Am I Richer Than King Richard I?

the_flying_pig

healthcare was poor, of course, but Richard I was considerably richer than any of us because, well, from birth he could do pretty much whatever the hell he wanted, where he wanted, when he wanted, with/to who he wanted.

neverdespairgirl

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

my previous point wasn't a dig.

Misconceptions abound about medieval time. Men and women were pretty close in height to those in 1984 (about 1 inch shorter).
This tells us that mortality wasn't about nutrition but about infectious diseases. Life expectancy was short because 25% of people died at birth (or in first year).

Neither would someone aged 60 be exceptional - as once you got to 40, you could expect to live to 60 with fair luck (Richards mum made 67 years)

Older than that - Eleanor of Aquitaine was in her 80s when she died (somewhere between 82 and 85, as her date of birth isn't known for sure). She had 10 children who lived past being babies, and only two survived her - King John and Queen Eleanor of Castile.

I don't think you're necessarily right about height, though. As I understand it, having read a paper on osteology at Wharram Percy, people were shorter then, on average, that now.

Wharram Percy is the best-known "DMV" or deserted medieval village.

Babies were breastfed until 18 months to 2 years old, and were similar in size to healthy infants now. But then their height fell behind - the avergae 14 year old in Wharram Percy was the height of an average (white, European descent) 10 year old today. They did carry on growing a bit later though - into their early 20s, rather than stopping in their late teens as we do now.

I think the average height for men was about 5 ft 6.

40% of adult burials were of people aged 50 or over - so 60% of people who made it to adulthood died before the age of 50.

zagubov

In Richard's day, the internet was only in black-and-white. On the good side though, cheeseburgers only cost a penny!

geneer

Heh heh heh.
Strange, but this thread really is making a good point.

fc123

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

We can easily combat infectious diseases and we can prolong geriatric life these days but then again many modern diseases would be almost unknown (assorted cancers / diabetes etc).

.

Just out of curiousity, when did cancers 'start'...or was it because no-one knew what someone had died of?

Another question....are you a boomer or an X'er if born in 1963? Different dates come up and seems to fall on either side.

StevieJ

the_flying_pig wrote: »

healthcare was poor, of course, but Richard I was considerably richer than any of us because, well, from birth he could do pretty much whatever the hell he wanted, where he wanted, when he wanted, with/to who he wanted.

With all that going for him, wonder why he was out there putting his life on the line all the time? He probably did well to reach 41.

adouglasmhor

fc123 wrote: »

Just out of curiousity, when did cancers 'start'...or was it because no-one knew what someone had died of?

Another question....are you a boomer or an X'er if born in 1963? Different dates come up and seems to fall on either side.

Possibly an X'er deffo a boomer, Boom ended in the early 70s in the UK

adouglasmhor

fc123 wrote: »

Just out of curiousity, when did cancers 'start'...or was it because no-one knew what someone had died of?
.

Greeks and romans knew of them. Some reubens paintings show them on the models.

Generali

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Possibly an X'er deffo a boomer, Boom ended in the early 70s in the UK

I thought it was 1968.

What was Richard I's generation called I wonder?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

I'm Generation X, and I've always assumed it to be late 60's til early 80's.

From Wiki.....

London newspaper The Guardian cited Generation X birth years as falling between 1965 and 1982 and referred to it as the "'me generation' of the Eighties."[28]

The Telegraph cited Generation X birth dates as falling into a longer time span (1965-1985) [29], whilst the The Independent estimated an earlier range of birth dates (1963-1978) compared to other writers or researchers.[30]

A BBC News article about a lack of "mid-career volunteers" in their 20s provided a Generation X age range, which, in 2007, would suggest birth years that fall between 1962 and 1982.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X