Royal touch
[1][2][3][4] The thaumaturgic touch was most commonly applied to people suffering from tuberculous cervical lymphadenitis (better known as scrofula or the king's evil), and exclusively to them from the 16th century onwards.
[2] The French, who normally traced the origins of their monarchs' divine gift back to Philip I (r. 1059–1108) or even Robert II (r. 987–1031), denied that Saint Edward used the royal touch.
[2] The physician André du Laurens (1558–1609) claimed that Clovis I (r. 481–511) was the first king who touched for scrofula, but the medievalist Marc Bloch (1886–1944) argued that it was probably Philip I.
The crusading Edward I did not arrive in England until 1274 but the custom of giving one penny to each patient had become well established by 1276, suggesting that the practice dated at least from the reign of his father, Henry III (r. 1216–1272).
Henry III, known for insisting on his arbitrary decisions, loved public displays and was as pious as his beloved brother-in-law, Saint Louis IX, all of which makes it likely that he introduced the practice in England.
The ritual remained a marginal aspect of kingship until the 17th century, when its appeal grew to unprecedented proportions and when it suddenly became an object of scrutiny in literature.
Not all people embraced the notion of the royal touch and miraculous cures; many were simply eager to obtain the valuable gold coin.
It consisted of four distinct elements: The touch was originally meant to cure tuberculous cervical lymphadenitis (commonly referred to as scrofula or the King's Evil), rheumatism, convulsions, fevers, blindness,[2] goitre and other ailments.
The Henrician practice was rarely modified, with changes to the ceremonial being minor; Elizabeth I traced the Sign of the Cross above the infected person's head, while her squeamish successor, James I (r. 1603–1625), made stroking motions above the abscesses instead of actually touching them.
[4] The Elizabethan surgeon William Clowes, who asserted that the royal touch proved her legitimacy, claimed that Elizabeth could also heal foreigners, citing a Dutchman as an example.
[2] The frequency of the ritual reached its climax during the reign of Charles II (r. 1660–1685), the only English monarch who applied the royal touch more than French kings.
[2] The physician Sir Richard Blackmore praised William III and George I for abandoning "that superstitious and insignificant ceremony", which he believed was a "Popish" plot.
The Glorious Revolution and subsequent abandonment of the idea of the divine right of kings rendered the royal touch unnecessary as a means of proving monarch's legitimacy.
[2] Reports of Jacobite claimants curing scrofula by touch were rebuffed by a contributor to the General Evening Post: "The illustrious Royal Family now on the Throne despise such childish Delusions, such little pious Frauds, to prove their Divine Right to the Crown.
[6] By the Late Middle Ages, the royal touch had become an integral part of the coronation of the French monarch at Reims Cathedral.
Philip VI (r. 1328–1350), the first Valois king, sought to demonstrate that he shared the thaumaturgic powers of his sovereign cousins and ancestors, thus proving himself as their rightful heir.
[2] During the French Wars of Religion (1562–1598), the worsening conditions helped scrofula spread more than ever and the interest in the disease steadily increased.
The Catholic League started a propaganda campaign claiming that Henry III (r. 1574–1589) was unable to heal by touch due to his immorality.
[9][11] After the Bourbon Restoration, Louis XVIII (r. 1814–24) is not recorded to have practiced the custom; however, his successor Charles X (r. 1824–30) touched 121 of his subjects at his coronation on 29 May 1825 in an attempt to assert continuity with the monarchy of the Ancien Régime and its claim of divine right.
The medieval monarchs of Castile were reputed to possess the ability to exorcise demons by making the sign of the cross and calling on God, while their Hungarian counterparts supposedly cured jaundice.
[6] Inoculation, an early form of immunization, was introduced into England during the reign of George I, who had put a definite end to the royal touch in his kingdom.
The University of London medicine professor Sir Raymund Crawfurd published a study in 1911, revealing his fascination with the "dubious if exotic" practice.
Bloch was baffled by the tenacity of the esoteric practice and agreed with Lord Macaulay's assessment that it was grounded in a form of mass hysteria.
The British historian Keith Thomas discussed the royal touch in the context of religion and magic, while his colleague and compatriot J. C. D. Clark attributes the survival of the practice into the 18th century to the persisting notion of the divine right of kings.
[2] Catholic author Solange Hertz notably defended the practice, arguing that the French kings genuinely possessed healing powers as the church's "quasi-bishop[s]", provided only they were in a state of grace.
