The whipping boy

.

Prince Edward's whipping boy

.

Whether or not it is a bad thing to get punished will largely depend upon the punishment, but when you deserve to be punished, and some one else is at hand to receive it in your stead, then punishment is apt to become a farce. Just consider this: I deserve the whipping, but you are hired to take it for me. Perhaps you think this is a joke, but I am really in earnest. I am alluding to a practice which was actually once in vogue—though never to a great extent—in this and other countries. By whipping one boy instead of another it was hoped that the feelings of the offender would be so worked upon, that he would refrain from doing wrong rather than have an innocent lad punished.

Well, the long retinue of servants in the households of kings usually included a whipping-boy, kept to be whipped when a prince needed chastisement. What a funny occupation!

D'Ossat and Du Perron, who ultimately rose to the dignity of cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church, were whipped by Pope Clement VIII. in the place of Henri IV. And there stood for Charles I. a lad called Mungo Murray, whose name would seem to show that he was of Scottish birth. The most familiar example of whipping-boy is mentioned by Fuller in his "Church History." His name was Barnaby Fitzpatrick, and the prince whose punishments he bore was Edward, son of bluff King Hal, who was afterwards Edward VI., the boy-king of England.

The scene which the picture (...) brings vividly (...) represents one aspect of the use of whipping-boys. It tells its story well.

The young prince would seem to have incurred his tutor's displeasure, and the birch is about to be employed upon the person of the unfortunate Fitzpatrick. But Prince Edward cannot bear to see poor Barnaby flogged instead, and is interceding with his grave guardian on behalf of the lad.

By all accounts which we have the boy-king was a clever and amiable youth, and his untimely death in his sixteenth year would appear to show that he stood much more in need of the tenderest care than of the birch.

It need hardly be added that as soon as he mounted the throne the services of Fitzpatrick could no longer be in request. You may whip a prince, but when that prince becomes king, even while still a boy, the rod must be banished forthwith. Shakespeare says "uneasy lies the head that wears a crown," and this must be especially true in such a case as that of the hapless young Edward, who had to discharge all the kingly duties without being old enough to feel much, if any, interest in them. His courtiers spoke of him as if he were a boy Solomon, and he cannot have needed much castigation, even through the medium of Barnaby Fitzpatrick.

.

da "Little Folks (October 1884) - A Magazine for the Young"

.

----------------------------------------------------------------

.

A whipping boy, in the 1600s and 1700s, was a young boy who was assigned to a young prince and was punished when the prince misbehaved or fell behind in his schooling. Whipping boys were established in the English court during the monarchies of the 15th century and 16th century. They were created because the idea of the Divine Right of Kings, which stated that kings were appointed by God, and implied that no one but the king was worthy of punishing the king’s son. Since the king was rarely around to punish his son when necessary, tutors to the young prince found it extremely difficult to enforce rules or learning.

Whipping boys were generally of high birth, and were educated with the prince since birth. Due to the fact that the prince and whipping boy grew up together since birth, they usually formed an emotional bond, especially since the prince usually did not have playmates like other children would have had. The strong bond that developed between a prince and his whipping boy dramatically increased the effectiveness of using a whipping boy as a form of punishment for a prince. The idea of the whipping boys was that seeing a friend being whipped or beaten for something that he had done wrong would be likely to ensure that the prince would not make the same mistake again.

The life of a whipping boy was usually one of sorrow and pain,[citation needed] but, sometimes, they were rewarded by the princes they served. King Charles I of England made his whipping boy, William Murray, the first Earl of Dysart in 1643 after he had been living in the palatial Ham House since 1626 under the request of King Charles I.
The children's book The Whipping Boy by Sid Fleischman, which is about a prince and his whipping boy, was the winner of the Newbery Medal in 1987.

.

da WIKIPEDIA