Latest news with #Tudors
Daily Mirror
5 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mirror
Terrifying mystery illness leaves patients 'like statues' - with brains still working
A bizarre epidemic swept across countries and claimed the lives of an estimated half a million people, leaving many survivors forever changed - and it remains one of the biggest medical mysteries in history For 11 years, a mysterious illness swept across the globe, sending sufferers into what seemed like a deep sleep - sometimes for months. The illness is estimated to have killed about a third of those who were affected, with another third suffering debilitating neurological symptoms if they survived - and some even becoming frozen, like statues, while their minds were totally active as normal. But many unanswered questions still surround encephalitis lethargica - which is also called epidemic encephalitis. The medical community has never reached a consensus about what definitely caused the illness, or why it seemed to suddenly disappear overnight, going from an epidemic that raged across borders to only a handful of cases ever appearing globally over decades. Urgent probe as 10 Brits die after agonising reaction to weight loss jabs 'I am a loo historian – you'll never guess what Tudors used to wipe their bums' Encephalitis lethargica (EL) was called the 'sleepy sickness', and from 1916 to 1927, the disease is estimated to have claimed 500,000 lives, and infected more than a million people. No group of people was safe from this disease: it could infect anyone, no matter their age, class, or gender. Patients often initially presented with flu-like symptoms - a cough, sore throat, or a fever - before rapidly becoming seriously ill. They would become extremely sleepy, start to experience double vision. This extreme lethargy sometimes saw people essentially comatose for weeks or months, but disturbingly, they were not actually asleep, though they seemed to be. Inside their minds, they were often awake and completely aware of what was going on around them, but unable to move or react. The disease also had the ability to cause profound changes in patients' personalities and behaviours - the variety of symptoms that came along with EL made it hard for doctors to understand what they were treating. It was only in 1917 that EL was officially described as a new disease, with doctors across Europe initially baffled at the range of neurological symptoms that patients were presenting. Dr. Constantin von Economo from the Psychiatric-Neurological Clinic of the University of Vienna was the one to give EL its name, but the medical community, whilst recognising the epidemic's existence, was no closer to learning what was causing it, or how to stop it. In 1918, the Spanish Flu pandemic was underway, and doctors speculated that EL, which often came on after flu-like symptoms, could be some kind of post-viral issue or that the conditions were linked. One third of EL sufferers would, after the acute face of extended 'sleep', recover, but another third died during this stage because of respiratory complications. Autopsies conducted on some patients who lost their lives in this phase of the illness showed that a small part of the base of the brain was inflamed. The final third of EL sufferers faced a lifetime of terrifying symptoms, that ranged from criminal levels of impulsivity to becoming like statues. This again, like the seeming sleep endured in the first phase of the illness, saw their minds remain completely active, but trapped with a frozen body. After initially recovering from the acute phase, patients would find themselves enduring personality changes - with their loved ones beginning to find them markedly different from who they were before the illness took hold. They would become disinterested in the world around them and struggle to concentrate, but things would be poised to rapidly get worse. Little did the victims of this haunting disease know, their brains were rapidly degenerating - in what is called post-encephalitic parkinsonism (PEP), and the damage could never be undone. This particularly impacted young people, who would find themselves becoming more unpredictable over the following decades of their lives. Children who caught the disease would become inconsiderate, exceptionally clingy, have poor concentration, and be restless. Initially, this could be manageable, albeit still a big job for parents to deal with, but as they grew up, they would become nigh on impossible to handle. "As they grew in strength, their incorrigible impulsiveness escalated in violence and they posed a danger to themselves and others," explains The Conversation."Errant behaviours included cruelty to anyone who crossed them; destructiveness; lying; and self-mutilation including, in one example, removal of eyes. "When they reached adolescence, these patients manifested inappropriate and excessive sexuality, including sexual assault without regard for age or gender." Strangely, the sufferers of EL would be remorseful when they did wrong, and understand that they should not have behaved that way, but they simply had no impulse control whatsoever, and tragically, the only thing that stopped their often violent or criminal behaviour would be the PEP - which slowly but surely took away their ability to move. Those cases who did not see their Parkinson's symptoms worsen would, however, often become hardened criminals: stealing, raping, and murdering with impunity - but perhaps without the mental ability to be truly responsible for their actions. But for those who saw the Parkinson's worsen, a tragic path awaited: the essential parts of human life would drift away from them. Sufferers would lose all willpower, though their minds would be active, they would have no ability to take action. Beauty became unrecognisable to them - though they could still acknowledge the technical ability of a great artist, they could no longer connect. They could recognise other people's pain and suffering, but could no longer feel sympathy for those around them. Their faces would be totally blank, like a mask. Their muscles became increasingly rigid, stopping them from moving, and they could no longer properly take part in the world - though all along their minds still were in working order in many ways. Trapped inside their bodies, and the ability to connect stripped from them, they would spend decades living inside institutions, with no treatment ever found that had long-term success. But then, in 1927, the disease practically vanished overnight. The number of those diagnosed or presenting with these complex symptoms rapidly decreased, and in the last 85 years, there have only been 80 recorded cases. However, researchers are still looking into encephalitis and this type of swelling of the brain, which can be an autoimmune response or occur after a virus. Many mysteries still surround EL itself - but until answers are found to why this terrifying illness took hold so quickly, and went away out of nowhere, its threat remains.
Express Tribune
21-07-2025
- Express Tribune
Richard III may not have been a child killer after all
It is one of history's most intriguing "murders" – the mysterious disappearance over five centuries ago of two young princes from the Tower of London. Nearly 200 years after they disappeared, two small skeletons were found in a wooden box at the historic tower and reburied at Westminster Abbey. The remains were believed, but never proved, to be those of the two brothers – heir to the throne Edward, 12, and Richard, nine, the sons of King Edward IV of England, who were reputedly murdered at the behest of their uncle, Richard Duke of Gloucester. William Shakespeare later immortalised him in Richard III as a scheming hunchback who did away with his royal nephews so he could take the crown himself, sealing his reputation as a child killer. Now British author Philippa Langley, who helped unearth Richard's body from a central England carpark in 2012, has claimed that the princes – far from being killed – actually survived. The elder prince, Edward, was heir to the throne at the time of his disappearance and would have ruled as King Edward V of England. Langley decided to delve into the mystery after coming to believe that the conventional narrative in which Richard had the young princes killed smacked of "history being written by the victors". She was finally spurred into action after reading an article about Richard's reburial at Leicester Cathedral in 2015 which questioned whether the nation should honour a "child killer". "I think I'd always realised that the story sort of developed during the reign of the Tudors," she said, adding that it was then "repeated and repeated over time" until it became "truth and fact". The last English king to die in battle, Richard ruled from 1483 until his brutal death at the Battle of Bosworth near Leicester in 1485, aged 32. Bosworth was the last major conflict in the Wars of the Roses and changed the course of English history because the Tudor dynasty of Henry VII captured the crown from Richard's Plantagenets. Langley attributes the accepted story that Richard had the boys murdered to King Henry VII, a "very, very intelligent individual, but suspicious and highly paranoid". Tudor mud "He had a massive spy network working for him. And he was able to completely control the narrative," she said, adding that Richard ended up "covered in Tudor mud". Taking a cold case review approach to the historical "whodunnit", Langley says she assembled a group of investigative specialists, including police and lawyers, to advise her. "They said: 'Look, if you haven't got any confirmed, identified bodies, then it has to be a missing persons investigation and you have to follow that methodology'. "They said: 'You have to actively look for evidence'. That's when it really started to get interesting." Langley put out an appeal for volunteers to scour archives, only to be inundated with offers of help from people ranging from ordinary citizens to medieval historians. The result was the decade-long Missing Princes Project which she says unearthed a significant amount of information pointing to the survival of both young princes. Langley now believes that it is up to Richard's detractors to disprove the survival thesis, which she outlines in the new book The Princes in the Tower: Solving History's Greatest Cold Case. "The onus is now on them to find the evidence that the boys died. They cannot say Richard III murdered the princes in the tower any more because we found numerous proofs of life everywhere," she said. Key to Langley's conviction that both boys survived are documents discovered supporting a rebellion by "Edward IV's son". During the rebellion in 1487, Lambert Simnel, a pretender to the throne who came forward after Richard's death, was crowned in Dublin. According to fresh references found by the project, the boy was "called" or said to be "a son of King Edward", which she believes points to Simnel being the elder prince, son of Edward IV.
Kuwait Times
19-07-2025
- General
- Kuwait Times
UK ‘princes in the tower' murder probe clears Richard III
It is one of history's most intriguing 'murders' -- the mysterious disappearance over five centuries ago of two young princes from the Tower of London. Nearly 200 years after they disappeared, two small skeletons were found in a wooden box at the historic tower and reburied at Westminster Abbey. The remains were believed, but never proved, to be those of the two brothers -- heir to the throne Edward, 12, and Richard, nine, the sons of King Edward IV of England, who were reputedly murdered at the behest of their uncle, Richard Duke of Gloucester. William Shakespeare later immortalized him in Richard III as a scheming hunchback who did away with his royal nephews so he could take the crown himself, sealing his reputation as a child killer. Now British author Philippa Langley, who helped unearth Richard's body from a central England carpark in 2012, has claimed that the princes -- far from being killed -- actually survived. The elder prince, Edward, was heir to the throne at the time of his disappearance and would have ruled as King Edward V of England. Langley decided to delve into the mystery after coming to believe that the conventional narrative in which Richard had the young princes killed smacked of 'history being written by the victors'. She was finally spurred into action after reading an article about Richard's reburial at Leicester Cathedral in 2015 which questioned whether the nation should honor a 'child killer'. 'I think I'd always realized that the story sort of developed during the reign of the Tudors,' she said, adding that it was then 'repeated and repeated over time' until it became 'truth and fact'. An undated handout picture released on February 4, 2013 from the University of Leicester shows the skeleton of king Richard III found at the Grey Friars Church excavation site in Leicester. --AFP photos An Uber boat passes The Tower of London on The River Thames under a cloudy sky in London. Tudor mud The last English king to die in battle, Richard ruled from 1483 until his brutal death at the Battle of Bosworth near Leicester in 1485, aged 32. Bosworth was the last major conflict in the Wars of the Roses and changed the course of English history because the Tudor dynasty of Henry VII captured the crown from Richard's Plantagenets. Langley attributes the accepted story that Richard had the boys murdered to King Henry VII, a 'very, very intelligent individual, but suspicious and highly paranoid'. 'He had a massive spy network working for him. And he was able to completely control the narrative,' she said, adding that Richard ended up 'covered in Tudor mud'. Taking a cold case review approach to the historical 'whodunnit', Langley says she assembled a group of investigative specialists, including police and lawyers, to advise her. 'They said: 'Look, if you haven't got any confirmed, identified bodies, then it has to be a missing persons investigation and you have to follow that methodology'. 'They said: 'You have to actively look for evidence'. That's when it really started to get interesting.' Langley put out an appeal for volunteers to scour archives, only to be inundated with offers of help from people ranging from ordinary citizens to medieval historians. The result was the decade-long Missing Princes Project which she says unearthed a significant amount of information pointing to the survival of both young princes. Survival theory Langley now believes that it is up to Richard's detractors to disprove the survival thesis, which she outlines in the new book 'The Princes in the Tower: Solving History's Greatest Cold Case'. 'The onus is now on them to find the evidence that the boys died. 'They cannot say Richard III murdered the princes in the tower any more because we found numerous proofs of life everywhere,' she said. Key to Langley's conviction that both boys survived are documents discovered supporting a rebellion by 'Edward IV's son'. During the rebellion in 1487, Lambert Simnel, a pretender to the throne who came forward after Richard's death, was crowned in Dublin. According to fresh references found by the project, the boy was 'called' or said to be 'a son of King Edward', which she believes points to Simnel being the elder prince, son of Edward IV. The reaction to Langley's research has been mixed. Michael Dobson, director and a professor of Shakespeare studies at the University of Birmingham's Shakespeare Institute, expressed scepticism. 'Given the ways of dynastic monarchy, I think Richard would have been taking a very big risk in leaving those princes alive,' he said. 'The chances of their having accidentally gone missing while incarcerated on his orders in the Tower of London seem pretty remote.' — AFP
NZ Herald
18-07-2025
- General
- NZ Herald
New book questions Richard III's role in princes' disappearance, claims survival
The elder prince, Edward, was heir to the throne at the time of his disappearance and would have ruled as King Edward V of England. Langley decided to delve into the mystery after coming to believe that the conventional narrative in which Richard had the young princes killed smacked of 'history being written by the victors'. She was finally spurred into action after reading an article about Richard's reburial at Leicester Cathedral in 2015 which questioned whether the nation should honour a 'child killer'. 'I think I'd always realised that the story sort of developed during the reign of the Tudors,' she said, adding that it was then 'repeated and repeated over time' until it became 'truth and fact'. The last English king to die in battle, Richard ruled from 1483 until his brutal death at the Battle of Bosworth near Leicester in 1485, aged 32. Bosworth was the last major conflict in the Wars of the Roses and changed the course of English history because the Tudor dynasty of Henry VII captured the crown from Richard's Plantagenets. Langley attributes the accepted story that Richard had the boys murdered to King Henry VII, a 'very, very intelligent individual, but suspicious and highly paranoid'. 'He had a massive spy network working for him. And he was able to completely control the narrative,' she said, adding that Richard ended up 'covered in Tudor mud'. Taking a cold case review approach to the historical 'whodunnit', Langley says she assembled a group of investigative specialists, including police and lawyers, to advise her. 'They said: 'Look, if you haven't got any confirmed, identified bodies, then it has to be a missing persons investigation and you have to follow that methodology'. 'They said: 'You have to actively look for evidence'. That's when it really started to get interesting.' An undated handout picture released on February 4, 2013 from the University of Leicester shows the skeleton of king Richard III found at the Grey Friars Church excavation site in Leicester. Photo / AFP Langley put out an appeal for volunteers to scour archives, only to be inundated with offers of help from people ranging from ordinary citizens to medieval historians. The result was the decade-long Missing Princes Project which she says unearthed a significant amount of information pointing to the survival of both young princes. Langley now believes that it is up to Richard's detractors to disprove the survival thesis, which she outlines in the new book The Princes in the Tower: Solving History's Greatest Cold Case. 'The onus is now on them to find the evidence that the boys died. 'They cannot say Richard III murdered the princes in the tower any more because we found numerous proofs of life everywhere,' she said. Key to Langley's conviction that both boys survived are documents discovered supporting a rebellion by 'Edward IV's son'. During the rebellion in 1487, Lambert Simnel, a pretender to the throne who came forward after Richard's death, was crowned in Dublin. According to fresh references found by the project, the boy was 'called' or said to be 'a son of King Edward', which she believes points to Simnel being the elder prince, son of Edward IV. The reaction to Langley's research has been mixed. Michael Dobson, director and a professor of Shakespeare studies at the University of Birmingham's Shakespeare Institute, expressed scepticism. 'Given the ways of dynastic monarchy, I think Richard would have been taking a very big risk in leaving those princes alive,' he said. 'The chances of their having accidentally gone missing while incarcerated on his orders in the Tower of London seem pretty remote.' -Agence France-Presse
France 24
18-07-2025
- France 24
UK 'princes in the tower' murder probe clears Richard III
Nearly 200 years after they disappeared, two small skeletons were found in a wooden box at the historic tower and reburied at Westminster Abbey. The remains were believed, but never proved, to be those of the two brothers -- heir to the throne Edward, 12, and Richard, nine, the sons of King Edward IV of England, who were reputedly murdered at the behest of their uncle, Richard Duke of Gloucester. William Shakespeare later immortalised him in Richard III as a scheming hunchback who did away with his royal nephews so he could take the crown himself, sealing his reputation as a child killer. Now British author Philippa Langley, who helped unearth Richard's body from a central England carpark in 2012, has claimed that the princes -- far from being killed -- actually survived. The elder prince, Edward, was heir to the throne at the time of his disappearance and would have ruled as King Edward V of England. Langley decided to delve into the mystery after coming to believe that the conventional narrative in which Richard had the young princes killed smacked of "history being written by the victors". She was finally spurred into action after reading an article about Richard's reburial at Leicester Cathedral in 2015 which questioned whether the nation should honour a "child killer". "I think I'd always realised that the story sort of developed during the reign of the Tudors," she said, adding that it was then "repeated and repeated over time" until it became "truth and fact". Tudor mud The last English king to die in battle, Richard ruled from 1483 until his brutal death at the Battle of Bosworth near Leicester in 1485, aged 32. Bosworth was the last major conflict in the Wars of the Roses and changed the course of English history because the Tudor dynasty of Henry VII captured the crown from Richard's Plantagenets. Langley attributes the accepted story that Richard had the boys murdered to King Henry VII, a "very, very intelligent individual, but suspicious and highly paranoid". "He had a massive spy network working for him. And he was able to completely control the narrative," she said, adding that Richard ended up "covered in Tudor mud". Taking a cold case review approach to the historical "whodunnit", Langley says she assembled a group of investigative specialists, including police and lawyers, to advise her. "They said: 'Look, if you haven't got any confirmed, identified bodies, then it has to be a missing persons investigation and you have to follow that methodology'. "They said: 'You have to actively look for evidence'. That's when it really started to get interesting." Langley put out an appeal for volunteers to scour archives, only to be inundated with offers of help from people ranging from ordinary citizens to medieval historians. The result was the decade-long Missing Princes Project which she says unearthed a significant amount of information pointing to the survival of both young princes. Survival theory Langley now believes that it is up to Richard's detractors to disprove the survival thesis, which she outlines in the new book "The Princes in the Tower: Solving History's Greatest Cold Case". "The onus is now on them to find the evidence that the boys died. "They cannot say Richard III murdered the princes in the tower any more because we found numerous proofs of life everywhere," she said. Key to Langley's conviction that both boys survived are documents discovered supporting a rebellion by "Edward IV's son". During the rebellion in 1487, Lambert Simnel, a pretender to the throne who came forward after Richard's death, was crowned in Dublin. According to fresh references found by the project, the boy was "called" or said to be "a son of King Edward", which she believes points to Simnel being the elder prince, son of Edward IV. The reaction to Langley's research has been mixed. Michael Dobson, director and a professor of Shakespeare studies at the University of Birmingham's Shakespeare Institute, expressed scepticism. "Given the ways of dynastic monarchy, I think Richard would have been taking a very big risk in leaving those princes alive," he said. © 2025 AFP
