When the Heir Could Not Be Struck
In some royal households, a tutor who could not safely beat a prince might punish a companion instead. The arrangement is often called the “whipping boy”: another child was made to suffer the consequence of the heir’s misbehavior, while the heir remained physically untouched.
The logic depended on the children’s closeness. A companion who learned alongside the prince could become a familiar presence, not an anonymous target. Punishing that child in front of the heir could make the prince feel responsible and encourage him to behave. It turned discipline into a lesson about consequences without requiring an adult to lay hands on someone whose body carried political significance.
Discipline by Proxy
This was not simply a rule that every royal heir had a designated substitute. Practices differed between courts and periods, and the familiar image of a formal, permanent office can make the arrangement sound more standardized than it was. The underlying problem was practical: royal status could limit a tutor’s authority, even when the prince still needed instruction and correction.
That limitation exposed a sharp divide between the heir and other children. The companion’s punishment was meant to shape the prince’s conduct, but the cost fell on a child with less protection. The lesson was indirect for the heir and immediate for the person punished in his place.
