There was a time when Kings could
allegedly heal certain diseases with their touch – just because they
were the King. Although, for today's man, this may sound like
superstition or an overdose of religious credulity, this phenomenon is
next to impossible to deny, thanks to the extensive number of cases of
this phenomena throughout history.
The purpose of this document is to enable the Faithful to separate the
"wheat" from the "chaff" in the seemingly never-ending array of healing
miracles which have accompanied Christianity and - most specifically -
Those whose Faith is based on God will leave this document with even
stronger Faith. Those whose Faith is purely intellectual may want to
exit this document right now
because "your Faith world" may come crashing down.
There are many detailed testimonies that French and British Kings
seemed to have had the power to heal - through the imposition of their
hands, or by curing the afflicted individual who touched them. In
today's world, where Royalty is more of a State decoration or a status
symbol for some nations, it is very hard to imagine or visualize what
the figure of the Monarch meant to everyone centuries ago, regardless
of their social level.
When authors of centuries past wrote about their Kings, they seem to be
overcome by a supernatural devotion. They often viewed their monarch as
a quasi-Divine Personage, to be honored and served by all.
The French Marshall Marmont, born fifteen years before the French
Revolution broke out, writes in a passage of his memoirs about the
prestige Louis XVI had, even as the French Monarchy was about to end in
a blood bath: "I felt toward the King
in a manner hard to define; a feeling of devotion with religious
character. The King's word had a 'magic' quality, a power that nothing
could alter. In pure and just hearts, such devotion turned into almost
Medieval kings used their power to heal scrofula, a word used at the
time to designate various infectious diseases such as plague, smallpox
or tuberculosis. The diseases that were labeled as “scrofula” were
marked by the absence of effective treatment, virulence, and high
likelihood of spreading infection due to poor hygiene. Epidemics
ravaged towns and villages, especially in times of famine and
starvation. (Such famines were often the result of poor harvests and
wars.) Many believed that they could only be cured through the
laying-on of hands by the miracle working Monarch. Being healed in such
manner was a grace that was not available to a villain who suffered
French and English Monarchs were prominent in the tradition of
Healings-by-the-King. In Gaul, scrofula was called "mal du roi"
[meaning "an illness for the King to cure"]. Its miraculous cure is
credited in particular to Clovis (481-511 AD), the Merovingian king who
was the first of the monarchs to use this alleged power. It is
said the first such miracle worked by King Clovis was performed on
Lanicet, a worker at the Royal Stables for whom King Clovis felt a
According to legend, one night Clovis had a dream in which he was
healing Lanicet with the simple touch of his hands. After the dream,
the room was illuminated by a powerful white light. The next day, King
Clovis touched Lanicet in the same way he had seen in the dream - and
Lanicet was miraculously cured. Thereafter, the successors of King
Clovis claimed the gift of their ancestor – perhaps, until the end of
the Merovingian dynasty. However, this tale became quite popular in the
sixteenth century through the work of Stephen Forcatel, whose "Treatise of the empire and the philosophy
of the French
" was published in 1579 AD in order to further
exalt the French monarchy.
There is no documentation of the king's miraculous touch after the fall
of the Merovingian dynasty in 751 AD, until the accession of the
Capetian dynasty (987-1328 AD), due to the holy character ascribed to
the new dynasty. There was a change, however. Now the "healing power"
was no longer inherited through the blood line, but was obtained as a
result of being anointed and upon the acquisition of a royal title.
The first miracle working healing ritual in this new cycle has been
attributed to Robert the Pious (996-1031 AD), the second ruler from the
Capetian dynasty. From that time onward, due to medieval superstition
and reverence for royalty, the belief in the miracle working power of
French kings spread. This belief persisted into the eighteenth century.
The belief in the king’s miraculous touch was not unique to
France. In England, this belief appeared during the reign of King
Edward the Confessor (1002-1066 AD), the first English monarch to cure
Legend has it that the ever-pious Edward the Confessor, a devotee of
John the Evangelist, was walking down the street one day when he met a
paralyzed man, for whom the King felt great sorrow - to the point that
he carried him on his shoulders and took him to a church. The moment
the body of the paralyzed man made contact with the king, his infirmity
was miraculously cured and he began to walk. This legend and other
pious works he practiced earned King Edward his canonization. The pious
King became St. Edward the Confessor in 1161, by the decree of Pope
With Edward began the legends of miracle working powers of English
Charles II of England is acclaimed as the monarch who cured the
most patients - some 100,000 cures, people say.
It is interesting to note that: (a) Kings James I and William III were
skeptical about their miracle working powers, although they continued performing
at the recommendation of their advisers; and (b) No such
legendary power was attributed to Charlemagne (742/745-814 AD).
We could go on for pages, since a whole book (1)
was published on 2007
covering this subject matter at length. However, what we have
transcribed from that source (and from another source (2)
) should be more than
enough for the points we wish to make.
We are sure that
many legends abound regarding such "Royal Curative Powers", but we have no doubt
- perhaps even more than 50 % of those claimed miracles - actually took
place. The question is: Why?
Which brings us to part B
Why did so many
miraculous cures came through the hands of very ordinary - and most
likely not-so-holy - men? Let us go to the Fountain of All Wisdom - The
A simple search with the words "faith" and "heal" yields a minimum of
fifty results in the New Testament alone. There are only two types of
healing, which can be best exemplified with the following two sets of
verses, verses which hinge on a key pronouncement by Jesus.
came the disciples to Jesus secretly, and said: Why could not we cast
him [ the demon ] out? Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief.
For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed,
you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall
remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:
Typical Type I Cure
Jesus turning and seeing her, said: Be of good heart, daughter, thy
faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
Typical Type II Cure
Jesus said to the centurion: Go, and as thou hast believed, so be it
done to thee. And the servant was healed at the same hour.
In the Type I cure, the faith of the individual needing the cure is the
key to his/her cure. For this type of healing, the key was having
faith: in Jesus, or King Robert the Pious, or even in King James I (who
was skeptical about such healings). In essence - if the individual has
enough faith, even in an inanimate object, the cure will take place (if
it is the Will of God, of course!) - as we can see in Matthew 9.22 and
many other verses.
In the Type II cure, the beneficiary of the cure/miracle has no idea
that someone else (who has the "faith
as a grain of mustard seed
"), has invoked Divine power to
achieve a cure for the beneficiary - as we can see in Matthew 8:13 and
many other verses.
We can also have a Type I and Type II combined scenario. For example,
when there was a large throng before Jesus:
all the multitude sought to touch him, for virtue went out from him,
and healed all. [Luke 6:19]
It logically follows that the people - even the high ranking noblemen
like French Marshall Marmont (as we showed above) - held their Kings in
such high esteem that their "faith
the King) hath made them whole
In such cases, the holiness - or lack thereof - of the King was
irrelevant to the healing.
Many others were not cured at "the touch of the King" (something also
reported by the sources). This could have been because (a) they did not
have enough faith that the King could do so; (b) they felt unworthy to
be cured; or simply (c) God knew that it would harm their souls in the
long term and would not allow it.
follows that most of the miracles used by the "Saint Factory" at the
Vatican cannot be used to prove the "sanctity", "holiness" and/or
"worthiness" of the individual being railroaded into Sainthood, if the beneficiary of the “miracle”
was involved at all in the process.
The only way a miracle could be used to prove the sanctity of the
intercessor would be when the beneficiary of the healing was not aware
at all about the intercession being offered by the saint-to-be on
behalf of the beneficiary, before the Throne of God.
Amazingly enough: the information and logic presented above
disqualifies many existing "Saints". At the same time, it confirms the
Sanctity of many who had not even crossed the veil yet.
For example - the Santo Subito
concept used for John Paul II cannot hold water. Popular
, yes; Santo
, we shall see.
On the other hand, John Bosco could have legitimately been proclaimed a
Saint one second after his death. (This could not have been done before
his death, because under Canon Law, one must cross the veil before
being declared a Saint.) He was a veritable "miracle securing machine"
for many decades.
(a) For a true miracle to work through the intercession of a
third party, the beneficiary, if aware of the intercessions on his/her
behalf, only needs very little faith.
(b) A true miracle can be obtained through the intercession of a third
party, with the beneficiary being a non-believer, as long as the
beneficiary is not
aware of the intercession on his/her behalf.
(c) For an apparent miracle to occur by the request of the beneficiary,
he/she needs to have great faith in whatever person or object he/she
feels will cause the cure.
(d) An individual without faith can even block Jesus Christ - in person
- from working a miracle on him/her....
He wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief. [Matt. 13:58]
(1) Historia Oculta de
los Reyes - Óscar Herradón - Ed. Espejo de Tinta, Madrid,
(3) Editorial assistance by Lee
Published in Honor of Mary,
Miraculous Mother which is celebrated on June 9th, 2011
Expanded the Title on April 4th, 2013
2011 - 2016 by The M+G+R
Foundation. All rights reserved. However, you may freely reproduce and
distribute this document as long as: (1) Appropriate credit is given as
to its source; (2) No changes are made in the text without prior
written consent; and (3) No charge is made for it.
About Us and
Note: If the above dated image
does not appear on this document, it means that you are not viewing the
original document from our servers. Should you have reason to doubt the
authenticity of the document, we recommend that you access our server
again and click on the "Refresh" or "Reload" button of your Browser to
view the original document.
If you wish to contact
The M+G+R Foundation, please Click
follow the instructions.