Viewing the Birth

Posted by Misty Ann Khan on September 07, 1998 at 09:13:05:

In response to Public viewings of intimate functions..., written by The Mysterious H.C. on September 07, 1998 at 08:48:18

] The thing about witnessing the consummation of marriage must belong to the deep medieval period, if anything (certainly not Jane Austen's period!) -- I know that in the 16th century it was common for the bridal party to stand outside the bedchamber and loudly make lewd comments to encourage the couple (quite a delicate and sensitive custom, to be sure ), but as far as I can remember they stayed outside the bedchamber...

I think you are correct about the medieval time period. I only saw a portion of the program and it seems like one of the fathers being discussed was a religious figure which confused me becaue I thought those guys were all supposed to be celibate so how would he have a daughter?

] The requirement that the Bishop etc. be present at the Queen's childbirth was intended to prevent the substitution of a non-royal infant in a warming-pan, or some such thing, and was kept up until the birth of Queen Victoria's first child in 1840, but I imagine the dignitaries were in general only too glad not to be too close up (they weren't in the same room in 1840).

I'm not sure about the time period here either but, one thing I remember specifically was that there were several other dignataries besides the bishop present. I always wondered about those little fences you sometimes see in palace bed chambers and those were explained in this program. They said that the nobility would stand behind the fence and witness the birth of heirs to the throne. I didn't know the thing about the warming-pan though. Why do you supposed someone would want to substitute a non-royal infant for the real deal? I guess if the Queen or King is not able to produce children maybe?

I guess the idea of having several people in the room when you are giving birth is not all that different than modern times - my cousin had both her parents and in-laws present during delivery of her first child. And, I supposed the royal family is naturaly accustomed to the idea of not having much privacy - look at Charles and Diana. Guess I should just be glad I'm not royalty! :)

---

---

REPLIES:

• Celibates Lesley 00:21:18 9/08/98 (13)
  • Honey moon P. Bingham 13:37:50 9/10/98 (9)
    • Mead Lesley 01:31:13 9/11/98 (1)
      • She liked Mead Caroline 08:51:17 9/11/98 (0)
    • LOL! Caroline 14:07:43 9/10/98 (6)
      • The finest example of this, ever....... Caroline 14:14:03 9/10/98 (5)
        • Lochinvar The Mysterious H.C. 14:54:51 9/10/98 (4)
          • yes, but....... Caroline 16:04:00 9/10/98 (3)
            • So Caroline... Lesley 01:25:24 9/11/98 (2)
              • Like the Dew on the Mountain....... Caroline 08:55:16 9/11/98 (1)
                • I've Read so therefore I've Heard P. Bingham 15:40:32 9/11/98 (0)
  • Gee, can't think of any modern day examples can you? Misty Ann Khan 14:02:37 9/09/98 (0)
  • Borgias Constanza 10:02:37 9/08/98 (1)
    • So that's where Prince Macchiavelli Came From! - Thanks! NFM Misty Ann Khan 14:04:29 9/09/98 (0)
• Warming pan babies-just pretenders Caroline 09:29:58 9/07/98 (8)
  • Feeling a Bit Foolish Misty Ann Khan 14:53:32 9/07/98 (7)
    • Henrys, wives and stuff Caroline 18:12:13 9/07/98 (3)
      • No apologies, please! Misty Ann Khan 14:10:37 9/09/98 (0)
      • Defender of the Faith Constanza 10:07:32 9/08/98 (1)
        • Henry VIII and Catholicism P. Bingham 13:02:39 9/10/98 (0)
    • We're all learning here SuzanneR 15:44:45 9/07/98 (1)
      • Thanks, Suzanne, I feel better now! Misty Ann Khan 16:23:13 9/07/98 (0)
    • Don't feel too bad... (Warming-pan baby) The Mysterious H.C. 15:28:57 9/07/98 (0)

---

Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.