All Comments on 'The Incident at the Coronation'

IT'S NOT TRUE AT ALL that "privacy was the preserve of privilege, the church frowned upon the opportunities it provided for the indulgence of sinful appetites"!How can you say SUCH NONSENSE?!On the contrary,the church FROWNED AT THE LACK OF PRIVACY,because IT WAS PRECISELY THIS LACK OF PRIVACY THAT LED TO PROMISCUITY and to opportunities for the indulgence of sinful appetites!

*sigh* The medieval church sought to regulate sexuality. In the almost complete absence of personal privacy there was little opportunity for transgression. Everyone knew who did what with whom and when. But in private people could get up to almost anything. Since even the most privileged rarely had opportunities for privacy, suspicion attached to those who went to lengths to seek this out.

@llacheu,YOU ARE TELLING ONLY NONSENSES!Indeed,the medieval church "sought to regulate sexuality",but THAT DIDN'T MEAN AT ALL that the church "frowned upon privacy"!As I said,the church FROWNED UPON THE LACK OF PRIVACY because IT WAS NOT TRUE AT ALL that "in the almost complete absence of personal privacy there was little opportunity for transgression"!On the contrary,IT WAS EXACTLY IN THE ABSENCE OF PERSONAL PRIVACY when PEOPLE COULD GET PROMISCUOUS WITH OTHER PEOPLE!When one was alone in private,ONE COULD NOT TRANSGRESS WITH ANYBODY ELSE!So,NO,in private PEOPLE COULD NOT "GET UP TO ALMOST EVERYTHING" WITH ANYONE!Also,IT'S DEFINITELY NOT TRUE that "even the most privileged rarely had opportunities for privacy"!EVERYONE WHO WAS PRIVILEGED(and even those who weren't privileged!) HAD PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRIVACY,so that THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO SUSPICION "attached to those who went to lengths to seek this out"!STOP WRITING ALL THIS RUBBISH and DISTORTING THE REAL HISTORICAL FACTS!Anyway,your story IS FULL OF NONSENSES AND MISTAKES regarding the historical reality of those times!