I maintain that being a mistress with benefits such as it is implied that Irene got, and that I know Gram got, cause I inherited some of it, is still sex work

But being a wife with benefits isn't? I don't think it's inherent to the situation, it's about how it's implemented/considered by the people involved.

But being a wife with benefits isn't? I don't think it's inherent to the situation, it's about how it's implemented/considered by the people involved.

No, not really. Well, in my more cynical moments, yes, but there's more job security and if divorce is a rarity, then less of a power imbalance in certain respects. Plus, generally, duties above and beyond giving up the honey.

Plus, generally, duties above and beyond giving up the honey.

I don't know how your grandmother worked it, but is it the being a mistress part that makes you call it sex work, or being unmarried? I have known people falling into both categories who do more than just have sex, so I'm curious about where your lines fall.

I don't know how your grandmother worked it, but is it the being a mistress part that makes you call it sex work, or being unmarried? I have known people falling into both categories who do more than just have sex, so I'm curious about where your lines fall.

I'm not 100% sure where they fall, because I think they may be blurry. Gram's long-term fellow was married, Gram didn't have to support herself while she was with him, he took her travelling, bought her cars and shiny objects. She probably never considered it sex work herself. I, on the other hand, do. She was getting material goods in exchange for companionship.

(This is not to say that the material goods were all she was getting out of it. I just think in terms of why she kept up with the relationship when it became clear she was only ever going to be a kept woman, well, they were a motivating factor.)

(It should also be noted that I don't think there's anything morally wrong about sex work.)

who clued Irene into the fact that, if the king hired an agent, it would be Sherlock Holmes?

While the text doesn't say (I don't think), I have a theory. I think it's reasonable for Irene to assume the king would try to get the picture back, and quite likely outsource the project, since the king probably wasn't free to poke all around London on his own. Also, the King of Bohemia wouldn't necessarily know his way around London to the extent that he could hunt someone down directly.

I tend to assume that Irene tailed the king (or had someone else do so) to 221B Baker St. and asked who the resident was. Holmes was a known detective at the time (within the text, if not yet a famous character throughout the Empire, although two novels had been published before "Scandal"), hence the king hiring him.

This is what the text says:

You really did it very well. You took me in completely. Until after the alarm of fire, I had not a suspicion. But then, when I found how I had betrayed myself, I began to think. I had been warned against you months ago. I had been told that if the King employed an agent it would certainly be you. And your address had been given me. Yet, with all this, you made me reveal what you wanted to know. Even after I became suspicious, I found it hard to think evil of such a dear, kind old clergyman. But, you know, I have been trained as an actress myself. Male costume is nothing new to me. I often take advantage of the freedom which it gives. I sent John, the coachman, to watch you, ran upstairs, got into my walking-clothes, as I call them, and came down just as you departed. Well, I followed you to your door, and so made sure that I was really an object of interest to the celebrated Mr. Sherlock Holmes. Then I, rather imprudently, wished you good-night, and started for the Temple to see my husband.

It's sad that I know the text well enough that I can pull up an e-version and search for specific sentences, for the record. There are far more important things I should be remembering.

Oh, so there was textual evidence she'd been warned specifically about Holmes. Cool. (I haven't read it since ~1990 or so.) You were wondering who specifically had warned her?

PMM, I'm reading between your lines, so smack me down if needed, but why is it sex work if someone you're not married to (if you haven't specified their emotional relationship, I'm just assuming it's not relevant) supports you, but not sex work if you marry them and they provide exactly the same sort of support? You haven't put a restriction on what the kept woman is providing for the keeper, just that there's a wife in the picture too, so she's not providing a marriage certificate, and whatever she's giving, someone else might be giving something in the same arena.

You say she was "only" going to be a kept woman, as if there's a hierarchy in which she fell short of an acceptable or desirable goal. If you are implying that, whose hierarchy is it? Hers, yours, or society's?