[impossiblefork]

Yes, but isn't the "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why" actually correct, so that we should say something like "one pervert king liked watching women give birth and that's why people have done it this very, very silly way"?

[stavros]

The article explicitly says that we don't know how much he influenced anything, so the mention just seems to be thrown in for the controversy:

> "The influence of the king's policy is unknown, although the behaviour of royalty must have affected the populace to some degree,"

Given that we aren't sure that the king affected anything, mentioning this feels more like editorializing than evidence.

[impossiblefork]

I don't really agree, because these kings really had a say and people basically worshiped them. People imitate all sorts of things from how the kings and the courts did things, things like not buttoning the lowest button on their jackets, etc., so I think it may well have had a substantial influence.

[ShowalkKama]

knowing and thinking / assuming are two different things. Saying that "that's why people have done it" is simply and categorically wrong.

It is no doubt something that could prove interesting if shared when presenting the research (e.g. I went down this route, find this weird thing here, that unusual story there) but this article does accompany you through that process, it just presents the findings which makes the inclusion of this fact quite questionable.