THE DURNLEY SKULL.

Thames Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 17528, 17 January 1929, Page 4

THE DURNLEY SKULL.

SIR ARTHUR KEITH PUTS HISTORY RIGHT. AFTER 360 YEARS. Surrounded by skulls of all shapes and sizes, Sir Arthur Keith lectured at the Royal College of Surgeons recently on a grisly problem. On a stand before him there was a peculiarly marked and discoloured skull.* Caressing it with his long, thin fingers, he discussed whether it was. or was not, the skull of Lord Darnley, husband of Mary Queen of Scots, who was murdered in 1567 when a young man of 22. He also discussed whether the skull showed signs of a disease which might have been expected to justify'Mary’s seemingly heartless treatment of him. Holding up the skull to the light, he drew the attention of his audience, composed' largely of learned professors, to its peculiar markings. It had been held he said, that these were evidence of a certain disease, and there was no doubt that they had points of resemblance to those on another skull —which he here selected from the dozens in front of him—that was known to belong to a man who had suffered from the disease. But Sir Arthur went over the “Darnley” skull again with his sensitive fingers and said that he had come to the conclusion that the of disease was not strong enough. He then divided the skull in half, and though he seemed loth to let it leave his hands, sent it round the audience, so that everyone could examine for himself the reputed remains of the head of the young man who was the father of James I. In dismissing the disease theory, Sir Arthur said that he was sorry he could not, at present, offer any other explanation, though lie was confident the problem would eventually be solved. On the question of the authenticity of the skull, he said that the evidence in favour of it was very strong. He outlined in support of this view the reputed long and troubled history of the s(kull. which has come at last, after passing through many hands, into the museum of the college.