Queen Matilda was
not a dwarf, as some have claimed. From
Marc Morris:
This is, quite simply, a modern myth. There is no evidence,
contemporary or otherwise, to support it. It derives entirely from an
excavation of Matilda’s tomb in Caen carried out in 1959, during which the scanty remains
of her skeleton were measured. The French press at the time reported that she
was only 127cm (4’2”) tall, and this arresting ‘fact’ soon found its way into
the next generation of history books.
But it was not true. Twenty years or so later, the president
of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Sir Jack Dewhurst,
didn’t believe a word of it. Matilda, he pointed out, gave birth to at least
nine healthy children, eight of whom grew to adulthood. The queen could not have done
this had she been 4’2”. Dewhurst, who was writing a book about royal confinements, made enquiries with Professor Dastague (Institut d'Anthropologie, Caen) who had led the
original dig, and was told that they had never claimed Matilda was so short. In
fact they had concluded that she was 152cm (about 5’). As Dewhurst points out
in his article, this height is far more compatible with Matilda’s successful
multiple pregnancies.
But that doesn’t solve the problem beyond reasonable doubt.
In the first place, the skeleton that the archaeologists examined in 1959 was
far from complete; Matilda’s height was extrapolated from her femur and tibia. Second,
and more problematic still, the excavation of 1959 was not the
first time that the queen’s remains had been disturbed. The tomb had
been destroyed during the Huguenot revolutions of the sixteenth century and its
contents scattered. Whether or not the remains measured in 1959 actually
belonged to Matilda thus depends on how diligent the monks* of La Trinité
were when they returned to sweep up. (
Read more.)
*(Actually, the monastery in question had nuns not monks.)
Share
No comments:
Post a Comment