18: PIONEERING AS A POLYGYNIST
I had identified my personal inclinations as being of a polygynous nature. I had also convinced myself that the European culture is gradually switching over from being a monogamous society to a polymorphous society, where the emphasis in effect will be for the mother, (not the father,) to select whatever family form might suit her the best. So despite the fact that I was a mere man, my pioneering instinct now came into play, urging me to channel my sex life into this task of fronting that evolution. This is because I do happen to be temperamentally suited to such a role. The requirement of a pioneer is to be enormously bold, to enjoy the dangers that are involved in the exploit, while having worked towards a vividly imaginative understanding of the unknown territory that requires to be explored. I believed myself to be the right person for the task.
The first public statement which denoted my rejection of the official marital formula was in 1966, when I announced that I was having `an anti-marriage' with the young girl with whom I was currently living. It wasn't intended as a significant pronouncement, but the tabloids had been badgering me to declare whether marriage was in fact intended in this relationship, so it was in a spirit of exasperation that I finally pronounced that we were getting anti-married; and the phrase got slotted into some journalists' jargon for the sixties - to which they added the phrase an anti-divorce when the girl announced that she was leaving me. (We are still excellent friends!)
The idea of it having been an anti-marriage was perhaps misplaced. I knew from the start that I would always need to marry one day, if I should ever wish that any son of mine would ever enjoy the Longleat inheritance, for it happens to be entailed upon the marquisate; and there is no manner for me to produce a son and heir who would (after my decease) become the 8th Marquess of Bath, without him producing the necessary documents to prove that his mother and I had been legally married at the time of his birth. So a legal marriage with someone or other had always been intended since I ever first gave thought to the subject.
There was one particular girlfriend, Anna, who had occasionally been coming to stay with me, (or to travel abroad with me,) since the time when I had been at art school in Paris, back in 1959. She had been a mere schoolgirl at the time, but had been living with me in the studio I was currently renting in the Rue de la Grande Chaumiere. In the sixties she had met and married someone else, although her visits to Longleat had continued over this period. And at the time when she was contemplating a divorce, back in 1968, it was also weighing heavily on me that (at the age of 36,) I had yet to produce a son and heir for Longleat. What inhibited me however was that I still aspired to build up a family on polygynous lines, with many wives and many children from each of them. So it was important for me that, before taking that dreaded step into official wedlock, that my future wife should clearly understand and accept my further intentions in these matters.
As my solicitor explained to me, signed agreements have little relevance if I was seeking to rearrange and reinterpret the prevalent institution of marriage - or not if a divorce were ever under consideration. But I did draw up a written list of points that were verbally agreed between Anna and myself, concerning the nature of the marital union upon which we were considering embarkation. The list may have been more concerned with questions of property rights, but it was certainly also agreed that she accepted my polygynous intents, provided (admittedly) that I would leave her to decide in her own time and way, whether she might wish to participate actively within whatever polygynous practices I might successfully bring to fruition. She did indicate that she thought she might be amenable to participation within such practices, once she felt secure in the marriage and in the tenure of the manorial responsibilities.
As soon as we had a child on the way I married Anna. The baby turned out to be a beautiful and delightful girl; and we had to wait an additional five years before acquiring the intended son and heir. But in the meantime I was continuing with the task of accumulating my family group of lady friends, whom I always hoped to persuade to have children by me, but in practice they merely toyed with the idea, since they remained dubious concerning what the fate of such children might be.
As time progressed some of these relationships proved long-standing, and the question arose as to the correct word to describe our degree of intimacy and togetherness. Legally speaking they weren't my wives; nor would my wife have settled for them being allotted that description. But if I had started talking about my concubines or mistresses, it might have been regarded by some as a disparagement. So we settled eventually for the humorous and affectionate term of `wifelets', from which of course it followed suit that I must be one of their `hublets'.
I do now have a love-child from one of them, although I feel obliged to respect her wishes for me to refrain from revealing their names or whereabouts. But I can at least regard this as a belated start to my family intent. So I may yet go on to demonstrate, by example, how the polygynous family unit is just as valid as its monogamous counterpart for the upbringing of a healthy (socially positive and culturally catalytic) brood of children within our European civilisation. At the age of 68, there might still be time!