Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 41

[cahn]

Now, thanks to interesting podcasts, including characters from German history as a whole and also Byzantine history! (More on this later.)

Comments

Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)

[selenak]

Eating in public and letting people see you was a big thing in France, cahn.

In the first Angelique novel, after her husband got arrested and when she tries to find help, going to one of those public meals is one of the ways she tries to get access to the King. (Which predictably does not work: eating in public does not equate letting just anyone approach you.

On a less fictional front, Charles II. did the eating in public thing as well, not least because if your father has been beheaded for, among other things, being perceived as an arrogant tyrant only listening to Evil Catholics (tm) and not to the people, it was one of the ways to signal the opposite.

Brushing up on Louis has also reminded me of the following incident, for which, as a reminder, you need to keep in mind both the Kings of England and the Kings of France were supposed to have the ability to heal people with their touch, the laying of hands. cahn, you might recall that's what the title The King's Touch refers to - Charles II did this a lot, despite being a sceptic, again as a way to signal to the people his approachability, and one of the ways our hero Jemmy gets into trouble and seen as a rebel is when he does the laying of hands as well, because only true Kings of England are supposed to have that ability. The last English monarch to practice the laying of hands was Anne, I believe, as there's a famous anecdote of Dr. Samuel Johnson the dictionary guy and Boswell biography subject, who was suffering from the scrofula, being taken to be touched by Anne as a small child. (It didn't help.)

Now, as you know, when the Stuarts went into exile, Henrietta Maria the wife/widow of Charles I, as a daughter of France, sister of Louis XIII, together with toddler Minette went to Paris and basically stayed there until the Restoration. Whereas young Charles the only technical II ended up spending most of his time in the Netherlands but kept making the rounds at different courts, including the Spanish and the French one, always in need of money and support. On one particular occasion, he was in France with Mom, and cousin Louis, this is important, was of course already King (he became King when his father Louis XIII had died), but not yet a consecrated King, he hadn't been officially crowned yet. Meanwhile, Charles had been consecrated - in Scotland, not in England, as part of the deal he'd made with the Scots to get their support for the last battle of the English Civil War - but of course wasn't governing anything. Which according to Antonia Fraser put a sick noble lady who wanted the laying of hands in a bind as to which King she wanted to touch her. What counts more - being God's literally Annointed but without a kingdom, or being with a kingdom but not yet with the consecration?

Incidentally, depending on whether you read a French or an English historian, either the Brits or the French copied this royal ability. Meanwhile, bear in mind neither the Byzantine Emperors nor the HRE Emperors ever claimed they were able to do this.

Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)

[luzula]

I know BPC did the eating in public thing as well, during his month or so of holding court in Edinburgh, and the book where I read it commented that it was not something the Georges did. But don't have the book to hand...

Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)

[selenak]

it was not something the Georges did.

Wouldn't be surprised, I don't recall this being a German tradition at all, but Caroline as Princess of Wales made some considerable effort to come across as publically approachable to the Brits by regularly promenading with her children and future G2 in the London parks, by attending festivities where they danced English country dances (which she made future G2 learn), attending church services instead of sticking to royal chapels etc. Of course, all those public strolls by the Prince and Princess of Wales with their children (well, those children they were allowed to bring to England anyway) was also a demonstration that the new regime had a secured dynastic future, in contrast to the last few Stuarts like poor Anne with her dead babies. Plus whatever Caroline and future G2 had done in the South would not have mattered to the people in Edinburgh who never saw them.

Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)

[mildred_of_midgard]

Didn't BPC touch for scrofula after his father died and he became "king"? I seem to remember that's how I learned about the royal touch.

Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)

[luzula]

I never dug into his life after James III died, but I wouldn't be surprised!

Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)

[cahn]

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)

[mildred_of_midgard]

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.