[Artemisia] Richard the Lionheart
Becki Child
ladyliz1313 at hotmail.com
Tue May 8 00:43:06 CDT 2007
Thank you for your graciousness. I certainly didn't mean that one was good
and the other bad. It's late and at times, my mind is a bit of a blur . I
guess whatever is said either way, is the fact that Richard has fascinated
us for centuries and will probably continue to do so.
LadyLiz - who is no heading to bed
>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 23:42:09 -0600
>
>Dear Lady Liz,
>
>I was right with you until "we try to look for the good instead." I think
>people who want to believe Richard was straight can find supporting
>evidence and blind themselves to other possibilities. I think people who
>want to believe he was gay can find supporting evidence and blind
>themselves to other possibilities. So I'm just going to pretend that I
>didn't infer "good equals straight" and "bad equals gay" from the rest of
>your sentence, because I'm sure that's not what you meant.
>
>Lady Belladonna
>
>
>On May 7, 2007, at 10:35 PM, Becki Child wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
_________________________________________________________________
Catch suspicious messages before you open them—with Windows Live Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507
More information about the Artemisia
mailing list