Tickling in History

I have only ever found one case of tickling in history that is supported by documentary evidence and appears fairly reliable (and it has not been for want of trying, I can tell you). (If anyone knows of others, please tell us...) It makes the Tudor period look more interesting than ever before. I first heard it mentioned by the historian David Starkey on BBC TV a few years ago, and when I looked it up I found it was echoed by other sources. In case you haven't come across it before:

When King Henry VIII died in 1547, his teenaged daughter, Princess Elizabeth, future Queen Elizabeth I, became the ward of his sixth wife, Catherine Parr, and lived with her and Catherine's new husband, Thomas Seymour. Seymour was soon on trial for treason, and Elizabeth's governess, Kat Ashley, testified against him. She seems to be regarded as a truthful witness, and her words are our evidence.

The following passage is lifted from a website:


"Kat Ashley described Thomas Seymour’s behaviour towards Elizabeth:-


“Incontinent after he was married to the Queene, he wold come many mornings into the said Lady Elizabeth’s Chamber, before she was redy, and sometimes before she did rise. And if she were up, he would bid hir good morrow, and ax how she did, and strike hir upon the Bak or on the Buttocks famylearly, and so go forth through his lodgings; and sometimes go through to the Maydens, and play with them, and so go forth: And if she were in hyr Bed, he wold put open the Curteyns, and bid hir good morrow, and make as though he wold come at hir: And she wold go further in the Bed, so that he could not come at hir.”

It did not stop there. Kat Ashley also had to reprimand Seymour on one occasion for getting into bed with Elizabeth and he later started visiting Elizabeth dressed only “in his Night-Gown, barelegged in his slippers”!

But what did Catherine think of this behaviour? Seymour should not have even entered Elizabeth’s bedchamber, never-mind touch Elizabeth and get into bed with her! Rather than stopping Seymour’s behaviour, it seems that Catherine was blinded by her love for him and chose to see it as innocent horseplay. She even joined in on occasions:-


“At Hanworth, he wolde likewise come in the morning unto hir Grace; but, as she remembreth at all tymes, she was up before. Saving two mornings, the which two mornings, the quene came with hym: And this Examinate lay with hir Grace; and thei tytled [tickled] my lady Elizabeth in the Bed, the quene and my Lord Admyrall.”


Read more: http://www.elizabethfiles.com/catherine-parr-and-thomas-seymour-part-two/3660/#ixzz4JbVkF9CB

Here's another site that tells the same story (scroll down to the bit headed "Princess Elizabeth"):

http://spartacus-educational.com/TUDseymourT.htm

yup, that's a very famous (notoroious) story and even is alluded to in the great BBC series "Elizabeth R.", starring Glenda Jackson (the definitive Elizabeth). Wish i had something else to report.....

I believe there is something else to do with Catherine The Great; that she ordered one of the female members of her court tickle tortured. It's vague in my mind though, but I'll bet someone else here might know what I'm talking about. Maybe Oddjob.

Yes, there seems to have been something going on with those Russian empresses, but getting to the bottom of it seems impossible.

Only a few days ago I was reading Lionel Kochan's "The Making of Modern Russia", a perfectly respectable work, and came across the following reference to Catherine the Great's predecessor, the Empress Elizabeth (c1741-61):

"[She was described as] 'abandoning herself to every excess of intemperance and lubricity'...Her days she devoted to relaxing en deshabille; her nights to love-making and dancing and masquerades...A particular penchant was to have the soles of her feet tickled...At some of the court balls, Elizabeth combined the fetish of the foot with transvestist [sic] tastes; the men must dress as women and the women as men. In this way Elizabeth could display her tiny feet and shapely legs..." etc, etc, etc.

She was a much better looker than Catherine the G. too:

http://allrus.me/wp-content/uploads...sia-by-Charles-André-van-Loo-1760-500x622.jpg

I know of just one other alleged specific instance of tickling in history (that is, it isn't just a general statement that "this sort of thing used to go on", but refers to an actual supposed event). Unfortunately the information is vague and contradictory, but the rumour has persisted for centuries.

In the medieval era there was a tradition at some cathedrals in England to elect a "boy bishop" from among the choristers for short periods of a few days.

At Salisbury Cathedral in the south of England there is a stone carving which is said to mark the burial place of a boy bishop who was tickled to death by the other choristers. Not sure if that is actually possible, but it's a long-standing story. It is usually said to have happened in the 17th century, although the stone memorial itself bears a plaque saying the boy died in the 13th century. Another problem is that the tradition of boy bishops was frowned on after the 16th-century Reformation, further calling into question the 17th-century date. But it is such a strange little story, in an unexpected context, persisting over so many generations, that I can't help wondering what is behind it.

Scroll down to the heading "The Boy Bishop" on this site:

http://roys-roy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/unusual-cathedral-stories.html

It gets another mention on another website in this note at the bottom of a poem:

"ticklish boy bishop, the;- in the 17th c the choristers of Salisbury Cathedral used to elect one of their number to be bishop from St Nicholas Day to Holy Innocents Day (26-28 December). One year, this 'boy bishop' was, it seems, 'tickled to death' by the other choristers (perhaps he had asthma?) and, since he died in office, his statue inside
the west door of Salisbury Cathedral shows him dressed in the
full regalia of a bishop"
http://supernaturalearth.myfreeforum.org/sutra1568.php

And just to prove that this "boy bishop" business really did happen and still exists in a few places to this day:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/c...epares-to-crown-its-Christmas-Boy-Bishop.html

matt62 said:

Yes, there seems to have been something going on with those Russian empresses, but getting to the bottom of it seems impossible.

Only a few days ago I was reading Lionel Kochan's "The Making of Modern Russia", a perfectly respectable work, and came across the following reference to Catherine the Great's predecessor, the Empress Elizabeth (c1741-61):

"[She was described as] 'abandoning herself to every excess of intemperance and lubricity'...Her days she devoted to relaxing en deshabille; her nights to love-making and dancing and masquerades...A particular penchant was to have the soles of her feet tickled...At some of the court balls, Elizabeth combined the fetish of the foot with transvestist [sic] tastes; the men must dress as women and the women as men. In this way Elizabeth could display her tiny feet and shapely legs..." etc, etc, etc.

She was a much better looker than Catherine the G. too:

http://allrus.me/wp-content/uploads...sia-by-Charles-André-van-Loo-1760-500x622.jpg

Click to expand...

That is absolutely fascinating!!!!