"Tis good for men to love their present pains" -- Henry V
Thought that very thing as I watched Royal Deaths and Diseases on the History Channel last night.
Henry V, through no fault of his own, well, other than he happened to be there and his violent enemies wanted to kill him, once got an arrow stuck in his head which his doctor yanked out with a giant corkscrew covered in honey.
Prince Hal (later Henry V) was wounded in the face by an arrow at the Battle of Shrewsbury 1403. The royal physician John Bradmore had a tool made which consisted of a pair of smooth tongs, once carefully inserted into the rear of the arrowhead, the tongs screwed apart till they gripped its walls and allowed the head to be extracted from the wound. Prior to the extraction, the hole made by the arrow shaft had been widened by inserting larger and larger dowels of wood down the entry wound. The dowels were soaked in honey which contain natural antibiotics. The wound was dressed with a poultice of barley and honey mixed in turpentine. After 20 days, the wound was free of infection.
However, a few years on and no longer buckling a swash with his early vigour, tough battle boy Henry died of a tummy ache.
His son Henry VI, a bit of a goof, managed to die in a much more kingly manner; he was murdered.
By the time of Henry VIII the royals found new diseases to die from, especially the dreaded pox recently imported from the New World - oh the joys of travel.
It would appear that Queen Mary, Edward VI, and possibly James II were similarly afflicted.
I wonder who will be the first royal to die of aids? (Yasser Terrorfat doesn't count - he's not even a real head of state). Maybe Liz has picked up something from Phil the Greek and Charles is quite mad enough to have sex with anything - just look at Camilla.
Posted by: SB | 06 December 2004 at 18:01
You know, SB, I reckon that thing's overplayed.
I don't have any evidence, mind you, not being an expert an all, but I'm sure there were plenty of sick families throughout the course of history, it's just that the ROYAL ones were better known.
I mean, there's more chance we'll know about Mad King George than Mad Jack Smith the village idiot.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 December 2004 at 19:13
Oy!
I resemble that comment.
Posted by: Mad Jack Smith | 06 December 2004 at 19:36
Oy yourself, Jack. Lo! There's filth yonder needs eating.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 December 2004 at 19:51
Its the combination of fame and scandal that does the trick every time. Its why the History channel bothered at all with Royal deaths and diseases and its why millions of gossip magazines infest our world.
Its just human nature - flush out a bit of juicy information concerning the rich and famous and we put aside whatever higher pursuits we pretend command our interest and dive headlong into the cesspit.
Maybe we like the fact that the Royal family is as retarded and inbred as many others. I don't really know what it is, but it sure as hell sells.
Posted by: SB | 06 December 2004 at 19:52
Fame and Scandal. Now there's an oldie. Awful bloody song, actually.
Guess the guy who sung it's not famous, I can't remember his name. He could be mentally defective though.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 December 2004 at 20:33
Did Hal have cirrhosis from the turps poultice?
Or maybe Halitosis??
Posted by: boynton | 06 December 2004 at 20:33
Not sure about Hal's hal', but given the general lack of toothpaste, toothbrushes, floss and Listeriny type cleansers (Lister wasn't even born yet), not to even mention clean water, I'm tipping he never sported a Colgate ring of confidence.
However, I'm pretty sure Falstaff became Sir Rhosis of Liver.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 December 2004 at 20:41
occasionally a hidden gem will pop up on the History Channel- one that you actually HAVENT SEEN before and is worth viewing, like the above. Anyway, i thought Old King Henry died of Gout.
Posted by: Brett Pee | 08 December 2004 at 03:53
One probably did, but not this one. And he wasn't old either. 40 something.
Posted by: Tony.T | 08 December 2004 at 08:57
42 ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ?
Posted by: Brett Pee | 10 December 2004 at 05:05
Actually, looking at the site again, it turns out Henry was about 35. I must have been thinking of Elvis.
Posted by: Tony.T | 10 December 2004 at 15:49