Enric

Well, perhaps for different reasons than usual. I think he will ultimately feel it pretty fine, imo because he will not be obliged to settle down - instead he can continue his adventures in sea. It would, imo, be a strain for him, were he obliged to settle down to live with his wife - but that'd not happen, right. Quite possibly, he would not have even a real bad anxiety over the thing. seeing that the customs of the era do not require him to live in the home. The kid, since when old enough to have some understanding (= something like two or three), will probably love him and his visits. namely, in my experience, kids generally love the visits of their uncles. In that sense, 'will do just fine'. Of course, that is somewhat contrary to the requirements *our today era* sets for fatherhood.

well, he had not even known properly Louis XIV (being all too young for such), so he would not fully have known what was to be filled - rather, his knowledge of that was *hearsay* which in itself may be a problem. Of course, he was a lousy ruler - but, his great-grandpa had also been a lousy one... so, after all, he filled those shoes..

In this, I feel you are telling about some periods of middle ages, not the 18th century. The 18th-c marriage age was clearly higher, in general. The marriage age in western Europe experienced some profound change upwards some time before the 18th c. and, for the most part, 'die young' was not that common for 18th-c adult males who were married. [dying in his 40s is not young in my view...]

Well, it seems your feeling for an excellent father, would be one who is all the time away, in the navy, and quite wanting to do that and have adventures; and not ready to settle down to be present in his kids' life, on daily basis. However, there's a difference between on one hand being 'young uncle towards kids', visiting sometimes; and on the other hand being father and stably present.

Not that unreasonable. There are today 17-yo males who are very responsible. And there are today 17-yo males who are fathers. [responsibility does not necessarily ensue in all cases of fatherhood] It is not inappropriate to compare them with such 18th-c guys who were the same - and, btw, the number of such guys in 18th c was relatively small. For all I know, today there might even exist a few more of such than at a random moment of 18th c. On the other hand, knowing for example the fact that nutrition was poorer in general in 18th c, in the 18th century even the biological maturing of teenager boys was *generally* somewhat slower/ at belated years compared with today's - that slower biological development impacting (= slowing) their some emotional development too. So, perhaps even a tad bigger portion of 18th c 17-yo males was emotionally immaturer than today... All that said, I am fairly certain that a 17-yo boy (both 21st c and 18th c) will feel some trepidation if he becomes a father for the first time.

I am reading this story. There is no need for you to get rude. All the points you made (from inside the story), (none of them) do not mean that he necessarily were at an emotional level mature for fatherhood. And I do not say biologically, but emotionally. Those points you pointed out, mean rather that he is a good guy for a boyish young man. For example, many highly-noble teenagers were comfortable with kings - it just was about that they had known kings and royals throughout their young life. For example, *some* 17-yo guys are good leaders of other men. That does not mean maturity for fatherhood - which involves kids, such as infants. Some of your examples imo show that he is, rather, at an emotional level where he desires adventures, and does presumably not want to settle down. ---- There would be, imo, a serious credibility gap, were George presented TOO mature and 'psychologically middle-aged'. I haven't yet seen such a presentation, such a gap, in this story. Imo it'd be a mistake to conflate features of too different agednesses to one character, as much as that character is the protagonist. Sometimes some authors would make their hero character to be 'everything'.

And that maturity (if true) is, imo, a miracle which borders to implausibility. 17-yo guys were in those days not usually mature enough to be at the emotional level ready for fatherhood. It caused tensions. Please read how it was with king Louis XV of France and his eldest son, the dauphin. In my opinion, George is still emotionally fairly boyish, and 'on prowl'. He would imo feel somewhat caught, were he to settle to take care of a kid or kids. However, fortunately for this, he will be a lot absent, being in ship. His visits to 'home' would probably feel just good to him, because that home is not tying him down. He would, in my prediction, behave a lot like a young uncle to his kids. Life would be playing and gaming with his kids, not the grave business of taking care as settled father. That, of course, puts his wife to the unenviable position of 'single' caregiver, the parent who IS present. By the way, the peripathetic lives of many husbands in earlier centuries - as well as polygyny (several wives each in separate hut with kids birthed by her) another custom of earlier centuries in many places - were things which made the father's role approximately as like this. Of course, if you mean by 'make great father' that he will behave like a young uncle towards his kids, then....

I dunno if that is in any way a problem - IF 17-yo guys were allowed to marry. I assume his birthday IS between November and May. After all, in that case he is 17. Is it a problem ? alternatively, you'd need to make him to be born in 1775, thusly be 16 (not 15) when he came to Barracuda, and 18 wen he married. wouldn't the easiest fix be that he started to serve in books since 1787, when he was 11 yo ???

In October 1791, George was fifteen years old. Not yet sixteen. Now, on 1 June 1793, he could not be more than seventeen years old. "about to turn eighteen" And, to be seventeen, his birthday needs to be between October and May. IF his birthday were in June-October, he could not be more than sixteen, which would be pretty inconsistent with him turning soon 18 Seemingly the church agreed to perform the matrimony of a 17-yo young man. Since George started his service technically in autumntime of 1788, on 1 June 1793 he has not yet served full five years. Rather, his lieutenancy commission was after a service of some 4

George should have kids, now, when he still has the performance *somehow* with a female. Although, he possibly is tad too young for becoming a father at the emotional level. Still, kids are a nice thing, *for the future*. Lots of gays worship their nieces and nephews, due to having no real possibility to have kids of their own loins.

I observe that he always is having images of men in his mind in order to 'perform' to full climax with Caroline, herself a woman. Knowing that a teenager (George is still a teenager) has erections and climaxes on account of something warm, or with two feet.... But that will decrease when getting more years. His performance with *women*, when say in his thirties, will not be too promising Of course, there's then always the method of anal stimulation. Actually, this problem setting resembles quite a lot of the well-known phenomenon of 'two bottoms'. As I recall having heard, theirs is often -but only mechanics, not emotions- greatly helped by the simple implement of two-pronged dildo.

sad. I so much more like the late-medieval centuries when a young, good-looking noble youngster might (easily) have become a dubbed knight at an approximate age of 19 I think the Stuart kings were still in the business of knighting teenagers, sometimes. Even the heterosexual Stuarts, not only James VI & I. So, the blame is upon the Hanoverians a foul lot, for any throne and this George III was not even having a gay son, afaik. bad.

It most certainly was done in a civilized society. In fact, in most (probably all) of the civilized royal courts.

cute story. I am feeling a bit bad that the guy is getting married with a female. I know that the era was such.... (although, as Englishman, George *could* have become the eccentric uncle who was bachelor Still, I pessimistically see all sorts of complications and disappointments for George's presumedly long life, being tied to a female. There's also the problem that in long term, a gay guy will have difficulties to sustain any hard-on with a female Though, the old, historical recipe of course had been anal stimulation during the action. ? Would Caroline accept in the future that her husband has a male bugger on his back, when siring children to Caroline. I mean, in the very same bedroom, in the very act... in other words, a threesome.

I am wondering, how could a severe concussion and loss of blood make someone a bed patient for weeks or even some months ? My reading did not reveal to me of any other wound for George, but I assume severe concussion. and the loss of blood was mentioned in the story. Concussion should imo not impact much (nor long) the functioning of the body - as opposed to brains... However, George's brains were not malfunctioning after a short while. so, why is the story having him something like half-paralyzed ? (I must add that i am no doctor, so my above comment comes from solely some intuitive thoughts of mine, with NO medical qualifications) --- btw, shouldn't the king be knighting the young George for this valor (and spilled blood) ? sons of noblemen tended to get an early knighting in some centuries' tradition...

I loved this.

I have a difficulty to believe that the English were having a tekegraph in use already in 1792 or 1793. The French revolutionaries were installing a telegraph sometime around 1792, but afaik it was the first in the world. And it should not have been fully functioning to all difficult places by 1793, rather it took time.... the English were, afaik, not rapid in adopting any of that. In other words, not in those yerars yet, surely.