Historical Fictionistas discussion

I posted about this on the thread about random things you learned as an Author, but I thought it would be fun to talk about it here.
Yesterday I learned that it took King Gustav III of Sweden nine years to work up the guts to consummate his marriage and when he did so he could not find "the hole" (King´s words, not mine) and he asked his page to help him.

This brings up a lot of interesting questions about 18th Century social customs. It sounds outrageous but when you think about how royals lived during this time it is not that surprising. They had help with everything, people bathed them and dressed them, they wore layers upon layers of clothes, make up, wigs. The genders were kept separate mostly. Royal couples had separate bedrooms.
It is very possible that they really did not know their partners or even their own anatomy.

What are your thoughts on this?

Here are two links about the King and his page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_F...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_...

I know the daughters of George III were carefully shielded from such knowledge... To the extent his daughter Sophia didn't realise she was pregnant until she was nearly due!

Interesting. I had no idea. I would think it was different with the poorer people living as they did. It's hard to imagine these days, though we certainly have a few females today who do not know they are pregnant until later in the pregnancy.

Laura,
I did not know that. That really tells you something about this time period. I wonder where they thought babies actually came from? They might be shielded from real knowledge, but they must have seen lots of babies.

Irene,
I think so too. Poor and other regular people lived in smaller quarters and were much more aware of their bodies. Many had just a room or two and the kids were not unaware of what adults did at night. They also saw how animals did it on the farm.

It´s a fascinating subject.

I agree. It's something I address in my WIP which takes place in Ancient Israel.

Helen wrote: "I posted about this on the thread about random things you learned as an Author, but I thought it would be fun to talk about it here.
Yesterday I learned that it took King Gustav III of Sweden nine ..."

Interesting to say the least and surprising in a way. It is hard to imagine. Thanks for the tidbit.

Laura wrote: "I know the daughters of George III were carefully shielded from such knowledge... To the extent his daughter Sophia didn't realise she was pregnant until she was nearly due!"

I learn something everyday. I am surprised someone didn't inform her.

Mary wrote: "Interesting to say the least and surprising in a way. It is hard to imagine. Thanks for the tidbit."

Isn´t it!

Imagine having a body part that you actually don´t know about. I wonder what they pictured when they went to the bathroom, you´d think they at least ought to have noticed something when they wiped themselves.
Men must have some more knowledge of themselves but I guess if no one told them what to do with women god knows what they imagined?
I wish I could get into their heads.

One scene I remember particularly from Outlanderis right after Jamie and Claire consummated their marriage and Jamie was surprised by the "way things were done". He thought it must be something like barnyard animals because he was familiar with that but not with intimacy between people. So I guess men could be every bit as clueless.

Linda wrote: "One scene I remember particularly from Outlanderis right after Jamie and Claire consummated their marriage and Jamie was surprised by the "way things were done". He thought it must be ..."

:) True. But at least they must have seen their penis when they went to the bathroom. You´d hope anyway, you don´t know with royals.
Did you see The Tudors episode where King Henry had a page there jerking him off and then had a bowl ready for the sperm? (sorry to be so explicit, but this was the exact scene), I have never seen this or heard of this before.
How accurate is this?

Sounds like a downside of being a king to me! Eeewh! I've never heard of that either but do remember that episode and thought either that is the height of pampering or horribly wrong.

Actually I apologize, I just googled it. He is doing it himself, but there is a guy standing right there with a bowl.
The height of pampering is a good way to describe it. It seems completely outrageous, and not something I would have imagined would happen.

I completely understand why women would have no clue. First of all, sex education wasn't exactly a thing back then and most women weren't told what to expect until right before they got married. Combine that with the fact that hand mirrors were extremely rare...most women would never have seen their own sexual equipment, would only know what was down there by feel and had probably had it hammered into their heads that feeling their way was a sin. I'm surprised anyone got anything done at all. :D

Kimber wrote: "I completely understand why women would have no clue. First of all, sex education wasn't exactly a thing back then and most women weren't told what to expect until right before they got married. Co..."

Good point!
I wonder if there were cases where couples were "infertile" because they didn´t understand what to do?

Hi, I’ve been looking for a place to post this and wonder if this might work since it’s around bodily functions during the 18th century. I’ve just come across a 2nd 18th century historical fiction where an aristocratic lady uses the chamber pot during tea (i.e. she does not get up and leave the room). She somehow uses it in her chair while still enjoying tea among the ladies. I find this SO hard to envision and have been searching the web to see if this was actually true. Does anyone know?

Shelley wrote: "Hi, I’ve been looking for a place to post this and wonder if this might work since it’s around bodily functions during the 18th century. I’ve just come across a 2nd 18th century historical fiction ..."

Wow, I have never heard this. It does sound unlikely. But I truly don´t know. What was the context? Was she known to have bladder issues? In what country did it take place?

ladies, I hope you don't mind a bloke joining in the discussion. It's been interesting to follow all the discussion. It might interest you to know that some men even in the 20th century didn't fully understand the process shall we say of "intimacy", especially if they led a sheltered life and went to an all boys school, where all sorts of myths about the sexual process flourished unchallenged.
As regards poor people. I spent the first 7 years of my life in a two up, two down, terraced house with an outside toilet and no bathroom. Believe me when I say that the British Working Class living in those situations were probably more prudish and consequently less knowledgeable about their own anatomies and those of the opposite sex than can be imagined. Because of the what would seem to be a relative lack of privacy, privacy was in fact fiercely maintained. When someone was having a bath in the tin bath before the fire, in one of the only two downstairs room, other members of the family were banished to other room etc. until the all clear for them to re-enter the room was given.
As regards watching farmyard animals, it must also be remembered that the majority of the working class lived in industrial towns and cities, where there was not a farmyard animal to be seen.
Thank you for indulging me. Brian

That scene from The Tudors is quite accurately dome. It was considered an awful thing to "waste the King's seed." Oh and not trying to be crass I'm anyway but it was customary for royals to have others attend their toliet. So,chances are many didn't really have an opportunity to explore their body. Their servants were much more knowledgeable.

Brian,
Thank you for sharing that. It makes sense when you think about it that someone would try really hard to maintain their privacy especially since they had less of space.

Erin,
I wish I could listen to the conversations of the servants and compare them to the conversations of the royals.

If you want a lovely visual image to fill your head check out the bathroom habits of 17th and 18th century folks residing in the palace at Versailles. People, in the midst of a party, would just find a corner, lift their skirts and go. Apparently the stench of Versailles was so bad that one had to carry a pomander at all times or grow used to the odor.

Fast forward to the nineteenth century, dawn of the Victorian era. The ideology continued to encourage prudish lifestyles. But legend has it, Queen Victoria, who strove to institute such values, didn't practice what she preached. It is told she often studied male nudes, going so far as to give a sketch of one to her husband as a gift.

I'm thinking the 18th century seafarers (iron men & wooden ships) received their sexual education in the brothels. I wouldn't be surprised at some royalty attending the "houses," as well. The "profession" was quite common.

How awful. I saw this happen in South America and, yes, it smelled.

Erin wrote: "That scene from The Tudors is quite accurately dome. It was considered an awful thing to "waste the King's seed." Oh and not trying to be crass I'm anyway but it was customary for royals to have ot..."

The "Keeper of the King's Stool" was actually a very powerful and sought after post in the Courts of Medieval England. (yes, the job is what it sound like - wiping the royal behind after the kind does his business.

happy wrote: "Erin wrote: "That scene from The Tudors is quite accurately dome. It was considered an awful thing to "waste the King's seed." Oh and not trying to be crass I'm anyway but it was customary for roya..."

:) Oh wow, I´m glad I can do these things in private!

It's intresting how intimacy seems to change over the centuries. In some ways, particularly when it came to sexual knowledge, the people of the 14th, 15th and 16th century seem to have enjoyed more freedom of expression than those of the eighteenth. An example of how we moved back with the times instead of forward.

Helen wrote: "happy wrote: "Erin wrote: "That scene from The Tudors is quite accurately dome. It was considered an awful thing to "waste the King's seed." Oh and not trying to be crass I'm anyway but it was cust..."

I agree with you Helen. I wouldn't want to live in a time before bathrooms and toilet paper. Love reading about it though.

W.r.t 18th-century women using chamber pots or just going in the corner, it's important to remember that many didn't wear knickers so that made it a little easier.

Going back to Brian's comment from about a year ago, I think it's interesting how much different families vary as to what they do, and also interesting as to how things are depicted in fiction.

One example that comes to mind is from an old Doris Day film I happened to see recently. Doris has two sons, about eight and ten years old, and in one scene the two boys are together in the bathtub, playing at sailing little ships or something. Doris comes in, sees that they've added coloring to the water, scolds them, and gets them both right out of the tub.

I don't believe the producers of the film had any intention of being avant-garde or provocative. They were obviously looking for a laugh, but at the same time, I believe they thought they were depicting ordinary American life at that time.

Well, I was growing up right around that time, and that certainly wouldn't have happened in my family. When I was eight or ten years old my mother absolutely would not have come into the room that way when I was taking a bath.

So regarding privacy, there might be great variation between different times and different cultures. But even focusing on one particular time and culture, there might be more variety than some people suspect.

Kimber wrote: "I completely understand why women would have no clue. First of all, sex education wasn't exactly a thing back then and most women weren't told what to expect until right before they got married. Co..."

Same here.

Hi,

I read that there was much more sex going on in the Regency era than often portrayed in the books of the time. I had a quick skim for the link but I couldn't find it to post here. Of course as others have said above, there were people who were protected.

I like to think that there were people around then who were more interested in their and their partner's bodies that they would explore a bit more. I know my books take liberties with the sex, but I'm writing for entertainment and therefore, there is knowledge of giving a woman pleasure. I try, when possible, to describe how someone might have come by this knowledge. Previous experience, overhearing things, their own intuition or a family member/friend doing a bit of awkward explaining.

Thanks for listening...

Trish

I recently discovered the Twitter account "Whores of Yore" which delves into some of the naughtier parts of history.

Some of this is rather funny highlighting that naughty and bawdy often go together.

i just finished a historical mystery that referenced a case in England where two women who ran a girl's boarding school were accused of engaging in an improper relationship w/ each other. their school was ruined as were their reputations, but they sued for slander. they won the case b/c the judges "knew perfectly well that respectable females experience no desire for sexual relations and submit to them in marriage merely as a means of procreating...and to please their husbands." (i'm quoting the book here, not the actual legal case).

i don't know why i was so surprised by this b/c obviously as a reader of historical fiction and non-fiction, it's pretty evident of what was socially acceptable at the time. i know people mostly got married for money and status, rather than love which is why so many women and men had mistresses and lovers. but for a legal case to stand on the idea that women simply didn't enjoy sex.....it really made it all the more evident, to me, how awful men were. they honestly just thought women existed to please them like a nice dinner or something.

edited to add: i just looked this up and apparently the story was turned into a play (the children's hour). ha! how have i never heard about this???? it happened in edinburgh....the name of the case was "Miss Marianne Woods and Miss Jane Pirie against Dame Helen Cumming Gordon" so fascinating!

Yes, they honestly thought that!!!

Here's an article about the treatment of a woman's hysteria in those days, which basically meant giving them an orgasm!!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...

For my books, most of the men have or learn a better understanding of a woman's body. Thankfully! But not all of them.

I blog about it here, but there are spoilers if you haven't read my books (I give warnings! LOL)
https://www.redwayacres.com/single-po...

Thanks for listening!

T

It really does depend on which era you're talking about. The Victorians had the "lie back and think of England" philosophy (although Victoria and Albert themselves appear to have had quite a good sex life). However, if you go back to 16th or 17th century England, you'll find the belief that women were the lustful ones who would lead men astray; some would even turn to the devil for their satisfaction, those damned witches!

In Elizabethan times, there was a common belief that a woman needed to orgasm to conceive. This may have been very nice for the married woman whose husband wanted heirs, but it had a dark side -- it was hard enough for a rape victim to be believed, but if she became pregnant, she was doubly doubted.

Fiona wrote: "It really does depend on which era you're talking about. The Victorians had the "lie back and think of England" philosophy (although Victoria and Albert themselves appear to have had quite a good s..."

#MeTooBacklash !?!?

Laura wrote: "i just finished a historical mystery that referenced a case in England where two women who ran a girl's boarding school were accused of engaging in an improper relationship w/ each other. their sch..."

I heard about that. Lillian Faderman wrote a book about it called the Scotch Verdict.

I saw the movie "The Children's Hour", made from the Lillian Hellman play, with Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn and James Garner. I knew it was from a play but I had no idea it was based on real events. This is a very strange and sad story and a beautifully made movie.

Barry

Helen wrote: "Laura,
I did not know that. That really tells you something about this time period. I wonder where they thought babies actually came from? They might be shielded from real knowledge, but they must..."

Good question! This is so fascinating.

A fascinating thread.
On the subject of Victoria and Albert, I understand that when she was young, Victoria enjoyed dancing and parties, and was a joyful young woman. She adored Albert, and was broken -hearted when he died young. She never recovered, and it was from this part of her life we get the idea of the restrictive, miserable Victorians, obsessed with death.

Yes Fascinating thread.
Stories told to us repeated in books and in schools reinforces ideals is how society character is formed and in this the period of the Fin-De-Siecle culture which we call the Victorian is like a Ur-story a foundational story to our own globalist-(ill-liberal) sexist and racial belief structure. From the thinkers Charles Darwin and the Rev Daniel Malthus to the writings of Kipling, Browning, Dickens, and Ruskin so much of the stories that informed the fears hopes and desires of the Victorians have transformed and become the justification for the overall self-serving aggressive racist sexist and anti-intellectual attitudes found across the world today. While some really bad hateful ideals such as slavery reached their neider and were abolished the racist concepts that underlined it carried on and grew leading to many many dark historical events not the least being the gas-chambers of WWII. Sexually the relations between men and women were also fundamentally shaped by this period and while we can speculated how the world might have been different if Prince Albert would have lived the forces of imperialistic expansion were on the march and with it came the a belief of 'white man's burden' and racial and sexual superiority of white males over all females and all other races, and with that a legacy of oppression and hate that is still shaping our world today. More than any other period I think the time from 1800 to the start of WW1 did more to shape our lives than any other in history.

May I suggest the book: Sex Among the Rabble: An Intimate History of Gender and Power in the Age of Revolution, Philadelphia, 1730-1830? It contains plenty of interesting information, and several examples of poems and songs of the era:

"The Pipe of Love" (1778)
One primrose Time a Maiden Brown
Wishing for what we will not say,
By side of Shepherd sat her down,
And softly ask'd him wou'd he play?
Mild shone the Sun thro' Redstreak Morn,
And glist'ning Dew-drops pearl'd the grass;
The Rustic, stretch'd beneath the thorn,
Grinning, reply'd, —I'll please thee Lass.

Helen wrote: "I posted about this on the thread about random things you learned as an Author, but I thought it would be fun to talk about it here.
Yesterday I learned that it took King Gustav III of Sweden nine ..."

Haha, yeah, it does sound vaguely outrageous.

Interesting thread. Mind you, I suspect Gustav of Sweden was an unusually egregious case. Noble males (and gentry) in the C18 were typically well schooled in the pleasures of the flesh - this case might have had something to do with the puritanical Lutheran movement that swept Scandinavia after the Reformation. So much for the Vikings!

This subject, generally, reminds me of one of my own favourite theories regarding how divorced from our own bodies we are in the C21 in comparison with the past. Matters such as toileting, sex and death are all so hidden these days but they were totally in your face only a generation or so back. One of my favourite bits of trivia regards the practice in the C16 for betrothed couples to wear a vial of each other's urine around their necks - a natural perfume plus a marking of territory perhaps?

It's definitely interesting thinking about it.

Regarding not knowing where babies come from: in Loretta Lynn's autobiography (Coalminers Daughter), she says that she didn't know until her 4th pregnancy and it was her doctor who told her. Has to be unusual in C20 or C21 but unusual does not mean "doesn't happen".

Helen wrote: "Kimber wrote: "I completely understand why women would have no clue. First of all, sex education wasn't exactly a thing back then and most women weren't told what to expect until right before they ..."

That makes sense.