GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-02 > 0950544831
From: Don Read< >
Subject: Re: Royal Death From Plague
Date: 14 Feb 2000 10:13:51 -0600
In article <>,
"Bryan L. Ford" <> writes:
> Another contributory difference: It is my understanding that British
> royals, for example, during the 1665 London Plague spent most of their
> time at a country estate some considerable distance from London-- not an
> easy option for many other city dwellers of the time.
> It would be interesting to see figures of plague mortality with respect
> to class or socio-economic status. On the basis of the hypotheticals put
> forward above, I would predict that noble rank and/or prosperity may
> have correlated with a low incidence of plague death as well.
"It was grimly predictable that the plague would erupt in the worst slum
of all. St. Giles was still partly 'in the fields', but fresh air was no
match for the urban squalor there ...
... on 21 June, Pepys noted 'all the town going out of town, the coaches
and wagons being full of people going into the country' ...
... Contemporaries marvelled that not a single magistrate died in the
plague. Yet few exposed themselves to the risk, with one happy effect
at least. For the first time in centuries the gallows bore no fruit for
seven months, July to February."
"A History of London" - Robert Gray, 1978
<your Company name here> will sysadmin for food.
-- The problem with people who have no vices is that you can be sure
they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues.
|Re: Royal Death From Plague by Don Read< >|