lines, but the two most significant are
a) Via the House of York (from Elizabeth of York, wife of Henry VII and niece of Richard III)
b) Via the Beaufort family (ancestors of the Somersets.
While the latest DNA evidence does raise the remote possibility that one of these two lines might possibly be flawed, it can hardly be argued that BOTH lines are flawed.