Prev: HELP DESK SOFTWARE ____________
Next: Saving Marriages With Unconditional Love
From: Doug Laidlaw on 8 Sep 2008 04:06
Isn't it strange that mistresses are better companions than wives? Among
royalty or the nobility, with arranged marriages that were often used for
commercial or political purposes more than for the happiness of the couple,
I can quite understand.

Katherine Roet, Chaucer's sister-in-law, married a knight called Swynford
and later became the mistress of John of Gaunt, by whom she had several
children. Although John and Katherine later married, English law said that
the children were still illegitimate, and they had the surname Beaufort.
While looking up whether that was a title (it wasn't) I came across a
reference to the 16th c. French Duchess of Beaufort, Gabrielle d'Estrées.
She was the mistress of Henri IV of France, who was caught up in the
struggle between Catholics and Protestants. Her description in Wikipedia
is as much that of a soulmate as any biography I have read, even if it has
been glamorised - and anybody can write any rubbish as a Wikipedia article,
so long as they quote references.* She was not only his constant companion
(any royal mistress with any sense would be) but his sounding-board. (She
doesn't look half bad either.) She knew how to get her point across
without seeming to nag, but Henri respected her opinion. She persuaded him
that "Paris is well worth a mass," i.e., he would never be accepted by
Paris while he remained a Protestant. She died in childbirth at only 28-9.

It is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_d%27Estr%C3%A9es

Doug.

* I once quoted Wikipedia on "Chelsea Pensioners," and was told that it was
totally wrong - or at least, 100 years out of date. My ancestor's eldest
son (I am descended from the second son) became an out-pensioner. He
boarded, and eventually died in a poorhouse hospital, probably the
equivalent of our public hospitals. Not quite Theodore Roosevelt's
saying: "A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good
enough to be given a square deal afterwards." Married men weren't
eligible!
--
From: dejablues on 8 Sep 2008 06:55

"Doug Laidlaw" <doug(a)dougshost.invalid> wrote in message
news:d03fp5-6d7.ln1(a)dougshost.douglaidlaw.net...
> Isn't it strange that mistresses are better companions than wives? Among
> royalty or the nobility, with arranged marriages that were often used for
> commercial or political purposes more than for the happiness of the
> couple,
> I can quite understand.
>
> Katherine Roet, Chaucer's sister-in-law, married a knight called Swynford
> and later became the mistress of John of Gaunt, by whom she had several
> children. Although John and Katherine later married, English law said
> that
> the children were still illegitimate, and they had the surname Beaufort.
> While looking up whether that was a title (it wasn't) I came across a
> reference to the 16th c. French Duchess of Beaufort, Gabrielle d'Estr�es.
> She was the mistress of Henri IV of France, who was caught up in the
> struggle between Catholics and Protestants. Her description in Wikipedia
> is as much that of a soulmate as any biography I have read, even if it has
> been glamorised - and anybody can write any rubbish as a Wikipedia
> article,
> so long as they quote references.* She was not only his constant
> companion
> (any royal mistress with any sense would be) but his sounding-board. (She
> doesn't look half bad either.) She knew how to get her point across
> without seeming to nag, but Henri respected her opinion. She persuaded him
> that "Paris is well worth a mass," i.e., he would never be accepted by
> Paris while he remained a Protestant. She died in childbirth at only
> 28-9.

Had she lived longer, she would have been discarded as her looks and sexual
appeal faded.
I have a book called "The Encyclopedia of Mistresses" that has short
biographies of famous courtesans, and while a few of them lived long lives
supported by their lovers, most did not.




From: Vickie on 8 Sep 2008 13:06

"Doug Laidlaw" <doug(a)dougshost.invalid> wrote in message
news:d03fp5-6d7.ln1(a)dougshost.douglaidlaw.net...
> Isn't it strange that mistresses are better companions than wives? Among
> royalty or the nobility, with arranged marriages that were often used for
> commercial or political purposes more than for the happiness of the
> couple,
> I can quite understand.
>

"Were" is the key word here.
How many arranged marriages do you see in western culture?
Wealth, title, land, power, that was the role most women played for their
fathers long ago.

Now we have the choice to marry for love, which was near unheard of back
then.

So, if you look at it that way, men are able to choose to marry their
mistresses.

Vickie

From: Erin on 8 Sep 2008 19:26


Vickie wrote:
> "Doug Laidlaw" <doug(a)dougshost.invalid> wrote in message
> news:d03fp5-6d7.ln1(a)dougshost.douglaidlaw.net...
> > Isn't it strange that mistresses are better companions than wives? Among
> > royalty or the nobility, with arranged marriages that were often used for
> > commercial or political purposes more than for the happiness of the
> > couple,
> > I can quite understand.
> >
>
> "Were" is the key word here.
> How many arranged marriages do you see in western culture?
> Wealth, title, land, power, that was the role most women played for their
> fathers long ago.
>
> Now we have the choice to marry for love, which was near unheard of back
> then.
>
> So, if you look at it that way, men are able to choose to marry their
> mistresses.
>
> Vickie

All men begin by marrying their mistresses who in time become their
wives.

Erin
From: Sash on 8 Sep 2008 20:21

"Erin" <squiggle(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:e7f1a5f7-f2b0-4967-918c-d12302650da5(a)m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Vickie wrote:
>> "Doug Laidlaw" <doug(a)dougshost.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:d03fp5-6d7.ln1(a)dougshost.douglaidlaw.net...
>> > Isn't it strange that mistresses are better companions than wives?
>> > Among
>> > royalty or the nobility, with arranged marriages that were often used
>> > for
>> > commercial or political purposes more than for the happiness of the
>> > couple,
>> > I can quite understand.
>> >
>>
>> "Were" is the key word here.
>> How many arranged marriages do you see in western culture?
>> Wealth, title, land, power, that was the role most women played for their
>> fathers long ago.
>>
>> Now we have the choice to marry for love, which was near unheard of back
>> then.
>>
>> So, if you look at it that way, men are able to choose to marry their
>> mistresses.
>>
>> Vickie
>
> All men begin by marrying their mistresses who in time become their
> wives.
>
> Erin

And, for some, hoping they could go back to those heady days!

ceej.


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: HELP DESK SOFTWARE ____________
Next: Saving Marriages With Unconditional Love