Ahaha, I did know about the healing power of the king's touch! (I -- probably? -- first saw this in Tolkien and then had a template for when I saw it later in some sort of historical fiction, I can't remember exactly where.) I only knew about it for English kings, though -- I didn't know it was a French king thing as well! That's hilarious that both sides think the other copied it, and the Byzantine and HRE emperors never claimed this at all.
What counts more - being God's literally Annointed but without a kingdom, or being with a kingdom but not yet with the consecration?
Hee! That's also interesting to me because I would have guessed that the healing would have had a religious flavor, i.e., be connected primarily with the consecration, but this seems to indicate that it wasn't considered (just?) a religious thing, that there may be something about the kingdom itself that confers the ability.
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
Yesterday when Selena said Anne was the last, I thought Hatton had said that G1 did not adopt the practice, so I checked to confirm, and yes: Anne was the last, and she had revived the practice after William III declined to continue it. Hatton cites an entire interesting-looking book called Les Rois Thaumaturges (at my rate of 100 pages per week, I will not be writing this up for salon any time soon), and I was able to find an English-language summary in an online review here.
How it started:
The earliest written reference to a French king’s possession of this power Bloch cites from a manuscript of one Guibert, an ecclesiastic, who writing early in the twelfth century stated that he had seen cures of scrofulous ulcers wrought by the touch of Philippe i and his son Louis vi. Bloch quotes a statement from a contemporary manuscript that Robert n, the grandfather of Philippe i, was so saintly a man that his touch possessed healing properties, but the faculty is attributed more to Robert’s saintliness than to his royalty. The first English king to whose mystical medical powers there is contemporary written testimony was Henry ii, of whom Pierre de Blois, a French monk at his court, wrote that he had seen him touch and cure strumous ulcers; but the popular tradition credits Edward the Confessor as the first English sovereign to exercise his therapeutic powers in this manner, and there are many statements made by early English chroniclers to the effect that Henry i and other English sovereigns were wont to cure by their royal touch.
How it ended:
Bloch infers from the famous allusions in Macbeth that James i undoubtedly essayed to cure by his royal touch. Louis xiii and Louis xiv in France, and Charles i in England touched their subjects right royally. After the Restoration Charles ii continued the practice which had, of course, not been attempted by Cromwell. Queen Anne was the last English sovereign to exercise the royal prerogative and we have the account of her having done so to the illustrious Samuel Johnson in the lexicographer’s own words. In France Louis xv and Louis xvi both touched for the king’s evil. Louis xviii was wise enough not to attempt it, but his successor, Charles x, in 1825 revived the ceremony but did not continue it owing to the ridicule and opposition he aroused. He was the last claimant to the privilege.
That's also interesting to me because I would have guessed that the healing would have had a religious flavor, i.e., be connected primarily with the consecration, but this seems to indicate that it wasn't considered (just?) a religious thing, that there may be something about the kingdom itself that confers the ability.
Historically yes, but much like FW with his East Frisia title, once you don't meet the strict criteria for something you want, you have an incentive to see how far you can stretch the definition.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
What counts more - being God's literally Annointed but without a kingdom, or being with a kingdom but not yet with the consecration?
Hee! That's also interesting to me because I would have guessed that the healing would have had a religious flavor, i.e., be connected primarily with the consecration, but this seems to indicate that it wasn't considered (just?) a religious thing, that there may be something about the kingdom itself that confers the ability.
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
How it started:
The earliest written reference to a French king’s possession of this power Bloch cites from a manuscript of one Guibert, an ecclesiastic, who writing early in the twelfth century stated that he had seen cures of scrofulous ulcers wrought by the touch of Philippe i and his son Louis vi. Bloch quotes a statement from a contemporary manuscript that Robert n, the grandfather of Philippe i, was so saintly a man that his touch possessed healing properties, but the faculty is attributed more to Robert’s saintliness than to his royalty. The first English king to whose mystical medical powers there is contemporary written testimony was Henry ii, of whom Pierre de Blois, a French monk at his court, wrote that he had seen him touch and cure strumous ulcers; but the popular tradition credits Edward the Confessor as the first English sovereign to exercise his therapeutic powers in this manner, and there are many statements made by early English chroniclers to the effect that Henry i and other English sovereigns were wont to cure by their royal touch.
How it ended:
Bloch infers from the famous allusions in Macbeth that James i undoubtedly essayed to cure by his royal touch. Louis xiii and Louis xiv in France, and Charles i in England touched their subjects right royally. After the Restoration Charles ii continued the practice which had, of course, not been attempted by Cromwell. Queen Anne was the last English sovereign to exercise the royal prerogative and we have the account of her having done so to the illustrious Samuel Johnson in the lexicographer’s own words. In France Louis xv and Louis xvi both touched for the king’s evil. Louis xviii was wise enough not to attempt it, but his successor, Charles x, in 1825 revived the ceremony but did not continue it owing to the ridicule and opposition he aroused. He was the last claimant to the privilege.
That's also interesting to me because I would have guessed that the healing would have had a religious flavor, i.e., be connected primarily with the consecration, but this seems to indicate that it wasn't considered (just?) a religious thing, that there may be something about the kingdom itself that confers the ability.
Historically yes, but much like FW with his East Frisia title, once you don't meet the strict criteria for something you want, you have an incentive to see how far you can stretch the definition.