The Whipping Boy

The idea of a whipping boy (an individual who acted as a surrogate for a prince or young king in enduring punishments in his stead) can be traced through several literary and historical sources, but there is no consensus on whether or not this practice ever occurred. Most sources that mention whipping boys emerge in Western European countries in the early modern period, from roughly the mid-16th to the mid-18th centuries; but again, the practice itself is nebulous and largely grounded in what experts do know of social expectations and standards in a given culture and time.

For many upper-class boys, corporal punishment such as beating or whipping could be implemented by tutors if a pupil misbehaved or proved inattentive. Among wealthy families, the education of children, especially sons, was largely conducted by specialized tutors (not the parents themselves). As a result, tutors would often spend the most time with a family’s children and have to deal with their misbehavior. However, this dynamic created tension within societies that were highly conscious of social rank. While tutors were highly educated, they were typically lower-ranked than the pupils they were employed to teach (evidenced by the fact that tutors had to work for money). Thus, allowing a tutor to beat their pupil is a transgression in which a social inferior inflicts physical harm on a social superior. Given that the elite represented a small percentage of the population and relied on the compliance of individuals within their household staff, it was dangerous to open the door to physical reprisal.

When it came to royalty, the stakes were even higher, as the rationale for a monarchy sometimes rested on the divine right of kings to hold absolute authority. Most of the documentation concerning possible whipping boys occurs in the context of princes or young kings. Some historians believe that whipping boys would have only been utilized in the case of a young king, and not for princes or other elite boys. Erasmus, a Dutch philosopher and theologian, wrote a guidebook in 1516 called The Education of a Christian Prince, offering recommendations and guidelines on how to best educate princes so they would become benevolent and effective rulers; he argues that physical punishment is inappropriate and ineffective, but doesn’t discuss whether such punishment was typically applied to the pupil, or their surrogates.

King Edward VI of England and King James VI of Scotland (later James I, who ruled over both England and Scotland) are two royal figures who are often linked to the use of whipping boys. Edward VI was the only son of Henry VIII, and received an extensive education, especially since he would be the first Protestant-born King of England and head of the newly-inaugurated Church of England; he became king in 1547 at age 9, and ruled until 1553. James VI became the King of Scotland in 1567, when he was only an infant, and in 1603 he became the ruler of both England and Scotland as James I. Being so young when they became rulers, Edward VI and James VI using whipping boys makes logical sense.

One notable literary source describing the figure of the whipping boy is the 1604 play When You See Me You Know Me by English playwright Samuel Rowley. The play focuses on King Henry VIII, but also depicts the childhood and education of his son Prince Edward (who eventually ruled as King Edward VI). Rowley depicts a young boy being whipped in proxy punishment for the prince’s misbehavior, and King Henry VIII later knighting the boy as a reward. Historical novels by Walter Scott and Mark Twain also depict whipping boys acting as surrogates for James VI of Scotland and Edward VI, respectively.

Interestingly, Rowley’s play was published roughly one year after the 1603 London publication of a short treatise written by King James VI. Originally written and published in Scotland in 1598, “The True Law of Free Monarchies” focused on the divine right of kings as ordained by God, rather than framing their authority through laws or social contracts. This was a significant statement from King James VI at the time, as there had been debate and controversy about the limits of a monarch’s authority. The presence of a whipping boy in Rowley’s play may reflect this doctrine of divine right, since striking a boy chosen by God would not just be a transgression against the social order, but a possible defiance of the divine order.

Other debates about whipping boys include whether the role of whipping boy was a privileged one, and whether or not a prince or young king would have had an emotional bond with his whipping boy. Most sources that reference a boy being beaten or whipped on behalf of royalty frame him as an aristocratic companion (not a lower-class servant), or a close friend even. The pain of seeing one’s friend suffer physical punishment seems to have been part of what made this practice an incentive to behave. Because of the proximity and ability to form a close bond with royalty, the role of whipping boy would have likely been a coveted opportunity, not the low-ranking position depicted in The Whipping Boy.