[Artemisia] Richard the Lionheart
Stephanae Baker
stephanae at countryrhoades.net
Tue May 8 00:42:09 CDT 2007
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
>
More information about the Artemisia
mailing list