All we know about their actual physical looks is handily collected here: http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~byzantium/Mdv.html.
There's a good possibility that there was a hereditary thyroid problem in the family going back at least as far as William of Normandy; it's reported of so many of them (including their cousin Amalric of Jerusalem, also listed in that site) that they became extremely fat in middle age, even though it's noted that they remained extremely active and didn't over-eat. Thyroid imbalance would certainly account for their tendency to volcanic rages and - not reported in all of them, but noticeable in John, for example - periods of complete inertia.
Yes, I saw the reconstruction of the Dunfemline skull. Interesting, but it's my understanding that the idea that the skull shows signs of leprosy, rather than injury and post-mortem decay and damage, has been fairly comprehensively discarded, so I don't know why she bothered to do that; certainly none of the reports of the reconstruction cited any new reasons to believe the leprosy theory. Also, the identification of the skeleton as Bruce's is quite shaky. It was based, back in 1818, solely on the grounds that the sternum had been split to remove the heart, nobody at the time bothering to consider that removing the heart for separate burial was quite a normal medieval custom. But the location of the grave doesn't match pre-Reformation accounts of the location of his tomb, and there's a good chance that it's actually David I, the founder of the Abbey.
reply
share
ronfirv
8 years ago
Thank you for the link.
I had no idea about the thyroid problems inherited. Interesting.
Yes, I knew the skull of de Brus was only a probability, but seemingly because it was found earlier near the tomb it was assumed it would be his. Yet again, I had no idea King Robert suffered leprosy, poor man.
I have visited Melrose Abbey twice, as well as Dunfermline, so thankful to know I have been close to the remains of a "great" of history, of which in Britain, we have more than a few.
reply
share
syntinen
8 years ago
Well, I wouldn't swear it was thyroid - for all I know there are other congenital conditions that could produce the same effect. But the description crops up too consistently, even in cousins living in different continents (so an environmental cause can be ruled out), to be anything but genetic in origin.
I don't suppose the 'King Robert was a leper' story will ever die out now: it's one of those things people 'know', like Nelson wearing an eye-patch, Vikings having horned helmets, or the Druids building Stonehenge. But you wouldn't expect an academic like Wilkinson to give it a shot in the arm.
reply
share
ronfirv
8 years ago
The leprosy info. totally surprised me. I hadn't the remotest idea the king suffered it, or should I say, possibly?
I agree with you - also surprised Prof. Wilkinson made a deal about it. I respected her work. (She did some outstanding reconstructions on skulls & skeletons found buried at Stirling Castle in the mediaeval period).
reply
share
silverwhistle
8 years ago
Yup. The Glasgow guy involved in the reconstruction seems to believe it's Robert de Brus, but the latter's most recent biographer Mike Penman builds a convincing case for David I because of the burial site and accoutrements (the simple lead circlet sounds more 12C than 14C). The marble tomb fragments are more 14C, but they were not excavated under modern conditions and their position is unclear. (It doesn't help that the Bruces of Elgin have used the site as a burial vault for centuries after, disrupting some earlier burials.) Also, it's likely the interior and monuments were upgraded by the Bruces. David (who had been involved in a lot of campaigning in England in support of his niece, the former Empress Maude) died in Carlisle, so it is more than likely his organs were removed for embalming and transporting his body to Dunfermline.
"Active but Odd"
reply
share