I have been consulted by my client, Sheona, as to the distinction that can be made between the terms ‘concubine’ and ‘mistress’ with particular reference to the blog by my learned co-blogger, Janus, entitled ‘Ignoramus though I am, on this day……..’ – op.cit.
https://boadiceaschariot.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/ignoramus-though-i-am-on-this-day/
The law of Scotland is unclear on this point – that’s what Counsel always used to write in any opinion we ever got from them. Shorthand for ‘ This is going to cost your client an arm’. I have made extensive researches throughout the relevant authorities – I was out on the piss last night, slept it off in the Advocates’ Library and cobbled together this load of rubbish (which is going to cost said client a leg as well) at the last possible minute.
It is stated in an obiter dictum by Wikipedia on google that a ‘concubinus’ was, in Roman law, a young male slave who was chosen as a lover by his master. I was unable to lay my hand on my student copy of the ‘Laws of Ancient Rome’ or my completely unthumbed ‘Institutes of Gaius’. My copy of ‘Scouting for Boys’ (Lord Baden-Powell, published 1961 by C. Arthur Pearson) is silent on this point and I am, therefore unable to comment further on this particular assertion.
It is clear, however, from my persistent and peripatetic porings, ponderings and perusals that a concubine can be held to be somebody who lives with the person that is using them as an object of sexual gratification. In monogamous societies, this would tend to suggest that the parties to said sexual gratification should be free to marry but have not chosen to do so for whatever reason. With polygamy, it would appear that the house, palace or harem could be stuffed attic to basement with concubines.
It follows that mistresses are away day adventures into sexual delight in the hope that the little woman at home never finds out. Such petty bourgeois concepts can not, of course, be strictly applied to the home lives of our own dear monarchs.
It is, therefore, my considered opinion that it will be necessary to establish whether or not any of the many mistresses of Charles II actually co-habitated with him on a regular and formal basis. Failing this, I am, further, of the opinion that he only had mistresses.
I met the Duke of Buccleuch once, by the way.
Without prejudice. Who do I send the bill to?
Boadicea's Chariot 
I thought that, in common parlance, concubines live in and mistresses live out and are visited!
Hi, Specky, you self-professed Southron Mastermind.
A masterly, overbrief and, therefore, sadly underchargeable precis of exactly what I was trying to say.
But I had understood that alleged experts were supposed to dress it up a wee bit hereon?
I thought some of his ‘mistresses’ kept separate apartments at Court, for his convenience and pleasure. Poor Nelly (and others) being of low birth were excluded from this arrangement. I could, of course, be talking utter nonsense.
I gained much amusement from your blog, John. 😀
Would the “at Court” mistresses then be classed as concubines?
… although the co-habitation was regular, but hardly formal I would have thought.
Bilby, good evening.
Ask thon cheapo and non-verbose FEEG – I’m not playing any more.
Och well, since it’s you. I haven’t the faintest idea how they should be classed.
The point is that I had a lot of enjoyment from googling, verifying, checking to see what relevant books I had, flying off in all sorts of directions and remembering the joys of my youth when I could spend a pleasant afternoon just finding things out. Even better these days when I’m not doing it for a time-pressured essay.
Favourite quote from said research so far is from Gibbon on Emperor Gordian I:-
‘Twenty-two acknowledged concubines, and a library of sixty-two thousand volumes, attested the variety of his inclinations; and from the productions which he left behind him, it appears that the former as well as the latter were designed for use rather than for ostentation.’
I always understood that a mistress was half-way between a Mister and a matress…. I have no idea as to where a concubine fits in the equation.
OZ
Sorry, JM, you can’t send a bill. Charles would not have been subject to the law of Scotland if he were living and revelling in England surely. And I’m very glad to hear that “Scouting for Boys” does not refer to such a subject. I once met Lady Baden-Powell!
The French use the word “concubin/e” for what in Scotland would be described as a “bidie-in”, or live-in lover for the Sassenachs. Though such a term would never be used for a monarch, I’m sure. Mary Queen of Scots had quite a few “gentlemen callers”, I believe. So they would be the equivalent of “mistresses” by Genius’s definition. Yes, Bilby, you’re right – difficult to tell where concubines ended and mistresses began at Court.
We’re all winners then, John. I’m glad you enjoyed your research.
Brilliant quote! 😀
Thanks, Sheona. Glad I’m right about something. 🙂
Yes JM, I was trying to confirm what you said! KISS is my motto!
JM et al, that “student copy of the ‘Laws of Ancient Rome’ ” was probably the Lays of Ancient Rome.
PS As all experts know that was a book of pomes by Macaulay.
PPs, I’m disappointed that Paul hasn’t joined in with this excahnge of opinions. 😉
Janus, thank you. I knew somebody would get the allusion and I thought it might just be you.
The book is actually called ‘The Law of the Ancient Romans’ and I had it here all the time. Published by the Southern Methodist University Press and written by one Alan Watson who, according to the blurb, became Head of the Department of Roman and Comparative Law at the University of Edinburgh in 1968. Can’t quite remember why I had to buy it as a required text when I did the Roman Law course at the University of Edinburgh in 1969.
Absolutely nothing about concubines in it, by the way. But a lot of interesting stuff. Did you know that, according to a decree of Romulus, a wife could be put to death for drinking wine if her ‘family council’ (no idea and it’s not really explained) instructed it and her husband agreed?
Hi, Sheona and aye weel. Do I have to remind you that Charlie boy signed both Covenants on 23rd June 1650 and was therefore, in my opinion, bound by Jock law?.
Of course, in the good old days in Scotland, a bidie-in/concubine would have had a fair chance of proving a marriage by one of the irregular methods – exchange of oaths in front of witnesses (the Gretna Green option), cohabitation by habit and repute (everybody thought they were married anyway) or my own favourite, consensual copulation after a promise of marriage.
This is non-googled and all a long time ago (law changed over 40 years ago and some of them had, I think, vanished before then anyway) so I could be wrong.
Still, fairly certain that the cohabitation one remains an option.
Without prejudice, and in haste:
Perhaps learned council would like to consider this affidavit ( well, Ok, scurrilous gossip, but I cannot say that can I, if it is to be admissible? ) from a Mr Samuel Pepys which seems to indicate that although a certain lady, one of many, did indeed qualify for the title of Mistress, in fact there is an intention, albeit thwarted, (mens rea, as oppose to actus reus ?) which indicates that there was an intention towards concubinage (?) –
“But I hear that the Queen did prick her out of the list presented her by the King;
[“By the King’s command Lord Clarendon, much against his inclination, had twice visited his royal mistress with a view of inducing her, by persuasions which he could not justify, to give way to the King’s determination to have Lady Castlemaine of her household . . . . Lord Clarendon has given a full account of all that transpired between himself, the King and the Queen, on this very unpleasant business desiring that she might have that favour done her, or that he would send her from whence she come: and that the King was angry and the Queen discontented a whole day and night upon it; but that the King hath promised to have nothing to do with her hereafter. But I cannot believe that the King can fling her off so, he loving her too well: and so I writ this night to my Lady to be my opinion; she calling her my lady, and the lady I admire. Here I find that my Lord hath lost the garden to his lodgings, and that it is turning into a tennis-court. Hence by water to the Wardrobe to see how all do there, and so home to supper and to bed.”
In submitting this evidence for your consideration, I ask for your indulgence, insofar as the means justifies the end, and in my defence, I submit that Google was not used to procure this affa thingy but Yahoo; yes, a legal nicety, granted, but I imagine you are used to those.
Submitted on the 6th February, 2010, after one glass of wine, and signed “Detective Mouse, MBE
Ara, good evening and how could I deny you anything when you clearly know your mens from your actus?
Except. The evidence which you adduce in an attempt to confer concubinage (like it!) indicates that the mistress in question was to be installed (is embedded better?) in the household of the Queen Consort and not that of the King. Ergo and also ipso facto, I must regretfully suggest that your affidavit is inadmissable in this present case.
Mr Mackie: sir, and with the greatest of respect. What !!!! It was a clear case of an attempt to establish ménage a trois, n’est ce pas? Granted that it was the custom to maintain separate chambre, if not households, don’t you think that this supports an intention to embed?
Would you consider it acceptable for us to submit further evidence from the said Mr Pepys, in order to support our case? I beg your indulgence in this matter.( Yahoo and time permitting?
Ara, are you suggesting that there were three people in the marriage?
Pre-emptive deja vu or what?
Sorry for not acknowledging your Pepysian ‘in haste’ when I should have.
Cut to the quick by your ‘with the greatest of respect’. I thought we were friends?
Aha, John: I thought that would get your attention. Special pleading; sneaky eh 🙂
All’s fair in love and war. xx
There more than three, but I’m trying to establish concubinage here! Not much to do with marriage, more a question of residence.
Oops, I hate not being able to preview by hastily typed comments. I meant of course, love and law 🙂
Brilliant post though, John, and I think the legal profession have cause to rejoice that I gave up law, before I could do any serious damage 🙂
Fair Portia!
‘A Daniel come to judgment! yea, a Daniel!
O wise young judge, how I do honour thee!’
Goodnight and flights of angels etc.
The quality of mercy is not strained
It droppeth without filter into the cup beneath …
A great blog, Mr Mackie, sir!
Great blog…
Absolutely right …