[Artemisia] Richard the Lionheart

[Stephanae Baker]

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
>