GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1996-02 > 0823632872


From: "Jeffrey T. Chipman" <>
Subject: Re: Adultery
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:54:32 -0600


Can I poke my nose out of my den of hibernation and toss in two cents
worth? Most readers of this newsgroup who have royal lines have them
through a handful of gateway ancestors whose connection to families of
royal and noble descent in the old sod is well proven. I'm not sure we
can take current statistical estimates of female adultery and apply them
to the medieval period anyway. Maybe if a medieval version of Masters
and Johnson existed we'd have some data to analyze. But we don't. My
own hunch is that the long-suffering wife putting up with a husband's
philandering was quite common among the families we study. In my case a
relative has had our common gateway ancestor and offspring accepted by
the Royal Bastards. What else can we do? Common sense tells us that
when we're dealing with a very early pedigree that consists of nothing
but strings of names and few or no dates we shouldn't accept the pedigree
as literally true. Since few source materials for the study of medieval
female adultery exist, what is ultimately the basis for your position?
Consider this story--Fulk Nerra had his first wife burned at the stake
for infidelity....
Jeff Chipman

This thread: