The royal touch has always held a certain allure and fascination. It carries with it a sense of majesty and power that captivates our imaginations. Throughout history, the royal touch has been associated with both divine and earthly powers, symbolizing the authority of the monarch. In medieval times, it was believed that the touch of a monarch could cure certain ailments. Known as the "king's evil," scrofula was a chronic infection of the lymph nodes that was thought to be curable by the touch of a king. Monarchs would hold elaborate ceremonies where they would lay their hands on the afflicted and supposedly cure them of their illness.
Sturdy DJ . The Royal Touch in England. In: Heinz D, Jackson RA, Sturdy D, editors. European Monarchy: Its Evolution and Practice from Roman Antiquity to Modern Times. Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag; 1992 . p. 171–84.
The physician John Browne, in his book on the subject, paints a grisly scene of devotees gathered around the execution block, handkerchiefs ready to mop up the king s blood, and apply ing thereof to their Scrophulous Swellings they found immediate ease, and present relief. When Marc Bloch unearthed the Royal Touch as the first modern historian in 1924 and revealed the remarkably long past of this practice, he noted Historians have written massive tomes on the idea of royalty without ever mentioning them.
Monarchs would hold elaborate ceremonies where they would lay their hands on the afflicted and supposedly cure them of their illness. This belief in the healing power of the royal touch lasted for centuries and was seen as a sign of the monarchy's divine right to rule. The royal touch also played a role in the coronation ceremony of kings and queens.
Valentine Greatrakes vs. the “Royal Touch”: Magical Healing during the Scientific Revolution
About every other Christmas I go into full geek mode and binge-watch the extended versions of the Lord of the Rings movies. In the concluding part, ‘The Return of the King’, there’s a scene where Aragorn, finally having come to terms with his kingship, lays his hands on the wounded with the intent to restore them to health after battle. This scene is a reminder of an ancient healing ritual called the ‘Royal Touch’, which was performed by sovereigns on their subjects.
King Aragorn heals the wounded Faramir. From the deleted scenes of ‘The Return of the Ring’, Warner Bros., 2003.
In England, the practice of the Royal Touch stood in full bloom during the heydays of the so-called Scientific Revolution. By September 1664, twenty-three thousand subjects had been touched by King Charles II, with the last healing ritual being performed on a large scale in England by Queen Anne in April 1714. In France, the tradition of the Royal Touch survived into the days before the Revolution and was then continued to be practiced by the Bourbons until the early nineteenth century. Primarily supposed to cure scrofula (a form of tuberculosis then called ‘The King’s Evil’), the ritual also involved the distribution of so-called cramp rings to assuage epilepsy, muscular pains and other ailments.
Charles II performing the Royal Touch. Image Credit: King’s College London, Special Collections
Contrary to popular beliefs, if there was ever a period when science could be separated from the occult, the Scientific Revolution was not it. The foundation of the London Royal Society in 1660 was no doubt a milestone in the rise of modern scientific experimentalism as a collective endeavour. Hence, many present-day scientists are quite puzzled when they learn that Robert Boyle and other early members of the Society were believers in various ‘supernatural’ phenomena, ranging from second sight to poltergeist disturbances.
Moreover, while it’s still widely believed that magic was then already vanquished by science, Boyle and some of his colleagues didn’t leave it at mere belief but investigated reported occult goings-on – not to debunk such beliefs, but to corroborate them.
These investigations included the apparently well-attested cures by the Irish faith healer Valentine “the Stroker” Greatrakes, who treated various ailments, usually by applying gentle strokes (not unlike the mesmeric passes later applied by practitioners of ‘animal magnetism’ since the eighteenth century). Among Greatrakes’s patients and admirers were eminent men of science like the astronomer John Flamsteed, and few actually doubted the efficacy of Greatrakes’s interventions. There was, however, a somewhat heated public dispute over their interpretation.
Valentine Greatrakes curing a peasant boy. Line engraving by W. Faithorne, 1666. Image Credit: Wellcome Collection, London.
Thomist distinctions of divine miracles (actual violations or suspensions of the laws of nature) from preternatural marvels (phenomena that may resemble miracles, but were worked according to natural laws not yet understood) were already on the decline in Boyle’s day. Still, healings supposedly effected by the King’s ‘Royal Touch’ continued to be interpreted as genuinely supernatural and miraculous, and therefore as a divine seal of the King’s supposedly God-given authority and power. Since Greatrakes – a mere commoner – also claimed to act on divine orders, this was of course a problem.
The significance of a distinction between extraordinary natural phenomena and supernatural, divine miracles was hammered home, for example, in the title of a tract on Greatrakes, Wonders No Miracles, by the Anglican minister David Lloyd.
Cover of Lloyd’s book on Greatrakes. Image Credit: Wellcome Collection, London.
When Robert Boyle investigated Greatrakes, he likewise accepted many of his cures as genuine but not necessarily miraculous. Though at least privately Boyle did not seem to have ruled out that Greatrakes’s cures were divine in origin, he also considered natural explanations such as effects of warmth and friction. In line with contemporary mechanist natural philosophy, he also entertained the idea of quasi-material vital effluences or ‘spirits’ (an early modern concept for what was later called ‘gases’) as being responsible for Valentine’s cures.
Interestingly, Charles II himself did not seem too bothered over Greatrakes, even though the commoner also claimed to heal scrofula, just like the King. While critics denounced Greatrakes, who like the King claimed to act on divine authority, not so much as a swindler than as an ‘enthusiast’ (a then derogatory label for those who dared bypassing orthodox theological authority), a growing number of political opponents of Charles II accused the King of mimicking popish tricks.
When Marc Bloch unearthed the Royal Touch as the first modern historian in 1924 and revealed the remarkably long past of this practice, he noted: “Historians have written massive tomes on the idea of royalty without ever mentioning them”.
It would take roughly another half century before historians of science and medicine began to tackle the role of magic in a more concerted effort. And they have arrived at a rather unpopular conclusion: Scientists and intellectuals of various (and often competing) political and metaphysical persuasions have always stood on both sides of debates over the reality of ‘occult’ phenomena – even in supposedly secular times.
Literature
Bloch, Marc. (1973). Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France (J. E. Anderson, Trans.). London: Routledge (original French ed. in 1924) [Buy on Amazon] [Search on Abebooks].
Brogan, Stephen The Royal Touch in Early Modern England. Politics, Medicine and Sin. Woodbridge: Royal Historical Society/Boydell, 2015 [Buy on Amazon] [Search on Abebooks].
Elmer, Peter. (2013). Miraculous Conformist: Valentine Greatrakes, the Body Politic, and the Politics of Healing in Restoration Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press [Buy on Amazon] [Search on Abebooks].
Kaplan, Barbara Beigun. “Greatrakes the Stroker: The interpretations of his contemporaries.” Isis, 73 (1982), 178-185.
Schaffer, Simon. “Godly men and mechanical philosophers: Souls and spirits in Restoration Natural Philosophy.” Science in Context, 1 (1987), 55-85.
Werrett, Simon. “Healing the nation’s wounds: Royal ritual and experimental philosophy in Restoration England.” History of Science, 38 (2000), 377-399.
(Disclaimer: Forbidden Histories is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on this site, we may earn an affiliate commission, at no extra cost for you.)
Help us Promote Historical Literacy!Share this:
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
‒-Malcolm, Act 4, Scene 3, in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth
During the anointing part of the ceremony, the monarch's forehead, hands, and chest would be anointed with holy oil, symbolizing the divine authority bestowed upon them. This anointing was seen as essential for the legitimacy of the monarch's rule. Even in modern times, the royal touch continues to exert a certain enchantment. The pomp and circumstance of royal weddings and other ceremonial events captivate people around the world. The royal family's every move is scrutinized and revered, making them modern-day celebrities in their own right. But beyond the glamour and allure, the royal touch also carries with it a sense of responsibility and duty. Monarchs have a unique position of influence and power, and they are expected to use that power for the betterment of their people. The royal touch represents not only the monarchy's authority but also the hope that the monarch will govern with wisdom, compassion, and integrity. In conclusion, the majestic spell of the royal touch has been a powerful symbol throughout history. It represents not only the healing power of the monarch's hand but also the divine authority bestowed upon them. Whether in the past or present, the royal touch continues to enthrall us with its aura of greatness and responsibility..
Reviews for "The royal touch and the concept of monarchy"
- Sarah - 2/5 stars - I was really disappointed with "Majestic spell of the royal touch". The plot was nonsensical and the characters were one-dimensional. I couldn't connect with any of them and found myself bored throughout the entire book. The writing style was also lackluster and did nothing to engage me. Overall, I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on this book.
- Mark - 1/5 stars - I can honestly say that "Majestic spell of the royal touch" is one of the worst books I've ever read. The pacing was incredibly slow and nothing seemed to happen for the majority of the story. The dialogue was forced and unnatural, making it difficult to believe or connect with the characters. The author's attempt at creating a magical world fell flat and left me feeling unimpressed. I would not recommend this book to anyone.
- Emily - 2/5 stars - "Majestic spell of the royal touch" had so much potential, but it failed to live up to it. The story lacked depth and the characters were shallow and uninteresting. The romance felt forced and unrealistic, making it difficult to care about the outcome. The writing itself was also mediocre, with a lack of description and detail. Overall, I found this book to be a letdown and wouldn't recommend it.
- Alex - 2/5 stars - "Majestic spell of the royal touch" was a disappointment for me. The plot felt disjointed and confusing, with random twists that didn't make sense. The characters were poorly developed and their motivations were unclear. The pacing was also off, with some parts dragging on and others feeling rushed. Overall, I didn't enjoy this book and wouldn't recommend it to others.