Kafka2
Whale-raping abomination
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,204
Historical Filth- Priapic Princes and Confused Kids.
Kids love playing at being kings, queens, princes and princesses. There's something universal in their desire to be revered- to while away their days in palaces quaffing fried Dormouse in emerald coulis. Naturally they'd all leap at the opportunity to actually become a royal child if they could (they're spectacularly materialistic, after all). However they'd be shocked to learn just what the realityof the job might entail...
Unless you're really slow on the uptake, you'll have probably noticed a certain trend in "Filth" articles. I don't like royals much. It's a fair and balanced sort of prejudice, however- I'm just firmly convinced that they're all vermin in tiaras. This could be laughed off, if it weren't for the fact that I can back this up with so many examples. Naturally, if they're hideous to their subjects in general, they're probably going to be pretty vile to their kids too- and if they aren't, the kids will probably turn out to be chancres in romper-suits anyway.
Think I'm exaggerating? Let's have a little award ceremony for some of the most.....energetic...contenders.
Most sexually dysfunctional- Louis XIII.
No contest. Louis XIII (1601- 1643) the Bourbon king of France walks away with this title, if only because of the overwhelming weight of evidence in his favour. Reams have been written about the sundry bodily parts of the world's monarchs, but surely no appendage attracted quite so much scrutiny as the one just north of little Louis's scrotum. Thanks to the painstaking notes taken by his physicians, the modern filth-hound is treated to exhaustive notes detailing the frequency and mechanics of his juvenile erections- every angle and speed of engorgement faithfully detailed.
It wasn't just observation. Young Louis was actively encouraged to exercise it and show it off. Visitors to his court were expected to praise the little pink soldier and applaud the young king's signs of impending virility. Nurses and courtiers played with it, and he was encouraged to simulate sex with cushions and furniture- apparently he was fond of offering to draw milk from it. On his wedding night (at the age of 14) he entered the nuptial bedchamber, re-emerging in his mother's quarters an hour later "with his cock all red". There is a lot more description of what went on during that wedding night, but even a "Filth" article has some standards...
His childhood experiences are still studied by pschologists today, exploring how premature sexual activity affects adult sexuality. Rather than become the virile young fountain of baby-begetting semen that his court hoped, Louis became rather repressed. It was years before he could be persuaded to re-enter his wife's bedroom in the hope of producing an heir, and Louis was significantly fonder of his male companions. Despite (or perhaps because of) the strenuous sexual conditioning of his infancy, Louis XIII was decidedly gay in adult life.
Most abused- Alexis (Son of Peter the Great)
Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712- 1786) had it hard. His father Frederick William I was a violent sadist with an unbelieveably short temper, who was addicted to flogging anything in sight for no reason. Young Frederick was in the firing line more than most, and we can only speculate whether he enjoyed the brief respite from constant thrashings when his barking mad Dad tried pschological abuse instead- such as dismembering his son's gay lover before him and leaving the various limbs to rot under Frederick's bedroom window.
Even unluckier was Mehmed (1642- 1687), son of the Ottoman Emperor Ibrahim "The Mad". Not only did he have to contend with the usual Ottoman depravities, but his barking mad father hated his guts and made several spirited attempts to kill him in his infancy. When the young Mehmed told Ibrahim a joke once, his father paused for thought, decided it wasn't funny enough, and stabbed his infant son in the face with his dagger.
However it's Russia that produced the really unlucky princes. Ivan the Terrible infamously killed his own son, but that was probably an accident. Peter the Great, on the other hand, could hardly claim any accident in the death of his son Alexis. After years of savage beatings, Alexis (1690- 1718) made an unsuccessful attempt to flee the country, and ended up being tortured on the rack. Even after the (fictitious) confession Peter wanted had been extracted the torture continued. In fact it continued right up until the point where Peter got bored of racking and had Alexis flogged to death for a laugh.
Most disliked- Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales
Easy choice. Many royal kids had challenging (even murderous) relationships with their parents, but Frederick (1707- 1751) had them all beaten. He was the eldest son of King George II, but it was clear that they never got on even from early years. He was abandoned in Germany at the age of 7, and didn't see either parent again until he was 20. On being reunited, his parents simply insulted him at every opportunity and put him down constantly in public- even the most vitriolic of satirical cartoonists were startled by their venom towards Frederick.
Unsurprisingly, Frederick retaliated. He constantly clashed with King George over his allowance, and refused to let his daughter be born under his parents' roof (even if it meant dragging his wife out of Hampton Court while she was in labour). He also schemed against his father politically, and played a role in the undermining of the Prime Minister Walpole (just to annoy his old man). For the last ten years of his life, Frederick and his parents shunned each other- although his mother Caroline still talked about him. To be precise, his mother said said that he made her want to vomit and that she hoped he would drop dead of a seizure very soon. In fact, even while in agony on her death-bed Queen Caroline remarked that the one good point about her impending death from gangrene was that she'd never have to see Frederick again. Frederick died before his father, and on hearing of his death old King George cheered up immensely.
Most spoiled- Henry "The Young King"
In previous "Historical Filth" articles I've already detailed the impact of "The Cage" on the Ottoman Emperors. Locked away in palatial cells with their every sexual need catered for, they had a tendency to emerge as perverts with only the very loosest of grips on reality when they were actually called on to rule. They have to be excused to some degree, as they all grew up in mortal fear, expecting to be strangled on the whim of the current ruler at any given moment.
One might expect all royal brats to be pretty spoiled, but a surprisingly large number had decidedly Spartan upbringings. However, possibly the greatest exception to the notion that they weren't spoiled was Henry "The Young King" (1255- 1283), son of the English King Henry II. In a break from established English tradition, young Henry was crowned as king while his father was still very much alive a reigning, copying the French tradition of crowning Dauphins as kings in waiting. He was already a seriously spoiled slappable little git by this point, but still managed to get far, far worse. At his coronation feast, Henry II waited on his son, commenting "Surely no man alive has so noble a servant". The 12 year-old prince just sniffed in disdain and said "It is only fitting that the son of a Count should wait upon the son of a King".
All the sons of Henry II were pretty revolting characters, but Henry "The Young King" takes some beating. He constantly demanded more wealth and power from his father, but even being created Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou wasn't enough to stop the grasping little toad and stirred up a rebellion over a decade. It was probably a great blessing England that he dropped dead of a fever at 28, leaving the succession to his rapist/psychopath brothers.
Most unlucky- Czar Ivan VI
There are many contenders in this category. A few notables include some Habsburg princes, notably Carlos II of Spain (1661- 1700) and Ferdinand I (1793- 1875) of Austria- both massively inbred, with congenital facial deformities and serious psychological disorders, so they had the odds stacked against them from the start. Carlos, in particular, was in bad shape- he could barely eat or talk, and was unable to ever consummate his marriage due to suffering spontaneous epileptic fits at the first hints of sexual arousal. As previously detailed in "Filth" articles, being heir to the Scottish throne was pretty much a guaranteed ticket to gloom and an early grave. The title's going to Russia, however- in the shape of Czar Ivan VI (1740- 1764).
Ivan became Czar before his first birthday, with his mother Anna acting as regent. Anna was probably the most rampant and "out" lesbian ever to wield real power in Europe, and wasn't one to let mere matters of state interfere with her very public Sapphic fondlings. This probably had little impact on Ivan's psychological development, because at the age of 18 months he was deposed and spent the rest of his life in a prison cell. This left him physically and mentally ********, and it was probably an act of mercy when he was finally strangled by his guards.
Most unpleasant- Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland
Oooooh, I'm spoiled for choice here. Could it be the Ottoman Marad IV, who as a sprog used to like practising his archery on any peasants passing his window? Or William IV of England, who was packed off to sea at 14 after raping his chambermaid and became an ardent campaigner in favour of slavery and all-round enemy of democratic process? Or Philip Duc d'Orleans, brother of Louis XIV- paedophile and rapist? Or King John of England- serial rapist, traitor to his father and brothers, glutton and murderer?
Nope- I'm going for Ernest, Duke of Cumberland and King of Hanover (1771- 1851). He was the 5th son of King George III- which means he was part of the most spectacularly repulsive brood ever to defile Europe. Every damned one of them was horrible- alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, gluttons, rapists, adulterers and elitist scum. They were a blight on England, that litter, and Ernest was the worst. At first glance, his record might seem unimpressive- just the usual Hanoverian track record of juvenile rape, corruption and substance abuse. Ernest, however, chose to take things that little step further by raping his own sisters. After he left his younger sister Sophia pregnant, palace staff were made to ensure that he was never to be alone with his sisters under any circumstances.
He went on to rape easier targets, and it's believed that an unwise choice of victims resulted in his apparent murder of his valet Joseph Sellis, who may have been blackmailing the Prince. A verdict of suicide was passed on the death of Sellis, though it's surely an unusually determined suicide who manages to partially sever his own head with a razor.
So did he improve with age? No chance. On becoming King of Hanover he ditched the constitution and attempted to head a absolutist monarchy- only prevented by a serious rebellion.
Most ignorant- Louis XVI (1754- 1793)
An old favourite. If you can manage to get it up, then get it in, but still can't work out that you're meant to move it about a bit, then this title is yours by some considerable margin. Bless him. Concerned readers will be reassured to know that eventually he had this sex thing fully explained to him a few years later, but even then he was totally divorced from reality- having no concept of money, politics or the reasons why his subjects eventually decapitated him. His diary entry for the day the Bastille was stormed simply reads "Rien".
Most odd- Ludwig II of Bavaria
Loads of choices here, but there are a few prime cases. Christian VII of Denmark and Norway (1749- 1808) was severely unhinged, possibly due to serial molestation by his pages, but more likely due to syphilis inherited from his father. He was violent, aggressive, perverted and a compulsive masturbator. That puts him in a similar league as Ferdinand I of Naples, but for sheer flamboyance they're both surpassed by the titanically ****oo Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845- 1886).
Little Ludwig had a quiet childhood- some mild court duties, a spot of education, lots of dressing up as a Carmelite nun. By 14 he was having lengthy debates with the voices in his head, punctuated by the occasional screaming fit of hysteria. This might have aroused concern in some families, but seeing as his family were all decidedly odd (his Aunt Alexandra was firmly convinced that she had swallowed a grand piano made of glass, for example) it attracted litle comment. In his reign, he became increasinly reclusive, preferring to design his stunning fairy-tale castles rather than acknowledge the presence of other human beings on the planet. In fact, he banned women from being in his vicinity altogether (as he was flaboyantly gay, his court had long since given up on the idea of his producing an heir so they were willing to comply).
Most precocious- Philip Duc D'Orleans (1674- 1723)
Henry IV Bolingbroke puts up a stiff showing for England, fathering a child at 14 (with his 12 year old wife Mary). However he's beaten by the Libertine's Libertine, Philip, Duc D'Orleans and younger brother of Louis XIV. Philip's personal morality was impressively simple- if it couldn't run fast enough, or put up enough of a fight, he was damned well going to put his penis in it. Adult or child, married or single, biped or quadruped- if it could climb out of a bucket he was going to shaft it. Perusing his personal history is like paddling knee-deep through someone else's "prostate porridge"- if you're stuck for something to do on a wet weekend I recommend it highly, though you'll want a good wash in bleach afterwards.
Unsurprisingly, he was an early starter. He was raping his servants at 13 and had at least three kids before his 15th birthday. Astonishingly, some of the mothers might even have been consenting with the perfumed and powdered little paedophile. Yurk.
Closing quote- when asked by his mother why his mistresses were all so supernaturally ugly, he replied "In the dark, all cats are grey"- he was the hard man of regal sexual politics.
Kids, eh? Can't live with 'em, can't put 'em in a pie and call 'em supper.....
Kids love playing at being kings, queens, princes and princesses. There's something universal in their desire to be revered- to while away their days in palaces quaffing fried Dormouse in emerald coulis. Naturally they'd all leap at the opportunity to actually become a royal child if they could (they're spectacularly materialistic, after all). However they'd be shocked to learn just what the realityof the job might entail...
Unless you're really slow on the uptake, you'll have probably noticed a certain trend in "Filth" articles. I don't like royals much. It's a fair and balanced sort of prejudice, however- I'm just firmly convinced that they're all vermin in tiaras. This could be laughed off, if it weren't for the fact that I can back this up with so many examples. Naturally, if they're hideous to their subjects in general, they're probably going to be pretty vile to their kids too- and if they aren't, the kids will probably turn out to be chancres in romper-suits anyway.
Think I'm exaggerating? Let's have a little award ceremony for some of the most.....energetic...contenders.
Most sexually dysfunctional- Louis XIII.
No contest. Louis XIII (1601- 1643) the Bourbon king of France walks away with this title, if only because of the overwhelming weight of evidence in his favour. Reams have been written about the sundry bodily parts of the world's monarchs, but surely no appendage attracted quite so much scrutiny as the one just north of little Louis's scrotum. Thanks to the painstaking notes taken by his physicians, the modern filth-hound is treated to exhaustive notes detailing the frequency and mechanics of his juvenile erections- every angle and speed of engorgement faithfully detailed.
It wasn't just observation. Young Louis was actively encouraged to exercise it and show it off. Visitors to his court were expected to praise the little pink soldier and applaud the young king's signs of impending virility. Nurses and courtiers played with it, and he was encouraged to simulate sex with cushions and furniture- apparently he was fond of offering to draw milk from it. On his wedding night (at the age of 14) he entered the nuptial bedchamber, re-emerging in his mother's quarters an hour later "with his cock all red". There is a lot more description of what went on during that wedding night, but even a "Filth" article has some standards...
His childhood experiences are still studied by pschologists today, exploring how premature sexual activity affects adult sexuality. Rather than become the virile young fountain of baby-begetting semen that his court hoped, Louis became rather repressed. It was years before he could be persuaded to re-enter his wife's bedroom in the hope of producing an heir, and Louis was significantly fonder of his male companions. Despite (or perhaps because of) the strenuous sexual conditioning of his infancy, Louis XIII was decidedly gay in adult life.
Most abused- Alexis (Son of Peter the Great)
Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712- 1786) had it hard. His father Frederick William I was a violent sadist with an unbelieveably short temper, who was addicted to flogging anything in sight for no reason. Young Frederick was in the firing line more than most, and we can only speculate whether he enjoyed the brief respite from constant thrashings when his barking mad Dad tried pschological abuse instead- such as dismembering his son's gay lover before him and leaving the various limbs to rot under Frederick's bedroom window.
Even unluckier was Mehmed (1642- 1687), son of the Ottoman Emperor Ibrahim "The Mad". Not only did he have to contend with the usual Ottoman depravities, but his barking mad father hated his guts and made several spirited attempts to kill him in his infancy. When the young Mehmed told Ibrahim a joke once, his father paused for thought, decided it wasn't funny enough, and stabbed his infant son in the face with his dagger.
However it's Russia that produced the really unlucky princes. Ivan the Terrible infamously killed his own son, but that was probably an accident. Peter the Great, on the other hand, could hardly claim any accident in the death of his son Alexis. After years of savage beatings, Alexis (1690- 1718) made an unsuccessful attempt to flee the country, and ended up being tortured on the rack. Even after the (fictitious) confession Peter wanted had been extracted the torture continued. In fact it continued right up until the point where Peter got bored of racking and had Alexis flogged to death for a laugh.
Most disliked- Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales
Easy choice. Many royal kids had challenging (even murderous) relationships with their parents, but Frederick (1707- 1751) had them all beaten. He was the eldest son of King George II, but it was clear that they never got on even from early years. He was abandoned in Germany at the age of 7, and didn't see either parent again until he was 20. On being reunited, his parents simply insulted him at every opportunity and put him down constantly in public- even the most vitriolic of satirical cartoonists were startled by their venom towards Frederick.
Unsurprisingly, Frederick retaliated. He constantly clashed with King George over his allowance, and refused to let his daughter be born under his parents' roof (even if it meant dragging his wife out of Hampton Court while she was in labour). He also schemed against his father politically, and played a role in the undermining of the Prime Minister Walpole (just to annoy his old man). For the last ten years of his life, Frederick and his parents shunned each other- although his mother Caroline still talked about him. To be precise, his mother said said that he made her want to vomit and that she hoped he would drop dead of a seizure very soon. In fact, even while in agony on her death-bed Queen Caroline remarked that the one good point about her impending death from gangrene was that she'd never have to see Frederick again. Frederick died before his father, and on hearing of his death old King George cheered up immensely.
Most spoiled- Henry "The Young King"
In previous "Historical Filth" articles I've already detailed the impact of "The Cage" on the Ottoman Emperors. Locked away in palatial cells with their every sexual need catered for, they had a tendency to emerge as perverts with only the very loosest of grips on reality when they were actually called on to rule. They have to be excused to some degree, as they all grew up in mortal fear, expecting to be strangled on the whim of the current ruler at any given moment.
One might expect all royal brats to be pretty spoiled, but a surprisingly large number had decidedly Spartan upbringings. However, possibly the greatest exception to the notion that they weren't spoiled was Henry "The Young King" (1255- 1283), son of the English King Henry II. In a break from established English tradition, young Henry was crowned as king while his father was still very much alive a reigning, copying the French tradition of crowning Dauphins as kings in waiting. He was already a seriously spoiled slappable little git by this point, but still managed to get far, far worse. At his coronation feast, Henry II waited on his son, commenting "Surely no man alive has so noble a servant". The 12 year-old prince just sniffed in disdain and said "It is only fitting that the son of a Count should wait upon the son of a King".
All the sons of Henry II were pretty revolting characters, but Henry "The Young King" takes some beating. He constantly demanded more wealth and power from his father, but even being created Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou wasn't enough to stop the grasping little toad and stirred up a rebellion over a decade. It was probably a great blessing England that he dropped dead of a fever at 28, leaving the succession to his rapist/psychopath brothers.
Most unlucky- Czar Ivan VI
There are many contenders in this category. A few notables include some Habsburg princes, notably Carlos II of Spain (1661- 1700) and Ferdinand I (1793- 1875) of Austria- both massively inbred, with congenital facial deformities and serious psychological disorders, so they had the odds stacked against them from the start. Carlos, in particular, was in bad shape- he could barely eat or talk, and was unable to ever consummate his marriage due to suffering spontaneous epileptic fits at the first hints of sexual arousal. As previously detailed in "Filth" articles, being heir to the Scottish throne was pretty much a guaranteed ticket to gloom and an early grave. The title's going to Russia, however- in the shape of Czar Ivan VI (1740- 1764).
Ivan became Czar before his first birthday, with his mother Anna acting as regent. Anna was probably the most rampant and "out" lesbian ever to wield real power in Europe, and wasn't one to let mere matters of state interfere with her very public Sapphic fondlings. This probably had little impact on Ivan's psychological development, because at the age of 18 months he was deposed and spent the rest of his life in a prison cell. This left him physically and mentally ********, and it was probably an act of mercy when he was finally strangled by his guards.
Most unpleasant- Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland
Oooooh, I'm spoiled for choice here. Could it be the Ottoman Marad IV, who as a sprog used to like practising his archery on any peasants passing his window? Or William IV of England, who was packed off to sea at 14 after raping his chambermaid and became an ardent campaigner in favour of slavery and all-round enemy of democratic process? Or Philip Duc d'Orleans, brother of Louis XIV- paedophile and rapist? Or King John of England- serial rapist, traitor to his father and brothers, glutton and murderer?
Nope- I'm going for Ernest, Duke of Cumberland and King of Hanover (1771- 1851). He was the 5th son of King George III- which means he was part of the most spectacularly repulsive brood ever to defile Europe. Every damned one of them was horrible- alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, gluttons, rapists, adulterers and elitist scum. They were a blight on England, that litter, and Ernest was the worst. At first glance, his record might seem unimpressive- just the usual Hanoverian track record of juvenile rape, corruption and substance abuse. Ernest, however, chose to take things that little step further by raping his own sisters. After he left his younger sister Sophia pregnant, palace staff were made to ensure that he was never to be alone with his sisters under any circumstances.
He went on to rape easier targets, and it's believed that an unwise choice of victims resulted in his apparent murder of his valet Joseph Sellis, who may have been blackmailing the Prince. A verdict of suicide was passed on the death of Sellis, though it's surely an unusually determined suicide who manages to partially sever his own head with a razor.
So did he improve with age? No chance. On becoming King of Hanover he ditched the constitution and attempted to head a absolutist monarchy- only prevented by a serious rebellion.
Most ignorant- Louis XVI (1754- 1793)
An old favourite. If you can manage to get it up, then get it in, but still can't work out that you're meant to move it about a bit, then this title is yours by some considerable margin. Bless him. Concerned readers will be reassured to know that eventually he had this sex thing fully explained to him a few years later, but even then he was totally divorced from reality- having no concept of money, politics or the reasons why his subjects eventually decapitated him. His diary entry for the day the Bastille was stormed simply reads "Rien".
Most odd- Ludwig II of Bavaria
Loads of choices here, but there are a few prime cases. Christian VII of Denmark and Norway (1749- 1808) was severely unhinged, possibly due to serial molestation by his pages, but more likely due to syphilis inherited from his father. He was violent, aggressive, perverted and a compulsive masturbator. That puts him in a similar league as Ferdinand I of Naples, but for sheer flamboyance they're both surpassed by the titanically ****oo Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845- 1886).
Little Ludwig had a quiet childhood- some mild court duties, a spot of education, lots of dressing up as a Carmelite nun. By 14 he was having lengthy debates with the voices in his head, punctuated by the occasional screaming fit of hysteria. This might have aroused concern in some families, but seeing as his family were all decidedly odd (his Aunt Alexandra was firmly convinced that she had swallowed a grand piano made of glass, for example) it attracted litle comment. In his reign, he became increasinly reclusive, preferring to design his stunning fairy-tale castles rather than acknowledge the presence of other human beings on the planet. In fact, he banned women from being in his vicinity altogether (as he was flaboyantly gay, his court had long since given up on the idea of his producing an heir so they were willing to comply).
Most precocious- Philip Duc D'Orleans (1674- 1723)
Henry IV Bolingbroke puts up a stiff showing for England, fathering a child at 14 (with his 12 year old wife Mary). However he's beaten by the Libertine's Libertine, Philip, Duc D'Orleans and younger brother of Louis XIV. Philip's personal morality was impressively simple- if it couldn't run fast enough, or put up enough of a fight, he was damned well going to put his penis in it. Adult or child, married or single, biped or quadruped- if it could climb out of a bucket he was going to shaft it. Perusing his personal history is like paddling knee-deep through someone else's "prostate porridge"- if you're stuck for something to do on a wet weekend I recommend it highly, though you'll want a good wash in bleach afterwards.
Unsurprisingly, he was an early starter. He was raping his servants at 13 and had at least three kids before his 15th birthday. Astonishingly, some of the mothers might even have been consenting with the perfumed and powdered little paedophile. Yurk.
Closing quote- when asked by his mother why his mistresses were all so supernaturally ugly, he replied "In the dark, all cats are grey"- he was the hard man of regal sexual politics.
Kids, eh? Can't live with 'em, can't put 'em in a pie and call 'em supper.....
for another great article. 
. Much I have never heard before. 
!
