Richard's Physicians?

Has history left us any names of Richard's physicians, either at
Middleham or in Westminster, or do writers just make them up?

Thanks so much.

~Wed

I don't know about Middleham or Westminster, but I read this in: Hammond, P. W. and Anne F. Sutton. Richard III: the road to Bosworth Field. London: Constable, 1985, p. 86.

On June 12, 1482 Edward IV made Gloucester lieutenant-general of the campaign against the Scots and returned to London. Edward IV's deteriorating health may have contributed to this transfer of leadership.

But it's interesting that the king sent his physician, William Hobbes, with a retinue of eight surgeons, to Scotland with Richard for a month. An account roll entry records a payment of thirteen pounds and six shillings for their expenses "in the King's service against the Scotch."

If Edward IV left the Scots campaign because of his health, why did he send his physician and 8 surgeons to Scotland with Richard?

Marion


--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Has history left us any names of Richard's physicians, either at
> Middleham or in Westminster, or do writers just make them up?
>
> Thanks so much.
>
> ~Wed
>

phaecilia wrote:

"I don't know about Middleham or Westminster, but I read this in: Hammond,
P. W. and Anne F. Sutton. Richard III: the road to Bosworth Field. London:
Constable, 1985, p. 86.
'On June 12, 1482 Edward IV made Gloucester lieutenant-general of the
campaign against the Scots and returned to London. Edward IV's
deteriorating health may have contributed to this transfer of leadership.'

But it's interesting that the king sent his physician, William Hobbes, with
a retinue of eight surgeons, to Scotland with Richard for a month. An
account roll entry records a payment of thirteen pounds and six shillings
for their expenses "in the King's service against the Scotch."
If Edward IV left the Scots campaign because of his health, why did he send
his physician and 8 surgeons to Scotland with Richard?"

Doug here:
Perhaps because the physician and the surgeons, especially the latter, would
be needed by the army and London undoubtedly had many physicians available
to Edward should he require one?
Some of those still-in-London physicians may also have been "Royal
Physicians"; as I seem to recall that when Queen Anne died there were at
least four "Royal" physicians reporting their opinions to the Privy Council.
Doug