Philandering Kings

The Catholic Church's position is that marriage is sacred and sexual relations should only happen between husband and wife.

Well what about early/high medivial kings who committed fornication or adultery, but were otherwise good? I mean this includes benevolence, laid-off, keeps the law and order without tyranny, and of course being friends and doing favors for the Church. And for arguments sake, I'm limiting the cases to where the consort doesn't (openly) complain about the situation since that makes it simpler.

So how does the Church deal with them? They can't pretend fornication and adultery don't happen given the sheer number of bastards. Yet at the same time the Church can't make an enemy out of all of them. It would be politically stupid to make a fuss out of it to hypothetical King A who is in favor domestically and did favor after favor to Pope after Pope. Just congratulate them on a job well done and ask them to be a bit more faithful in the future? If an out of favor noble (as in even the other nobles, his oldest son, and his own serfs aren't fond of him so making an enemy out of him isn't a big deal) inside King A's realm points out the obvious adultery of King A to a church bishop do they go "la la la, I can't hear you"?
 
I am not sure I understand the question here? Are you asking how the Catholic Church has dealt with adultering kings in the past?
 
They would not give a shit.
IOTL all the stuff about sexual morality only became really important by the 19th century, after losing a lot of political influence.
 
Indeed. The Church was not going to waste political capital trying to get powerful men to not have affairs when there were issues like tithes, church appointments, and jurisdiction disputes that were far more important.

Historically, it was the wive's family that raised a greater fuss. Although even then that was often dependent on political necessity. When political marriages formed a basis for cooperation between two countries, kings having affairs could piss off his wife's family while political necessity often meant the alliance was more important than an insult. Depended on the circumstances.
 
They can't pretend fornication and adultery don't happen given the sheer number of bastards.
And they didn't. Sinners were expected to confess their sins.

They would not give a shit.
IOTL all the stuff about sexual morality only became really important by the 19th century, after losing a lot of political influence.

Yes. Church recognized that fornication was a common vice of powerful men, including most of bishops and priests. Trying to stopping them outright would be considered incomprehensible. As long as they confessed their sins, and did responsible thing and provided for their bastards, they were in the clear.

Church tolerated the types of fornication that were seen lesser evil. Screwing wives of other men was very bad, but screwing prostitutes or your own servant girls was generally okay.
 
A good way to look at it, albeit not for the middle ages, is how the Church dealt with Louis XIV and his mistresses.

With Louise de la Vallière they were okayish. She was single and while he was married it didn't make much difference. It was better than what was seen as his "investuous" attraction to Henriette of England.

With Athénaïs it was different. It was double adultery. Her husband was problematic. And this was why Louise and Angélique de Fontanges both refused the royal offers to find them a husband. The church was extraordinarily worried about the affair with Athénaïs and one of the parish priests at Versailles refused her absolution when she attempted to "make her Easter", chasing her from the confessional demanding "is this the great la Montespan who disgraces all of France?!".

They were likewise okay with Mme Scarron since she was "helping to save the king's soul" by turning him from La Montespan.
 
They would not give a shit.
IOTL all the stuff about sexual morality only became really important by the 19th century, after losing a lot of political influence.
I think the trend is actually somewhat more interesting.

Sexual morality seems (as a phenomenon in a patriarchal world) to coincide with the centralised state, alongside a subculture of violating its taboos.

Great Britain at the heart of its empire had some absurd restrictions on clothing, but also had quite regular prostitution, up to and including child prostitution not being something unusual.

Rome was super prudish, yet its sexual orgies are legendary, alongside lots of freaky public practices.

Genghis khan in his legendary law book condemned rape, but his successors committed some of the largest scale mass rapes in history.

Speaking of that, the rape of Nanjing is yet another example.
 
I think the trend is actually somewhat more interesting.

Sexual morality seems (as a phenomenon in a patriarchal world) to coincide with the centralised state, alongside a subculture of violating its taboos.

Great Britain at the heart of its empire had some absurd restrictions on clothing, but also had quite regular prostitution, up to and including child prostitution not being something unusual.

Rome was super prudish, yet its sexual orgies are legendary, alongside lots of freaky public practices.

Genghis khan in his legendary law book condemned rape, but his successors committed some of the largest scale mass rapes in history.

Speaking of that, the rape of Nanjing is yet another example.

Adherence to moral codes are for the lower classes, the upper classes are above such restraints because of their superior nature (or whatever). Also "do as I say, not as I do."

That has been the way since the dawn of organized societies, and it appears to be little signs of stopping (witnessing all those movers and shakers of society from all social/political/economic aisles getting caught being colossal hypocrites and doing illegal/shady stuff).
 
Last edited:
Adherence to moral codes are for the lower classes, the upper classes are above such restraints because of their superior nature (or whatever). Also "do as I say, not as I do."

That has been the way since the dawn of organized societies, and it appears to be little signs of stooping (witnessing all those movers and shakers of society from all social/political/economic aisles getting caught being colossal hypocrites and doing illegal/shady stuff).
Whilst I'm a fan of Nietzsche, all of the examples I listed were common to the lower classes as well.
 
A good way to look at it, albeit not for the middle ages, is how the Church dealt with Louis XIV and his mistresses.

With Louise de la Vallière they were okayish. She was single and while he was married it didn't make much difference. It was better than what was seen as his "investuous" attraction to Henriette of England.

With Athénaïs it was different. It was double adultery. Her husband was problematic. And this was why Louise and Angélique de Fontanges both refused the royal offers to find them a husband. The church was extraordinarily worried about the affair with Athénaïs and one of the parish priests at Versailles refused her absolution when she attempted to "make her Easter", chasing her from the confessional demanding "is this the great la Montespan who disgraces all of France?!".

They were likewise okay with Mme Scarron since she was "helping to save the king's soul" by turning him from La Montespan.

The interessting thing here is that the women were seen as the troublemakers, not the king himself.
 
The interessting thing here is that the women were seen as the troublemakers, not the king himself.
Well, that's just being consistent with with dawn of history, when Eve is mainly blamed for the fall of man despite being Adam suppose to be in the leadership role...
Whilst I'm a fan of Nietzsche, all of the examples I listed were common to the lower classes as well.
Really, didn't know the Roman example was that prevalent among the masses...
 
Really, didn't know the Roman example was that prevalent among the masses...
Hilariously so! If you read some of the preserved graffiti from Pompeii, its really funny how "modern" the humour is.

An example for instance on the wall of a brother (NSFW)
Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity!
 
Hilariously so! If you read some of the preserved graffiti from Pompeii, its really funny how "modern" the humour is.

An example for instance on the wall of a brother (NSFW)
Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity!
I love how formal the translation sounds. x'D
 
Last edited:
Top