GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-07 > 0995437304


From: "ANNE V. GILBERT" <>
Subject: Re: The Bastards of King Henry I
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:21:44 -0700
References: <vW%47.65$0r.4079@eagle.america.net>, <3B54C025.EADB31CD@cwcom.net>, <ku457.100$0r.6439@eagle.america.net>


To all:


D. Spencer Hines wrote in message ...
>SEX?
>
>I'm shocked, shocked that you should think that SEX had anything to do
>with it, Renia. Sex hadn't even been invented yet.
>
>William of Malmesbury, who certainly knew which side his bread was
>buttered on, made his best case for King Henry I:
>
>"Throughout his life he was altogether free of lewd desires, for, as we
>have learned from those who know the matter well, he cast himself into
>the embraces of women not for the gratification of carnal pleasure but
>to beget offspring, nor did he assent to sexual intercourse except when
>it could bring about the spreading of the royal seed. He was thus the
>master of his libido, not its servant."
>
>William of Malmesbury ---- _Gesta Regum Anglorum_
>
>It's HARD, THANKLESS WORK ---- being a King.


Well, that brings us to question #2. That is, *why* did he want to beget so
many offspring? Even if you're a king, you don't just go around begetting
offspring for the hell of it, if you know what I mean(and I'm not sure DSH
does).
Anne G


This thread: