[Artemisia] Richard the Lionheart

[TClayton]

The only bit of documentation that I am aware of that seems to point to 
Richard engaging in homosexual acts refers to a warning he received from the 
Church saying to forebear from "The sins of Sodom". These "sins"are often 
associated today with homosexuality, but many theologians will argue that in 
the period (and maybe today) what they refer to is rape in general.
    His lack of any heir from Queen Berengaria is often pointed at, but to 
have an heir, you must at least reside in the same country, which they did 
not. In fact, they rarely ever saw each other and married with out ever 
meeting before hand. It was a marriage of political alliance only.
    There are many tales of his womanizing however. I had mentioned the 
nature of his death, which is well documented. The only illegitimate son he 
recognized was Philip of Cognac.
-----Ralph, Rex Artemisia
-------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck Heisler Jr." <conradvz at yahoo.com>
To: "Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list" <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Artemisia] Richard the Lionheart


> 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