Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Anglicans & Scrofula

Expand Messages
  • Simon Kershaw
    ... I don t think this is correct, but perhaps you can cite some evidence to prove me wrong. Certainly Wikipedia agrees with my assertion that Queen Anne was
    Message 1 of 74 , Mar 31, 2006
      Douglas Cowling wrote:
      > Actually, the last monarch to "touch" was William IV in the 19th century.

      I don't think this is correct, but perhaps you can cite some evidence to
      prove me wrong. Certainly Wikipedia agrees with my assertion that Queen
      Anne was the last, and Googling turns up a number of other pages that
      say the same.

      This page cites Brewer's Dictionary

      http://www.bootlegbooks.com/Reference/PhraseAndFable/data/707.html

      ------
      King's Evil Scrofula; so called from a notion which prevailed from the
      reign of Edward the Confessor to that of Queen Anne that it could be
      cured by the royal touch. The Jacobites considered that the power did
      not descend to William III. and Anne because the “divine” hereditary
      right was not fully possessed by them, but the office remained in our
      Prayer-Book till 1719. Prince Charles Edward, when he claimed to be
      Prince of Wales, touched a female child for the disease in 1745; but the
      last person touched in England was Dr. Johnson, in 1712, when only
      thirty months old, by Queen Anne.
      ...
      The practice was introduced by Henry VII. of presenting the person
      “touched” with a small gold or silver coin, called a touchpiece. The one
      presented to Dr. Johnson has St. George and the Dragon on one side and a
      ship on the other; the legend of the former is Soli deo gloria, and of
      the latter Anna D:G.M.BR.F:ET.H. REG. (Anne, by the Grace of God, of
      Great Britain, France, and Ireland Queen.
      We are told that Charles II. touched 92,107 persons. The smallest
      number in one year was 2,983, in 1669; and the largest number was in
      1684, when many were trampled to death. (See Macaulay's History of
      England, chap. xiv.) John Brown, a royal surgeon, had to superintended
      the ceremony. (See Macbeth, iv. 3.)
      ------

      Note the comment, in answer to an earlier query, about the Young
      Pretender touching someone in 1745.

      > Royal ceremonies ar full of pre-Reformation liturgurical detritus which
      > escaped the reformers and the Book of Common Prayer because everyone was
      > terrified of removing something that might have to do with the Royal
      > Prerogative.
      >
      > The upcoming Maundy Thursday rite is a ghastly example.

      Why is it a ghastly example? It is a real example of a survival of a
      Maundy ceremony in truncated form. And it ensures that Maundy Thursday
      gets mentioned on the tv every year, which can't be entirely bad. It is
      a pity that the sovereign no longer washes feet though.

      simon

      --
      Simon Kershaw
      simon@...
      St Ives, Cambridgeshire
    • Simon Kershaw
      ... I don t think this is correct, but perhaps you can cite some evidence to prove me wrong. Certainly Wikipedia agrees with my assertion that Queen Anne was
      Message 74 of 74 , Mar 31, 2006
        Douglas Cowling wrote:
        > Actually, the last monarch to "touch" was William IV in the 19th century.

        I don't think this is correct, but perhaps you can cite some evidence to
        prove me wrong. Certainly Wikipedia agrees with my assertion that Queen
        Anne was the last, and Googling turns up a number of other pages that
        say the same.

        This page cites Brewer's Dictionary

        http://www.bootlegbooks.com/Reference/PhraseAndFable/data/707.html

        ------
        King's Evil Scrofula; so called from a notion which prevailed from the
        reign of Edward the Confessor to that of Queen Anne that it could be
        cured by the royal touch. The Jacobites considered that the power did
        not descend to William III. and Anne because the “divine” hereditary
        right was not fully possessed by them, but the office remained in our
        Prayer-Book till 1719. Prince Charles Edward, when he claimed to be
        Prince of Wales, touched a female child for the disease in 1745; but the
        last person touched in England was Dr. Johnson, in 1712, when only
        thirty months old, by Queen Anne.
        ...
        The practice was introduced by Henry VII. of presenting the person
        “touched” with a small gold or silver coin, called a touchpiece. The one
        presented to Dr. Johnson has St. George and the Dragon on one side and a
        ship on the other; the legend of the former is Soli deo gloria, and of
        the latter Anna D:G.M.BR.F:ET.H. REG. (Anne, by the Grace of God, of
        Great Britain, France, and Ireland Queen.
        We are told that Charles II. touched 92,107 persons. The smallest
        number in one year was 2,983, in 1669; and the largest number was in
        1684, when many were trampled to death. (See Macaulay's History of
        England, chap. xiv.) John Brown, a royal surgeon, had to superintended
        the ceremony. (See Macbeth, iv. 3.)
        ------

        Note the comment, in answer to an earlier query, about the Young
        Pretender touching someone in 1745.

        > Royal ceremonies ar full of pre-Reformation liturgurical detritus which
        > escaped the reformers and the Book of Common Prayer because everyone was
        > terrified of removing something that might have to do with the Royal
        > Prerogative.
        >
        > The upcoming Maundy Thursday rite is a ghastly example.

        Why is it a ghastly example? It is a real example of a survival of a
        Maundy ceremony in truncated form. And it ensures that Maundy Thursday
        gets mentioned on the tv every year, which can't be entirely bad. It is
        a pity that the sovereign no longer washes feet though.

        simon

        --
        Simon Kershaw
        simon@...
        St Ives, Cambridgeshire
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.