Is the following wrong? I see many websites stating that he was in very poor health when he died.
I look forward to you feedback.
About five feet six inches tall (1.7 meters) and slightly built, Tut was in excellent health—well fed and free of any disease that would have affected his physique. Though his spine appears curved, it was probably misaligned during embalming. Something out of the ordinary, then, must have struck him down. But what? The experts can’t say for sure because of the difficulty in distinguishing between possible injuries to Tut while alive and the damage Carter’s team did to the mummy. Some believe, for instance, that a fracture above the left knee was Carter’s fault. Others think it may be the result of an accident or assault that led to Tut’s demise after a virulent infection set in and spread.
Wikipedia states otherwise.
“Tutankhamun was slight of build, and was roughly 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) tall.[21] He had large front incisors and an overbite characteristic of the Thutmosid royal line to which he belonged. Between September 2007 and October 2009, various mummies were subjected to detailed anthropological, radiological, and genetic studies as part of the King Tutankhamun Family Project. The research showed that Tutankhamun also had “a slightly cleft palate”[22] and possibly a mild case of scoliosis, a medical condition in which the spine deviates to the side from the normal position. Examination of Tutankhamun’s body has also revealed deformations in his left foot, caused by necrosis of bone tissue. The affliction may have forced Tutankhamun to walk with the use of a cane, many of which were found in his tomb.[23] In DNA tests of Tutankhamun’s mummy, scientists found DNA from the mosquito-borne parasites that cause malaria. This is currently the oldest known genetic proof of the disease. More than one strain of the malaria parasite was found, indicating that Tutankhamun contracted multiple malarial infections. According to National Geographic, “The malaria would have weakened Tutankhamun’s immune system and interfered with the healing of his foot. These factors, combined with the fracture in his left thighbone, which scientists had discovered in 2005, may have ultimately been what killed the young king.”[23]”
Tutankhamun’s mummy has been extensively studied and there are a number of theories about what killed him. However, no one is able to conclusively prove any theory. Clearly, however, the young king was not in the best of health even when he was living. Considering numerous walking sticks were found among his burial equipment, it seems clear he had physical limitations in life. Also, I would note birth defects were appearing in the final stage of the Thutmosid line of kings. The mummy from KV55 was shown by DNA to be both a son of Amenhotep III and the father of Tut. Hence, that mummy is almost certainly Akhenaten and he had birth defects as well.
They believed the opposite. That royals were very, very special people hence breeding between only the top royals would produce the best offspring.
That such beliefs persist for a long time despite obvious counter-evidence is common. Look at blood letting. After all, you could always blame the bad effects on disfavor with the gods.
Probably depends on the family. Cleopatra VII (the famous one) was the product of several generations of incest (some of her ancestors we are not sure about). By all accounts she was a highly intelligent, capable person although not the great beauty as commonly depicted.
Been a few years since I read about ancient Egypt but my impression is that various dynasties didn’t last much beyond five or six generations. Could be defects aggravated by incest or could be wars, famines, revolts, etc. How many governments worldwide survived intact from 1900 to 2000? Something like 13.
It certainly persists. Look at the fuss when Prince Charled of the UK was rumored to be dating a commoner. and that was only about 30 years ago.
And Queen Victoria’s hemophiliac genes put a real dent in the royal families of Europe, because of the restricted possible mates & resulting inter-breeding.
Well, obviously they knew nothing about genes, as such.
But haemophilia was certainly known to be hereditary. Victoria’s first comment, on being told that her son Leopold had probable haemophilia, was “but this disease is not in our family!”
The National Geographic site’s article proclaiming him to be in good health was written in 2005. The Wikipedia article relies heavily on examinations performed in 2007 and 2009.
Thanks Nametag, but the claims are polar opposites. Granted, National Geographic no longer has the standing it used to have. It has lost a lot of its credibility in the last several years. But I was very surprised nonetheless.
Thank you all. Very helpful.
Diana *was *a commoner with no royal connections. Although her family was certainly aristocratic. I remember much discussion at the time of the beneficial effects (which seem to have been confirmed in their two sons) of his marrying a commoner.
Or look at the Hapsburgs. The last of the Spanish line was horribly inbred, and was famous for its impact on his health: “Carlos the Sufferer” aka “el Hechizado” (“the bewitched”).
A history Professor if undergraduate school told us that the one sentence Charles spoke that was understood was “I am the Emperor, and I want noodles!”
The British usage of “commoner” differs from everyone else. As you pointed out she was a aristocrat. *"Diana was born into a family of British nobility with royal ancestry as The Honourable Diana Spencer. She was the fourth child and third daughter of John Spencer, Viscount Althorp and the Honourable Frances Roche. She grew up in Park House, situated on the Sandringham estate, and was educated in England and Switzerland. In 1975, after her father inherited the title of Earl Spencer, she became Lady Diana Spencer…Diana was born into the British noble Spencer family, different branches of which currently hold the titles of Duke of Marlborough, Earl Spencer, Earls of Sunderland, and Viscount Churchill.[238][239] The Spencers claimed descent from a cadet branch of the powerful medieval Despenser family, but its validity is still being questioned.[240] Her great-grandmother was Margaret Baring, a member of the German-British Baring family of bankers and the daughter of Edward Baring, 1st Baron Revelstoke.[241][242] Diana’s distant noble ancestors included John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and Prince of Mindelheim and his wife Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough.[243] Diana and Charles were distantly related, as they were both descended from the House of Tudor through Henry VII of England.[244] She was also descended from the House of Stuart through James II of England.[19]
*.
To the Brits and no one else, you are either Royalty, a Peer (as in the House of Peers) or a 'commoner". Everyone esle has Royalty, Nobility, Aristocrats, Knights and Gentleborn- then commoners. To the Brits you can be a Lord with a high title, castle and everything, but if you’re not a “Peer” youre a 'commoner".
As an aside, I was just reading a popular history of one of Marlborough’s battles - entitled “Blenheim - Battle for Europe”, when I noticed that the author was Charles Spenser - brother of Diana and, of course, a descendent of Marlborough.
]