[Artemisia] Richard the Lionheart

Mon May 7 22:35:05 CDT 2007

Since Richard never consummated his marriage, sired no heirs, and prefered 
the company of young men, it might give a suggestion to his preference.  
Perhaps we overlook that when we draw of picture of him in our minds and we 
try to look for the good instead. Just an idea.
LadyLiz

>From: Stephanae Baker <stephanae at countryrhoades.net>
>Reply-To: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list 
><artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
>To: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
>Subject: Re: [Artemisia] Richard the Lionheart
>Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 19:57:37 -0600
>
>Dear Conrad:
>
>You seem offended by the idea that Richard's sexuality could have  
>something to do with his place in history and certainly to think it  has no 
>place in our discussion, so I'd like to respectfully present  some 
>arguments to the contrary.
>
>Roger of Hoveden (who went on the 3rd crusade with Richard) wrote the  
>following (translated from Latin by Boswell):
>
>     "Richard, [then] duke of Aquitaine, the son of the king of  England, 
>remained with Philip, the King of France, who so honored him  for so long 
>that they ate every day at the same table and from the  same dish, and at 
>night their beds did not separate them. And the  king of France loved him 
>as his own soul; and they loved each other  so much that the king of 
>England was absolutely astonished at the  passionate love between them and 
>marveled at it."
>
>I'm not going to argue that this quote proves Richard and Philip were  
>lovers. But there's also no way you can prove that Hovedon was NOT  
>implying (in a 12th century way) that they were lovers. My point is  that 
>verifiable facts in history are few and far between. If we can't  make 
>interpretations, there's no reason to talk about history at all  and we 
>will have to ignore verifiably period passages like the one I  quoted here, 
>because there's no way for us to draw undisputed  conclusions from them.
>
>To prove whether or not Richard's sexuality has to do with his place  in 
>history, you have to prove what his sexuality was, which you  can't. There 
>are credible arguments on both sides. On the other hand,  whether or not 
>Richard's PERCEIVED sexuality has anything to do with  his place in history 
>is unquestionable. He wouldn't be a hero to many  in the GLBT community if 
>someone somewhere didn't think he was gay-- whether or not he actually was. 
>So if "place in history" means "what  his actions meant to those around him 
>and what they still mean to  people who read or think about him" then his 
>sexuality is a very  important part of his place in history, at least in 
>one portion of  the population. In fact, no one would have brought the 
>topic up if  Richard's perceived sexuality weren't an interesting part of 
>what  Richard might mean to us.
>
>On those grounds, I think Richard's sexuality is as appropriate a  part of 
>this discussion as any other aspect of Richard.
>
>On a different note, I have to disagree with Morgan's assertion that  "the 
>notions of gay and straight [haven't] changed all that much." In  Richard's 
>time, men could sleep with men without ever being labeled  "gay." People 
>didn't define themselves by their sexuality in  Richard's time. Sleeping 
>with people of your own gender didn't  necessarily have to become a 
>defining part of who you were-- especially if you also happened to sleep 
>with people of the opposite  gender. Even though men have always slept with 
>men and women with  women, it was only in the middle of the last century 
>that "gays"  became an actual minority community.  It's probably one reason 
>we  can't actually pin Richard down to a "sexuality" in the modern sense.  
>I think that being a part of a minority community, that having to  figure 
>out at some point in your life if you are gay, straight, or  bisexual and 
>then be willing to wear that label, is a fundamental  difference. People 
>didn't come out of the closet in Richard's time.  There wasn't a closet. 
>There wasn't a place outside of the closet  either.
>
>Defining ourselves as a minority community has had both advantages  and 
>disadvantages for gays and lesbians, but that's another  discussion 
>entirely--about history well outside SCA period.
>
>Belladonna
>
>
>On May 7, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Chuck Heisler Jr. wrote:
>
>>Dear Morgan,
>>
>>   Just some defining,  I think pederast means 'boy lover', not  
>>homosexual.  I would certainly be interested in any documentation  you 
>>might have that confirms Richards homosexuality.  In point of  fact, I'd 
>>like to see any documentation from period that speaks to  his sexuality 
>>(regardless) at all.
>>
>>   So, if Richards sexuality has anything to do with his place in  
>>history, then it has a place in our discussion, otherwise, lets try  and 
>>judge him by recorded and verifiable facts.
>>
>>   Conrad von Z.
>>
>>morgan wolf <morganblaidddu at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>   Actually, I don't think the notions of gay and staright have  changed 
>>all that much. It is noted in more than one document from  the time that 
>>Richard was a "pederast", indicating in this case  that he preferred sex 
>>with men. In fact, it has been posited that  other than their wedding 
>>night, Richard never had sex with his  wife. Most of what I've read 
>>indicates that the authors (usually  monks) were amazed that Richard, who 
>>committed such a blatant sin  with regularity, was also obviously favored 
>>by God on the  battlefield. In fact, one could *almost* say that Richard 
>>was one  of the first gay rights advocates (along the lines of "if you 
>>don't  like it, let's fight and see who's right"). As for the "win a  
>>battle but never a war", remember that the whole "war" over the  western 
>>half of France went on for centuries, with no real winners.
>>
>>For a great picture of Richard as a person, read Sharon Kay  Penman's 
>>"Here Be Dragons".
>>
>>Morgan
>>
>>Side note- having heard for years the statement that the bible says  that 
>>homosexuality is a mortal sin, I actually took the time to  read the 
>>entire section of Ecclesiastes that refers to it, in the  actual Tanakh 
>>(the Old Testament, in the original hebrew form). If  you go back to the 
>>beginning, " a man who lies with a man" is  listed in the "unclean acts" 
>>section, for which the resolution is a  ritual bath. So in reality, the 
>>bible doesn't say homosexuals are  damned to hell, it just says they 
>>should take a shower and pray  before going to church, and that only 
>>applies to men, lesbians are  just fine as they are. :-D
>>
>>----- Original Message ----
>>From: Tamar Black Sea
>>To: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list
>>Sent: Monday, May 7, 2007 11:21:48 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Artemisia] Richard the Lionheart
>>
>>
>>The accountant in me is sputtering in frustration, "but, but, but  didn't
>>they get tired of having to pay several king's ransoms to bail Richard
>>out of jail?"
>>
>>Didn't they notice that he could win a battle but never a war?
>>
>>Doesn't somebody want the king to be around to actually
>>do the job once in a while?
>>
>>My modern sensibilities are reeling :-)
>>
>>Oh...and one last thought. I would guess that the medieval concept of
>>"gay" and "straight" might have been very different from our modern
>>notion. Wouldn't that have at least partly explained why the fact that
>>Richard was gay was ignored. Additionally, he would hardly have  been the
>>only king who didn't know, didn't like, and didn't spend much time  with
>>his wife.
>>
>>Thank you Morgan for your very well informed response. One of my
>>daughters is cheering.
>>
>>YIS,
>>Tamar
>>
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________________________________ 
>>______________
>>The fish are biting.
>>Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
>>http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
>>_______________________________________________
>>Artemisia mailing list
>>Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>>http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
>>  Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>>_______________________________________________
>>Artemisia mailing list
>>Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>>http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Artemisia mailing list
>Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia

_________________________________________________________________
More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507