Truth or Fiction? You the reader decide.

from JoeUser Forums
Long ago in medieval Europe the was a particularly barbaric custom of the King bedding the wife of a newly wed couple.

This was done before the man could even have sex with her, she MUST be pure for the King .

After the King was done deflowering her, he left and order his chamberlain to post a sign in front of the newly wed couples house.

The king would bed any woman at any time before her husband could. Be them noble born or serfs it did not matter to the King.

The sign in front of the house shouted to the world that the King was first and the deed was already done and over.

The sign not only told the world what had happened but was also used to make sure the couple was not bothered while on honeymoon.

The sign declared that the couple inside had the Kings permission to make love. It Said.

Fornication Under Consent of the King.This is where the word FUCK came from.
humor
15,105 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am wondering how many of you are online trying to look this up?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Someone a while back had told me this story, not sure if it is true or not but sounds like a good story
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: GimpyonePosted: Friday, April 21, 2006Someone a while back had told me this story, not sure if it is true or not but sounds like a good story


really? do you remember who? was it me? oh btw wolftom and sal both send love and regards.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Acronyms are relatively new additions to English.

"Fuck" is a very old word in English.

This is definitely not the origin of the word "fuck".

You might have better luck looking for Old English, Anglo-Saxon, and Germanic words for "plowing" and "sowing (seeds)". You will be pleasantly surprised to discover that these older words for similar activities are the actual source of the modern "fuck".
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh ye of little faith:

Snopes: "False" http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.htm

The Straigh Dope: "The best guess is that "fuck" comes from the Middle English fucken, to strike, move quickly, penetrate, from the German ficken, meaning approximately the same thing." http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_268b.html (According to Cecil, I'm probably wrong about the agricultural origin, but definitely right about it not being an acronym.)

About.com Urban Legends and Folklore: "The word fuck did not originate as an acronym." http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-f-word.htm

Dictionary.com: "The obscenity fuck is a very old word and has been considered shocking from the first... Its first known occurrence, in code because of its unacceptability, is in a poem composed in a mixture of Latin and English sometime before 1500." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fuck

Wordorigins.org: "Popular etymologies agree, unfortunately incorrectly, that this is an acronym... The root is undoubtedly Germanic, as it has cognates in other Northern European languages: Middle Dutch fokken meaning to thrust, to copulate with; dialectical Norwegian fukka meaning to copulate; and dialectical Swedish focka meaning to strike, push, copulate, and fock meaning penis. Both French and Italian have similar words, foutre and fottere respectively. These derive from the Latin futuere. While these cognates exist, they are probably not the source of fuck, rather all these words probably come from a common root." http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorf.htm

Hope this helps!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: stutefishPosted: Friday, April 21, 2006Acronyms are relatively new additions to English."Fuck" is a very old word in English.This is definitely not the origin of the word "fuck".You might have better luck looking for Old English, Anglo-Saxon, and Germanic words for "plowing" and "sowing (seeds)". You will be pleasantly surprised to discover that these older words for similar activities are the actual source of the modern "fuck".


EYE see wqhat yer sayin, but I ain't buyin. so says the H.J.B.I.C. !!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
heh stute? yer waz spose to come up with anudder story, not research it. heh
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

heh stute? yer waz spose to come up with anudder story, not research it. heh

Yea, he can be a spoil sport!

As for the article, Mein Herren und Damen sagt Bulleschiese!

Danke Shoen.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Friday, April 21, 2006heh stute? yer waz spose to come up with anudder story, not research it. hehYea, he can be a spoil sport!As for the article, Mein Herren und Damen sagt Bulleschiese!Danke Shoen.


I do not \\ know cherman but from yer tone of voice am I to interpit "I am fullela chit?"
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now I'm hella confused.

At first, I was gonna just admit that I suck, and that I totally misunderstood the point of the article.

But then I went back just now and re-read the article. Nothing there tells me I was supposed to post a new story. And the very title tells me to decide on the f-word story. So I decided, and showed my work. What did I miss?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

I do not \\ know cherman but from yer tone of voice am I to interpit "I am fullela chit?"

Nein!  Ich sagen dass die article ist bulleschiese.

Not you!

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: stutefishPosted: Friday, April 21, 2006Now I'm hella confused.At first, I was gonna just admit that I suck, and that I totally misunderstood the point of the article.But then I went back just now and re-read the article. Nothing there tells me I was supposed to post a new story. And the very title tells me to decide on the f-word story. So I decided, and showed my work. What did I miss?


you missed nothing, my bad.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Friday, April 21, 2006I do not \\ know cherman but from yer tone of voice am I to interpit "I am fullela chit?"Nein! Ich sagen dass die article ist bulleschiese.Not you!


ohhhhhhhhh says MM as a huge lightbulb flashes overhead. te he hee
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The myth that I always heard was "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", i.e. the Van Halen album title. The right of primae noctis was real, though, and not just for kids but for English nobles in general and the 'peasants' they ruled.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
14 by BakerStreet
Friday, April 21, 2006


The myth that I always heard was "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", i.e. the Van Halen album title. The right of primae noctis was real, though, and not just for kids but for English nobles in general and the 'peasants' they ruled.


good one.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
It should have said kings, dunno how it ended up being 'kids'...
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I remember hearing something like this, but it wasn't about the deflowering thing.
Way I heard it, it had something to do with making sure the bloodlines were pure or something, that nobility was marrying nobility, commoner to commoner, and so forth. If everything checked out to the Crown's investigation, the happy couple recieved a document declaring them free to F.U.C.K.
Your way sounds juicier, though, so it might be true.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
It should have said kings, dunno how it ended up being 'kids'...
---Baker

Freudean Slip, oh King of Pop? Um-Huuuuhn.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
While there may have been rulers who behaved thus, the fact is that there is no evidence that such customs existed in medieval Europe. The reason is simple: the marriages in medieval Europe took place in the Chiurch and breaking the sacremant was not something that medieval kings could do easily. The great French historian Georges Duby has writeen a great deal about medieval marriages and nowhere does he say that such pracices existed. Of course the feudal aristocracy and the clerical aristoracy were not angels but such behaviour did not have the sanction either of law or custom.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Friday, April 21, 2006It should have said kings, dunno how it ended up being 'kids'...


tis ok baker it's not like I never have a brain glitch myself.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Saturday, April 22, 2006I remember hearing something like this, but it wasn't about the deflowering thing.Way I heard it, it had something to do with making sure the bloodlines were pure or something, that nobility was marrying nobility, commoner to commoner, and so forth. If everything checked out to the Crown's investigation, the happy couple recieved a document declaring them free to F.U.C.K.Your way sounds juicier, though, so it might be true.


ya I thought that my article bordered on "juicy"
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Bahu VirupakshaPosted: Saturday, April 22, 2006While there may have been rulers who behaved thus, the fact is that there is no evidence that such customs existed in medieval Europe. The reason is simple: the marriages in medieval Europe took place in the Church and breaking the sacrement was not something that medieval kings could do easily. The great French historian Georges Duby has written a great deal about medieval marriages and nowhere does he say that such practices existed. Of course the feudal aristocracy and the clerical aristocracy were not angels but such behaviour did not have the sanction either of law or custom.


from my understanding the KING could do as he damned well pleased, as long as he did not tread to heavily on the Churches feet.

Also as you pointed out, the so called men of GOD were well known letchers.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
rom my understanding the KING could do as he damned well pleased, as long as he did not tread to heavily on the Churches feet.


In parts of Western Europe where Roman Law was the dominant legal system, there were limitations imposed by law on the behaviour of the feudal aristocracy. Remember that the period in history when such acts took place was the feudal age when even the king was not hios own man. While such acts may have happened, I still believe that law and custom imposed severe restrictions on thwe arbitrary excersise of power.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmm, I'm not sure if it is or not Elie. Although because of some movies I've seen with this very premise being a part of it, this could be true! Namely that movie starring Mel Gibson, Braveheart. And from stories that have been told of how much control the different sovreignty had before the church came into power, it couldn't be that far from the truth.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: foreverserenityPosted: Wednesday, April 26, 2006Hmm, I'm not sure if it is or not Elie. Although because of some movies I've seen with this very premise being a part of it, this could be true! Namely that movie starring Mel Gibson, Braveheart. And from stories that have been told of how much control the different sovreignty had before the church came into power, it couldn't be that far from the truth.


I have no idea if this is true or not donna, it sounded like fun to write about though.