Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 00:02:31
Eileen wrote:
> I believe that as the youngest son, he was not
entitled to
> inherit anything from his father's Will, Henry ll
resulting
> in his nickname 'Lackland'. I have always thought
he was a
> nasty piece of work but someone said on this forum
he was
> not all bad and in fact done some good. I have not
looked
> into it further.
I haven't studied that period in-depth either, but I
can tell you this much: the taxes that made John so
splendiferously unpopular? They were unavoidable,
because dear Couer de Lion emptied England's coffers
to finance his crusades and left a penniless England
for his brother to run.
From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
as the bad guy? Hah!
Their father was a piece of work, too- he was the one
who gave John the 'lackland' nickname. Isn't that a
nice thing to do to your own son?
Growing up around those two was probably enough to
make anyone a little wonky.
Rogue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
> I believe that as the youngest son, he was not
entitled to
> inherit anything from his father's Will, Henry ll
resulting
> in his nickname 'Lackland'. I have always thought
he was a
> nasty piece of work but someone said on this forum
he was
> not all bad and in fact done some good. I have not
looked
> into it further.
I haven't studied that period in-depth either, but I
can tell you this much: the taxes that made John so
splendiferously unpopular? They were unavoidable,
because dear Couer de Lion emptied England's coffers
to finance his crusades and left a penniless England
for his brother to run.
From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
as the bad guy? Hah!
Their father was a piece of work, too- he was the one
who gave John the 'lackland' nickname. Isn't that a
nice thing to do to your own son?
Growing up around those two was probably enough to
make anyone a little wonky.
Rogue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 02:12:11
john is/was a victim of propaganda just like richard. the research i've done on him is that he was a good king. his problems began when he stood up to pope innocence iii. john wanted john de grey bishop of norwich to be archbishop of canterbury. the pope wanted stephen langdon. john and john de grey were both excommunicated.
additionally, all of england was put under interdict by the pope. no legal marriages, baptisms, burial rites etc. all religious ceremonies were off the table.
king john finally let the pope have his way because of the pressure from the people/nobles and commoners. there was a lot of animosity over this period. fights with the barons/peers. and poof the magna charta.
john died within a few years of that. it is rumoured he was poisoned by a monk. it is also said john was a werewolf and his body was disinterred for this reason.
john is almost as fascinating as richard.
good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his legal marriage.
pope innocent iii was a power hungry jerk, much like the borgia pope, only not quite as hedonistic.
--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Rogue <roguefem@...> wrote:
From: Rogue <roguefem@...>
Subject: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To:
Received: Monday, July 7, 2008, 7:02 PM
Eileen wrote:
> I believe that as the youngest son, he was not
entitled to
> inherit anything from his father's Will, Henry ll
resulting
> in his nickname 'Lackland'. I have always thought
he was a
> nasty piece of work but someone said on this forum
he was
> not all bad and in fact done some good. I have not
looked
> into it further.
I haven't studied that period in-depth either, but I
can tell you this much: the taxes that made John so
splendiferously unpopular? They were unavoidable,
because dear Couer de Lion emptied England's coffers
to finance his crusades and left a penniless England
for his brother to run.
From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
as the bad guy? Hah!
Their father was a piece of work, too- he was the one
who gave John the 'lackland' nickname. Isn't that a
nice thing to do to your own son?
Growing up around those two was probably enough to
make anyone a little wonky.
Rogue
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanima lrescuesite. com
additionally, all of england was put under interdict by the pope. no legal marriages, baptisms, burial rites etc. all religious ceremonies were off the table.
king john finally let the pope have his way because of the pressure from the people/nobles and commoners. there was a lot of animosity over this period. fights with the barons/peers. and poof the magna charta.
john died within a few years of that. it is rumoured he was poisoned by a monk. it is also said john was a werewolf and his body was disinterred for this reason.
john is almost as fascinating as richard.
good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his legal marriage.
pope innocent iii was a power hungry jerk, much like the borgia pope, only not quite as hedonistic.
--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Rogue <roguefem@...> wrote:
From: Rogue <roguefem@...>
Subject: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To:
Received: Monday, July 7, 2008, 7:02 PM
Eileen wrote:
> I believe that as the youngest son, he was not
entitled to
> inherit anything from his father's Will, Henry ll
resulting
> in his nickname 'Lackland'. I have always thought
he was a
> nasty piece of work but someone said on this forum
he was
> not all bad and in fact done some good. I have not
looked
> into it further.
I haven't studied that period in-depth either, but I
can tell you this much: the taxes that made John so
splendiferously unpopular? They were unavoidable,
because dear Couer de Lion emptied England's coffers
to finance his crusades and left a penniless England
for his brother to run.
From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
as the bad guy? Hah!
Their father was a piece of work, too- he was the one
who gave John the 'lackland' nickname. Isn't that a
nice thing to do to your own son?
Growing up around those two was probably enough to
make anyone a little wonky.
Rogue
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanima lrescuesite. com
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 02:35:54
--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > I believe that as the youngest son, he was not
> entitled to
> > inherit anything from his father's Will, Henry ll
> resulting
> > in his nickname 'Lackland'.
It wasn't that he was not entitled to inherit, it was just that all of
Henry II's lands had already been dealt out to the older sons before
John, the last child, was born.
> I haven't studied that period in-depth either, but I
> can tell you this much: the taxes that made John so
> splendiferously unpopular? They were unavoidable,
> because dear Couer de Lion emptied England's coffers
> to finance his crusades and left a penniless England
> for his brother to run.
>
> From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
> brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
> even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
> crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
> as the bad guy? Hah!
As always, it wasn't that simple.
>
> Their father was a piece of work, too- he was the one
> who gave John the 'lackland' nickname. Isn't that a
> nice thing to do to your own son?
I doubt that being "nice" was one of Henry II's preoccupations. He
had a famous hair-trigger temper that he used to intimidate, and he
kept his queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, imprisoned for sixteen years,
until John set her free upon Henry's death. Eleanor was quite a
character herself. I think anyone would find this period of English
history fascinating reading.
>
> Growing up around those two was probably enough to
> make anyone a little wonky.
One should be cautious about imposing the viewpoints and standards of
our time upon another era. Even the language has shifted, and while
the people of 500 or 700 years ago may use the same words we use
today, when you factor that in as well as slang and euphemisms and
references to contemporary events that may have been completely lost
to history, we may know what they said but be much less certain of
what they meant.
Katy
wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > I believe that as the youngest son, he was not
> entitled to
> > inherit anything from his father's Will, Henry ll
> resulting
> > in his nickname 'Lackland'.
It wasn't that he was not entitled to inherit, it was just that all of
Henry II's lands had already been dealt out to the older sons before
John, the last child, was born.
> I haven't studied that period in-depth either, but I
> can tell you this much: the taxes that made John so
> splendiferously unpopular? They were unavoidable,
> because dear Couer de Lion emptied England's coffers
> to finance his crusades and left a penniless England
> for his brother to run.
>
> From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
> brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
> even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
> crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
> as the bad guy? Hah!
As always, it wasn't that simple.
>
> Their father was a piece of work, too- he was the one
> who gave John the 'lackland' nickname. Isn't that a
> nice thing to do to your own son?
I doubt that being "nice" was one of Henry II's preoccupations. He
had a famous hair-trigger temper that he used to intimidate, and he
kept his queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, imprisoned for sixteen years,
until John set her free upon Henry's death. Eleanor was quite a
character herself. I think anyone would find this period of English
history fascinating reading.
>
> Growing up around those two was probably enough to
> make anyone a little wonky.
One should be cautious about imposing the viewpoints and standards of
our time upon another era. Even the language has shifted, and while
the people of 500 or 700 years ago may use the same words we use
today, when you factor that in as well as slang and euphemisms and
references to contemporary events that may have been completely lost
to history, we may know what they said but be much less certain of
what they meant.
Katy
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 10:34:39
Richard is originally a German name so somewhere there has to be a German connection in the Plantagenet family but I've yet to find it. Or maybe like all mothers Eleanor of Aquitaine just heard it and liked it.
,
As to Richard III being named after Richard I, maybe in a roundabout way, but its more likely that he was called Richard, because it is an old family name for the Nevilles and his father's name. After all did you call your children after a distant relative that lvied over 200 years ago!!
vicki
,
As to Richard III being named after Richard I, maybe in a roundabout way, but its more likely that he was called Richard, because it is an old family name for the Nevilles and his father's name. After all did you call your children after a distant relative that lvied over 200 years ago!!
vicki
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 11:51:53
On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
> legal marriage.
Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
could he?
Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
writers about him having been churchmen.
Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
Paul
> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
> legal marriage.
Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
could he?
Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
writers about him having been churchmen.
Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
Paul
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 11:52:59
Well said Katy!
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:35, oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that as the youngest son, he was not
>> entitled to
>>> inherit anything from his father's Will, Henry ll
>> resulting
>>> in his nickname 'Lackland'.
>
>
> It wasn't that he was not entitled to inherit, it was just that all of
> Henry II's lands had already been dealt out to the older sons before
> John, the last child, was born.
>
>
>> I haven't studied that period in-depth either, but I
>> can tell you this much: the taxes that made John so
>> splendiferously unpopular? They were unavoidable,
>> because dear Couer de Lion emptied England's coffers
>> to finance his crusades and left a penniless England
>> for his brother to run.
>>
>> From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
>> brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
>> even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
>> crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
>> as the bad guy? Hah!
>
> As always, it wasn't that simple.
>>
>> Their father was a piece of work, too- he was the one
>> who gave John the 'lackland' nickname. Isn't that a
>> nice thing to do to your own son?
>
>
> I doubt that being "nice" was one of Henry II's preoccupations. He
> had a famous hair-trigger temper that he used to intimidate, and he
> kept his queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, imprisoned for sixteen years,
> until John set her free upon Henry's death. Eleanor was quite a
> character herself. I think anyone would find this period of English
> history fascinating reading.
>>
>> Growing up around those two was probably enough to
>> make anyone a little wonky.
>
>
> One should be cautious about imposing the viewpoints and standards of
> our time upon another era. Even the language has shifted, and while
> the people of 500 or 700 years ago may use the same words we use
> today, when you factor that in as well as slang and euphemisms and
> references to contemporary events that may have been completely lost
> to history, we may know what they said but be much less certain of
> what they meant.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:35, oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that as the youngest son, he was not
>> entitled to
>>> inherit anything from his father's Will, Henry ll
>> resulting
>>> in his nickname 'Lackland'.
>
>
> It wasn't that he was not entitled to inherit, it was just that all of
> Henry II's lands had already been dealt out to the older sons before
> John, the last child, was born.
>
>
>> I haven't studied that period in-depth either, but I
>> can tell you this much: the taxes that made John so
>> splendiferously unpopular? They were unavoidable,
>> because dear Couer de Lion emptied England's coffers
>> to finance his crusades and left a penniless England
>> for his brother to run.
>>
>> From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
>> brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
>> even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
>> crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
>> as the bad guy? Hah!
>
> As always, it wasn't that simple.
>>
>> Their father was a piece of work, too- he was the one
>> who gave John the 'lackland' nickname. Isn't that a
>> nice thing to do to your own son?
>
>
> I doubt that being "nice" was one of Henry II's preoccupations. He
> had a famous hair-trigger temper that he used to intimidate, and he
> kept his queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, imprisoned for sixteen years,
> until John set her free upon Henry's death. Eleanor was quite a
> character herself. I think anyone would find this period of English
> history fascinating reading.
>>
>> Growing up around those two was probably enough to
>> make anyone a little wonky.
>
>
> One should be cautious about imposing the viewpoints and standards of
> our time upon another era. Even the language has shifted, and while
> the people of 500 or 700 years ago may use the same words we use
> today, when you factor that in as well as slang and euphemisms and
> references to contemporary events that may have been completely lost
> to history, we may know what they said but be much less certain of
> what they meant.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 12:06:25
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
> > good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
> > bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
> > legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
Paul
Oh come on Paul, I dont think that was meant at all!
>
>
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
Excellent idea - Can anyone think of any topics they would like discussed?
Eileen
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
> > good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
> > bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
> > legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
Paul
Oh come on Paul, I dont think that was meant at all!
>
>
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
Excellent idea - Can anyone think of any topics they would like discussed?
Eileen
>
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 13:32:19
amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this forum for a couple of years now.
perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and inane comments before i have finished reading them.
people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just not common knowledge.
lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this mean the bible condones incest?
paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To:
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
> legal marriage.
Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
could he?
Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
writers about him having been churchmen.
Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
Paul
perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and inane comments before i have finished reading them.
people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just not common knowledge.
lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this mean the bible condones incest?
paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To:
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
> legal marriage.
Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
could he?
Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
writers about him having been churchmen.
Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
Paul
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 16:34:06
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who ordered
the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just not common
knowledge.
I think that it's interesting to discuss all kinds of topics, even (or
maybe especially) controversial ones. In a calm intellectual manner,
needless to say. Sometimes the topic is relevant to history, and
sometimes it is a so what, and very often it is impossible to come to
a definite yes or no conclusion. That's why such topics are still
being debated and why they come up over and over.
Although it is admittedly off-topic in the Richard III forum, one
could discuss Richard I's sexual bent because it had consequences for
the kingdom. If he had left an heir, and he survived to adulthood,
the succession probably would have been different. There are many many
places where history turned on a very small axis, and they're all
interesting things to study. So one could study the period in which R
I lived and look for evidence about his sexuality, and possibly draw a
conclusion, and present it here. Otherwise, it's another so what.
The idea that R I was homosexual rests on rather slim evidence. There
is an account that he and the King of France slept together on one
occasion. "Slept together" -- wink-wink, we know what that means.
We know what that is a euphemism for in our own era. But in the 12th
century, what did it mean? As I recall, this occurred not at some
well-furnished castle of residence but at a temporary location, and
there was probably only one bed, or one bed fit for a king. Giving it
up to Louis would have indicated that Richard felt the French king was
superior and more worthy of it; sending Louis to bunk elsewhere while
Richard luxuriated in the bed would have been an insult. Treaties
have been broken and wars declared over lesser gaffes.
Anyway, I think we should be free to discuss whatever we wish in this
forum, if it is relevant to the mission statement -- the life and
times of Richard III -- and if it is presented with evidence, not as a
pontification, and if it is done in a civil manner that reflects well
on us all.
Katy
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who ordered
the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just not common
knowledge.
I think that it's interesting to discuss all kinds of topics, even (or
maybe especially) controversial ones. In a calm intellectual manner,
needless to say. Sometimes the topic is relevant to history, and
sometimes it is a so what, and very often it is impossible to come to
a definite yes or no conclusion. That's why such topics are still
being debated and why they come up over and over.
Although it is admittedly off-topic in the Richard III forum, one
could discuss Richard I's sexual bent because it had consequences for
the kingdom. If he had left an heir, and he survived to adulthood,
the succession probably would have been different. There are many many
places where history turned on a very small axis, and they're all
interesting things to study. So one could study the period in which R
I lived and look for evidence about his sexuality, and possibly draw a
conclusion, and present it here. Otherwise, it's another so what.
The idea that R I was homosexual rests on rather slim evidence. There
is an account that he and the King of France slept together on one
occasion. "Slept together" -- wink-wink, we know what that means.
We know what that is a euphemism for in our own era. But in the 12th
century, what did it mean? As I recall, this occurred not at some
well-furnished castle of residence but at a temporary location, and
there was probably only one bed, or one bed fit for a king. Giving it
up to Louis would have indicated that Richard felt the French king was
superior and more worthy of it; sending Louis to bunk elsewhere while
Richard luxuriated in the bed would have been an insult. Treaties
have been broken and wars declared over lesser gaffes.
Anyway, I think we should be free to discuss whatever we wish in this
forum, if it is relevant to the mission statement -- the life and
times of Richard III -- and if it is presented with evidence, not as a
pontification, and if it is done in a civil manner that reflects well
on us all.
Katy
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 16:56:35
--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyway, I think we should be free to discuss whatever we wish in this
> forum, if it is relevant to the mission statement -- the life and
> times of Richard III -- and if it is presented with evidence, not as a
> pontification, and if it is done in a civil manner that reflects well
> on us all.
>
> Katy
I agree Katy - as I have said before, if you do not like a topic/or you think it is
rubbish/boring..... delete it - simple! And please, instead of scathing remarks start of a
new topic which you are interested in. Its no wonder people go off on a tangent if there is
a dearth of topics on Ricardian matters. I just cannot understand why people have to be
so rude sometimes, its really is not on....
Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyway, I think we should be free to discuss whatever we wish in this
> forum, if it is relevant to the mission statement -- the life and
> times of Richard III -- and if it is presented with evidence, not as a
> pontification, and if it is done in a civil manner that reflects well
> on us all.
>
> Katy
I agree Katy - as I have said before, if you do not like a topic/or you think it is
rubbish/boring..... delete it - simple! And please, instead of scathing remarks start of a
new topic which you are interested in. Its no wonder people go off on a tangent if there is
a dearth of topics on Ricardian matters. I just cannot understand why people have to be
so rude sometimes, its really is not on....
Eileen
>
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 17:36:34
oregonkaty wrote:
> It wasn't that he was not entitled to inherit, it
> was just that all of Henry II's lands had already
> been dealt out to the older sons before John,
> the last child, was born.
Yes, as youngest son, he wasn't entitled to inherit the
lands because his eldest brothers were already the
heirs. Which is exactly what Eileen said.
>> From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
>> brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
>> even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
>> crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
>> as the bad guy? Hah!
> As always, it wasn't that simple.
Then why don't you elaborate?
> One should be cautious about imposing the
> viewpoints and standards of our time upon
> another era. Even the language has
> shifted, and while the people of 500 or
> 700 years ago may use the same words we
> use today, when you factor that in as well
> as slang and euphemisms and references to
> contemporary events that may have been
> completely lost to history, we may know
> what they said but be much less certain
> of what they meant.
No! Really? Next you're going to tell me Richard III
didn't have an iPod. Shocking!
I have studied history enough to know full well the
difference between modern viewpoints and those of
past times, as I'm sure most of the people on this
list have. Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but
saying something that obvious to someone on a list of
people who study history for at least an enthusiastic
hobby, if not a living comes, across as patronizing.
Rogue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
> It wasn't that he was not entitled to inherit, it
> was just that all of Henry II's lands had already
> been dealt out to the older sons before John,
> the last child, was born.
Yes, as youngest son, he wasn't entitled to inherit the
lands because his eldest brothers were already the
heirs. Which is exactly what Eileen said.
>> From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
>> brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
>> even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
>> crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
>> as the bad guy? Hah!
> As always, it wasn't that simple.
Then why don't you elaborate?
> One should be cautious about imposing the
> viewpoints and standards of our time upon
> another era. Even the language has
> shifted, and while the people of 500 or
> 700 years ago may use the same words we
> use today, when you factor that in as well
> as slang and euphemisms and references to
> contemporary events that may have been
> completely lost to history, we may know
> what they said but be much less certain
> of what they meant.
No! Really? Next you're going to tell me Richard III
didn't have an iPod. Shocking!
I have studied history enough to know full well the
difference between modern viewpoints and those of
past times, as I'm sure most of the people on this
list have. Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but
saying something that obvious to someone on a list of
people who study history for at least an enthusiastic
hobby, if not a living comes, across as patronizing.
Rogue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 18:17:31
--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
>
> oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > It wasn't that he was not entitled to inherit, it
> > was just that all of Henry II's lands had already
> > been dealt out to the older sons before John,
> > the last child, was born.
>
> Yes, as youngest son, he wasn't entitled to inherit the
> lands because his eldest brothers were already the
> heirs. Which is exactly what Eileen said.
>
>
> >> From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
> >> brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
> >> even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
> >> crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
> >> as the bad guy? Hah!
>
> > As always, it wasn't that simple.
>
> Then why don't you elaborate?
>
Because it is complicated, and it's outside the focus of this forum,
and I'm not knowledgable. I don't know all about it, but I do know
that society of the 12th century was as complex, but different from,
that of the 15th and that a lot of study and reading is necessary to
get a good grasp on the subject.
> > One should be cautious about imposing the
> > viewpoints and standards of our time upon
> > another era. Even the language has
> > shifted, and while the people of 500 or
> > 700 years ago may use the same words we
> > use today, when you factor that in as well
> > as slang and euphemisms and references to
> > contemporary events that may have been
> > completely lost to history, we may know
> > what they said but be much less certain
> > of what they meant.
>
> No! Really? Next you're going to tell me Richard III
> didn't have an iPod. Shocking!
Sarcasm is always so useful in intelligent discussions.
> I have studied history enough to know full well the
> difference between modern viewpoints and those of
> past times, as I'm sure most of the people on this
> list have. Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but
> saying something that obvious to someone on a list of
> people who study history for at least an enthusiastic
> hobby, if not a living comes, across as patronizing.
wrote:
>
>
> oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > It wasn't that he was not entitled to inherit, it
> > was just that all of Henry II's lands had already
> > been dealt out to the older sons before John,
> > the last child, was born.
>
> Yes, as youngest son, he wasn't entitled to inherit the
> lands because his eldest brothers were already the
> heirs. Which is exactly what Eileen said.
>
>
> >> From what I've read, Richard I comes across as a
> >> brute who just looked for excuses to kill people. He
> >> even declared war on his own brothers, not for the
> >> crown but just a few estates. And John is remembered
> >> as the bad guy? Hah!
>
> > As always, it wasn't that simple.
>
> Then why don't you elaborate?
>
Because it is complicated, and it's outside the focus of this forum,
and I'm not knowledgable. I don't know all about it, but I do know
that society of the 12th century was as complex, but different from,
that of the 15th and that a lot of study and reading is necessary to
get a good grasp on the subject.
> > One should be cautious about imposing the
> > viewpoints and standards of our time upon
> > another era. Even the language has
> > shifted, and while the people of 500 or
> > 700 years ago may use the same words we
> > use today, when you factor that in as well
> > as slang and euphemisms and references to
> > contemporary events that may have been
> > completely lost to history, we may know
> > what they said but be much less certain
> > of what they meant.
>
> No! Really? Next you're going to tell me Richard III
> didn't have an iPod. Shocking!
Sarcasm is always so useful in intelligent discussions.
> I have studied history enough to know full well the
> difference between modern viewpoints and those of
> past times, as I'm sure most of the people on this
> list have. Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but
> saying something that obvious to someone on a list of
> people who study history for at least an enthusiastic
> hobby, if not a living comes, across as patronizing.
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 20:49:55
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 22:08:36
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To:
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To:
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-08 22:45:11
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
p between Richard and Philip of
> France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
> the same bed.
I meant Philip when I said Louis, Aren't all French kings named Louis?
Katy
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
p between Richard and Philip of
> France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
> the same bed.
I meant Philip when I said Louis, Aren't all French kings named Louis?
Katy
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-09 10:28:56
Vicki - Yes. The name Richard has been used in my family in almost all
generations for well over 200 years, usually for the first-born male of
each generation, and each generation continues the tradition - so
although my son is not strictly named after his gt-gt-gt-gt-
grandfather, each generation in continuing the tradition effectively
names the eldest son after the first one of that name in the family, in
a roundabout way - which is the same link I am suggesting for the
Plantagenets.
Richard G
--- In , "Vicki Christian"
<vicki.christian@...> wrote:
> As to Richard III being named after Richard I, maybe in a roundabout
> way, but its more likely that he was called Richard, because it is an
> old family name for the Nevilles and his father's name. After all
> did you call your children after a distant relative that lived over
> 200 years ago!!
>
> vicki
generations for well over 200 years, usually for the first-born male of
each generation, and each generation continues the tradition - so
although my son is not strictly named after his gt-gt-gt-gt-
grandfather, each generation in continuing the tradition effectively
names the eldest son after the first one of that name in the family, in
a roundabout way - which is the same link I am suggesting for the
Plantagenets.
Richard G
--- In , "Vicki Christian"
<vicki.christian@...> wrote:
> As to Richard III being named after Richard I, maybe in a roundabout
> way, but its more likely that he was called Richard, because it is an
> old family name for the Nevilles and his father's name. After all
> did you call your children after a distant relative that lived over
> 200 years ago!!
>
> vicki
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-09 12:55:21
No Katy, only 18 of them :-)
I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine, so I wasn't trying to
correct you!
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 22:45, oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> p between Richard and Philip of
>> France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
>> the same bed.
>
>
> I meant Philip when I said Louis, Aren't all French kings named
> Louis?
>
> Katy
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine, so I wasn't trying to
correct you!
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 22:45, oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> p between Richard and Philip of
>> France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
>> the same bed.
>
>
> I meant Philip when I said Louis, Aren't all French kings named
> Louis?
>
> Katy
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-09 14:22:22
Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively, Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the birth of his illegitimate son?
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: All French Kings (What's in a name?)
2008-07-09 15:40:14
19 if you count Louis Philippe !
(They also had the names Philip, Francois, Charles and Henri among
their monarchs).
Richard G
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> No Katy, only 18 of them :-)
> I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine, so I wasn't trying to
> correct you!
> Paul
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 22:45, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > p between Richard and Philip of
> >> France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even
shared
> >> the same bed.
> >
> >
> > I meant Philip when I said Louis, Aren't all French kings
named
> > Louis?
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
(They also had the names Philip, Francois, Charles and Henri among
their monarchs).
Richard G
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> No Katy, only 18 of them :-)
> I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine, so I wasn't trying to
> correct you!
> Paul
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 22:45, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > p between Richard and Philip of
> >> France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even
shared
> >> the same bed.
> >
> >
> > I meant Philip when I said Louis, Aren't all French kings
named
> > Louis?
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: All French Kings (What's in a name?)
2008-07-09 15:49:52
I remember being taught once that there was a method to the madness in naming French kings: all eldest sons were called Louis, second Philippe (or Charles?, or vice versa?).
Spain had 13 Alfonso's -- very popular name in the pre-Hapsburg era (not my favorite name, either, unfortunately).
Maria
elena@...
----------
>From: rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...>
>Sent: Jul 9, 2008 10:40 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: All French Kings (What's in a name?)
>
>19 if you count Louis Philippe !
>
>(They also had the names Philip, Francois, Charles and Henri among
>their monarchs).
>
>Richard G
>
>--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
><paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> No Katy, only 18 of them :-)
>> I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine, so I wasn't trying to
>> correct you!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 8 Jul 2008, at 22:45, oregonkaty wrote:
>>
>> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
>> > p between Richard and Philip of
>> >> France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even
>shared
>> >> the same bed.
>> >
>> >
>> > I meant Philip when I said Louis, Aren't all French kings
>named
>> > Louis?
>> >
>> > Katy
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Spain had 13 Alfonso's -- very popular name in the pre-Hapsburg era (not my favorite name, either, unfortunately).
Maria
elena@...
----------
>From: rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...>
>Sent: Jul 9, 2008 10:40 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: All French Kings (What's in a name?)
>
>19 if you count Louis Philippe !
>
>(They also had the names Philip, Francois, Charles and Henri among
>their monarchs).
>
>Richard G
>
>--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
><paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> No Katy, only 18 of them :-)
>> I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine, so I wasn't trying to
>> correct you!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 8 Jul 2008, at 22:45, oregonkaty wrote:
>>
>> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
>> > p between Richard and Philip of
>> >> France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even
>shared
>> >> the same bed.
>> >
>> >
>> > I meant Philip when I said Louis, Aren't all French kings
>named
>> > Louis?
>> >
>> > Katy
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: All French Kings (What's in a name?)
2008-07-09 16:16:53
--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> I remember being taught once that there was a method to the madness
in naming French kings: all eldest sons were called Louis, second
Philippe (or Charles?, or vice versa?).
>
> Spain had 13 Alfonso's -- very popular name in the pre-Hapsburg era
(not my favorite name, either, unfortunately).
>
England almost had a King Alfonso, too. That was the name of Richard
II's elder brother, who died when Richard was five years old. (He
died on Richard's birthday. I wonder how much that tainted the
celebration from then on.)
Katy
>
> I remember being taught once that there was a method to the madness
in naming French kings: all eldest sons were called Louis, second
Philippe (or Charles?, or vice versa?).
>
> Spain had 13 Alfonso's -- very popular name in the pre-Hapsburg era
(not my favorite name, either, unfortunately).
>
England almost had a King Alfonso, too. That was the name of Richard
II's elder brother, who died when Richard was five years old. (He
died on Richard's birthday. I wonder how much that tainted the
celebration from then on.)
Katy
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-09 16:24:38
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively, Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the birth of his illegitimate son?
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively, Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the birth of his illegitimate son?
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-09 17:04:30
On Jul 9, 2008, at 9:22 AM, A LYON wrote:
> Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically
> bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able
> to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of
> history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by
> evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard
> I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely
> based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the
> fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we
> not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively,
> Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on
> crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the
> birth of his illegitimate son?
> Ann
I hadn't heard the sparse evidence for Richard I's homosexuality, so
thanks for posting the info (and to everyone else who did.) I'd
always assumed it was true. Somehow, though, it makes him even more
unlikable now for me.
Gilda
> Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically
> bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able
> to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of
> history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by
> evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard
> I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely
> based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the
> fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we
> not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively,
> Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on
> crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the
> birth of his illegitimate son?
> Ann
I hadn't heard the sparse evidence for Richard I's homosexuality, so
thanks for posting the info (and to everyone else who did.) I'd
always assumed it was true. Somehow, though, it makes him even more
unlikable now for me.
Gilda
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-09 17:27:28
Hi, All!
I am interested in the discussion of the earlier Richards ý and personally I
find the history of the Plantagenets somewhat relevant or On Topic for this
list. Thatýs my feeling, anyway! Also, occasional digressions into topics
such as the Cerne Abbas giant are also interesting ýprovided they do not
descend into personal invective, of course!
Now, speaking of possible homosexuality and/or bisexuality on the part of
some of the British monarchs ý and I must confess I know little about this
area ý I do seem to recall reading years ago that Richard II was more or
less accepted to have been homosexual. Comments?
Best,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Email ý HYPERLINK
"mailto:jltournier@..."jltournier@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_____
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gilda Felt
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re:
What's in a name?
On Jul 9, 2008, at 9:22 AM, A LYON wrote:
> Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically
> bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able
> to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of
> history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by
> evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard
> I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely
> based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the
> fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we
> not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively,
> Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on
> crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the
> birth of his illegitimate son?
> Ann
I hadn't heard the sparse evidence for Richard I's homosexuality, so
thanks for posting the info (and to everyone else who did.) I'd
always assumed it was true. Somehow, though, it makes him even more
unlikable now for me.
Gilda
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1542 - Release Date: 7/9/2008
6:50 AM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1542 - Release Date: 7/9/2008
6:50 AM
I am interested in the discussion of the earlier Richards ý and personally I
find the history of the Plantagenets somewhat relevant or On Topic for this
list. Thatýs my feeling, anyway! Also, occasional digressions into topics
such as the Cerne Abbas giant are also interesting ýprovided they do not
descend into personal invective, of course!
Now, speaking of possible homosexuality and/or bisexuality on the part of
some of the British monarchs ý and I must confess I know little about this
area ý I do seem to recall reading years ago that Richard II was more or
less accepted to have been homosexual. Comments?
Best,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Email ý HYPERLINK
"mailto:jltournier@..."jltournier@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_____
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gilda Felt
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re:
What's in a name?
On Jul 9, 2008, at 9:22 AM, A LYON wrote:
> Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically
> bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able
> to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of
> history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by
> evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard
> I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely
> based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the
> fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we
> not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively,
> Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on
> crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the
> birth of his illegitimate son?
> Ann
I hadn't heard the sparse evidence for Richard I's homosexuality, so
thanks for posting the info (and to everyone else who did.) I'd
always assumed it was true. Somehow, though, it makes him even more
unlikable now for me.
Gilda
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1542 - Release Date: 7/9/2008
6:50 AM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1542 - Release Date: 7/9/2008
6:50 AM
Re: All French Kings (What's in a name?)
2008-07-09 17:29:29
Do you mean Edward (27 January 1365 - 1372) ? Why do you think he was
called Alfonso ?
Richard G
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
> England almost had a King Alfonso, too. That was the name of Richard
> II's elder brother, who died when Richard was five years old. (He
> died on Richard's birthday. I wonder how much that tainted the
> celebration from then on.)
>
> Katy
called Alfonso ?
Richard G
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
> England almost had a King Alfonso, too. That was the name of Richard
> II's elder brother, who died when Richard was five years old. (He
> died on Richard's birthday. I wonder how much that tainted the
> celebration from then on.)
>
> Katy
Re: All French Kings (What's in a name?)
2008-07-09 17:30:30
I thinkyou are mixing up Richard II's elder brother, who was called Edward ) presumably after their father, the Black Prince), and one of Edward II's elder brothers, who was called Alfonso and died shortly after Edward's birth in 1284. He was presumably named after his maternal grandfather, Alfonso of Castile (can't remember the number). Edward II had two other elder brothers who died before his birth, named Henry and John.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 4:16:49 PM
Subject: Re: All French Kings (What's in a name?)
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Maria <ejbronte@.. .> wrote:
>
> I remember being taught once that there was a method to the madness
in naming French kings: all eldest sons were called Louis, second
Philippe (or Charles?, or vice versa?).
>
> Spain had 13 Alfonso's -- very popular name in the pre-Hapsburg era
(not my favorite name, either, unfortunately) .
>
England almost had a King Alfonso, too. That was the name of Richard
II's elder brother, who died when Richard was five years old. (He
died on Richard's birthday. I wonder how much that tainted the
celebration from then on.)
Katy
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 4:16:49 PM
Subject: Re: All French Kings (What's in a name?)
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Maria <ejbronte@.. .> wrote:
>
> I remember being taught once that there was a method to the madness
in naming French kings: all eldest sons were called Louis, second
Philippe (or Charles?, or vice versa?).
>
> Spain had 13 Alfonso's -- very popular name in the pre-Hapsburg era
(not my favorite name, either, unfortunately) .
>
England almost had a King Alfonso, too. That was the name of Richard
II's elder brother, who died when Richard was five years old. (He
died on Richard's birthday. I wonder how much that tainted the
celebration from then on.)
Katy
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-09 17:34:01
I think Edward II had only four legititimate children plus one illegitimate, but unlike Richard I there is definite evidence of homosexual leanings, in the form of his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser, and possibly the mode of his murder.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 4:43:12 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively, Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the birth of his illegitimate son?
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@yahoo. ca>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 4:43:12 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively, Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the birth of his illegitimate son?
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@yahoo. ca>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: All French Kings (What's in a name?)
2008-07-09 18:09:09
--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Do you mean Edward (27 January 1365 - 1372) ? Why do you think he was
> called Alfonso ?
>
> Richard G
Confusion of Richards and Edwards.
Richard II's elder brother died on Richard's fifth birthday, but as
you noted, his name was Edward.
However, there was an Alfonso/Alphonso who during his brief life was
heir to the throne. He was the first-born son of Edward I, or at
least the first who lived long enough to be baptized. He died at age 9.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonso%2C_Earl_of_Chester
Katy
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Do you mean Edward (27 January 1365 - 1372) ? Why do you think he was
> called Alfonso ?
>
> Richard G
Confusion of Richards and Edwards.
Richard II's elder brother died on Richard's fifth birthday, but as
you noted, his name was Edward.
However, there was an Alfonso/Alphonso who during his brief life was
heir to the throne. He was the first-born son of Edward I, or at
least the first who lived long enough to be baptized. He died at age 9.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonso%2C_Earl_of_Chester
Katy
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-09 19:57:23
Sorry, Anne, he was one of about twenty and very much a tailender at that - it is a few months since I checked Castelli/ van der Pas.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
I think Edward II had only four legititimate children plus one illegitimate, but unlike Richard I there is definite evidence of homosexual leanings, in the form of his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser, and possibly the mode of his murder.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 4:43:12 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively, Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the birth of his illegitimate son?
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@yahoo. ca>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
I think Edward II had only four legititimate children plus one illegitimate, but unlike Richard I there is definite evidence of homosexual leanings, in the form of his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser, and possibly the mode of his murder.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 4:43:12 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively, Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the birth of his illegitimate son?
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@yahoo. ca>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: All French Kings (What's in a name?)
2008-07-10 10:23:54
I don't count him as he was hyphonated! :-)
Paul
On 9 Jul 2008, at 15:40, rgcorris wrote:
> 19 if you count Louis Philippe !
>
> (They also had the names Philip, Francois, Charles and Henri among
> their monarchs).
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> No Katy, only 18 of them :-)
>> I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine, so I wasn't trying to
>> correct you!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 8 Jul 2008, at 22:45, oregonkaty wrote:
>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>> p between Richard and Philip of
>>>> France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even
> shared
>>>> the same bed.
>>>
>>>
>>> I meant Philip when I said Louis, Aren't all French kings
> named
>>> Louis?
>>>
>>> Katy
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Paul
On 9 Jul 2008, at 15:40, rgcorris wrote:
> 19 if you count Louis Philippe !
>
> (They also had the names Philip, Francois, Charles and Henri among
> their monarchs).
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> No Katy, only 18 of them :-)
>> I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine, so I wasn't trying to
>> correct you!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 8 Jul 2008, at 22:45, oregonkaty wrote:
>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>> p between Richard and Philip of
>>>> France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even
> shared
>>>> the same bed.
>>>
>>>
>>> I meant Philip when I said Louis, Aren't all French kings
> named
>>> Louis?
>>>
>>> Katy
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-10 11:39:17
Edward II was certainly at the tail end of a big family - off the top of my head he was the youngest, or virtually the youngest, of 16. His father Edward I then had four children from his second marriage.
However, Edward II had four children by Isabella of France, not 20.
We are mixing up Edward I's childen and Edward II's!
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 8:15:20 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Sorry, Anne, he was one of about twenty and very much a tailender at that - it is a few months since I checked Castelli/ van der Pas.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
I think Edward II had only four legititimate children plus one illegitimate, but unlike Richard I there is definite evidence of homosexual leanings, in the form of his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser, and possibly the mode of his murder.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@ talktalk. net>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 4:43:12 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively, Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the birth of his illegitimate son?
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@yahoo. ca>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
However, Edward II had four children by Isabella of France, not 20.
We are mixing up Edward I's childen and Edward II's!
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 8:15:20 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Sorry, Anne, he was one of about twenty and very much a tailender at that - it is a few months since I checked Castelli/ van der Pas.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
I think Edward II had only four legititimate children plus one illegitimate, but unlike Richard I there is definite evidence of homosexual leanings, in the form of his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser, and possibly the mode of his murder.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@ talktalk. net>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 4:43:12 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively, Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the birth of his illegitimate son?
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@yahoo. ca>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-10 17:09:55
Ann:
Satisfy my curiosity! Edward II surely didn't live long enough for Isabella to have twenty children -- I have just looked at Genealogics, and Leo gives four children by Isabella of France,
1. Edward III, King of England 1327-1377, b. 13 Nov 1312, Windsor Castle, Berkshire
2. John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, b. Abt 15 Aug 1316, Eltham Palace
3. Eleanor of England, b. 18 Jun 1318, Woodstock
4. Joan of England, b. 5 Jul 1321, Tower of London
Also an illegitimate son Adam by an unknown mother, born, say, 1305-ish (BIOGRAPHY from Genealogics: He was travelling on campaign against the Scots in 1322, under the tutelage of Hugo Chastilloun so presumably born about 1305-1310. Nothing is known about him beyond this time. The final item regarding him showed that he was at Newcastle-on-Tyne on 18 September 1322, and it is assumed from the absence of further expense records that he died shortly afterwards.) I would suggest his birth as closer to 1305 than 1310 -- not absolutely impossible to take a 12-year-old on campaign, but he'd be a burden rather than an asset.
A betrothal to Philippa de Dampierre when Edward was ten years old is also mentioned, but nothing came of it.
Edward II himself is child 16 of 16 (three older brothers, Alfonso, John, and Henry, d.v.p. ) of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile; is that what you were thinking of?
L.P.H.,
Ann
Stephen Lark:
Sorry, Anne, he was one of about twenty and very much a tailender at that - it is a few months since I checked Castelli/ van der Pas.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
I think Edward II had only four legitimate children plus one illegitimate, but unlike Richard I there is definite evidence of homosexual leanings, in the form of his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser, and possibly the mode of his murder.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
Stephen Lark
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
Satisfy my curiosity! Edward II surely didn't live long enough for Isabella to have twenty children -- I have just looked at Genealogics, and Leo gives four children by Isabella of France,
1. Edward III, King of England 1327-1377, b. 13 Nov 1312, Windsor Castle, Berkshire
2. John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, b. Abt 15 Aug 1316, Eltham Palace
3. Eleanor of England, b. 18 Jun 1318, Woodstock
4. Joan of England, b. 5 Jul 1321, Tower of London
Also an illegitimate son Adam by an unknown mother, born, say, 1305-ish (BIOGRAPHY from Genealogics: He was travelling on campaign against the Scots in 1322, under the tutelage of Hugo Chastilloun so presumably born about 1305-1310. Nothing is known about him beyond this time. The final item regarding him showed that he was at Newcastle-on-Tyne on 18 September 1322, and it is assumed from the absence of further expense records that he died shortly afterwards.) I would suggest his birth as closer to 1305 than 1310 -- not absolutely impossible to take a 12-year-old on campaign, but he'd be a burden rather than an asset.
A betrothal to Philippa de Dampierre when Edward was ten years old is also mentioned, but nothing came of it.
Edward II himself is child 16 of 16 (three older brothers, Alfonso, John, and Henry, d.v.p. ) of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile; is that what you were thinking of?
L.P.H.,
Ann
Stephen Lark:
Sorry, Anne, he was one of about twenty and very much a tailender at that - it is a few months since I checked Castelli/ van der Pas.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
I think Edward II had only four legitimate children plus one illegitimate, but unlike Richard I there is definite evidence of homosexual leanings, in the form of his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser, and possibly the mode of his murder.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
Stephen Lark
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-10 17:40:38
--- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
<axsc@...> wrote:
> I would suggest his birth as closer to 1305 than 1310 -- not
absolutely impossible to take a 12-year-old on campaign, but he'd be a
burden rather than an asset.
Perhaps not. Edward the future IV rode at the head of an army at age
12. Even if he was more symbolic than actual leader, he obviously
wasn't a nuisance, since he was there to inspire his people.
Twelve-year-old Richard the future III traveled around the kingdom as
a commissioner of array (correct me if that is not the correct title)
recruiting men for his brother's armies, so he must have been able to
conduct himself well, even impress people.
Katy
<axsc@...> wrote:
> I would suggest his birth as closer to 1305 than 1310 -- not
absolutely impossible to take a 12-year-old on campaign, but he'd be a
burden rather than an asset.
Perhaps not. Edward the future IV rode at the head of an army at age
12. Even if he was more symbolic than actual leader, he obviously
wasn't a nuisance, since he was there to inspire his people.
Twelve-year-old Richard the future III traveled around the kingdom as
a commissioner of array (correct me if that is not the correct title)
recruiting men for his brother's armies, so he must have been able to
conduct himself well, even impress people.
Katy
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-10 17:59:36
Ann
Those you list are the ones I know about.
I think what has happened is that there has been a bit of confusion between Edward I and Edward II - Edward II was ONE OF 20 children, he didn't HAVE 20 children.
Edward I did have some 20 children by his two marriages, although from memory only Edward II and three daughters survived to adulthood of some 16 children from his marriage to Eleanor of Castile. Those from his marriage to Margaret of France were clearly more robust, as three reached adulthood out of four, even though the king was about 60 at the time of the marriage and Margaret (half-sister of Philip the Fair) in her early 20s! Interestingly, Edward I is the only medieval king to have issue from two marriages.
Edward II indeed had four children by Isabella of France, plus the illegitimate Adam. Edward was born in 1284, so presumably fathered Adam while in his early 20s.
As to Richard II and his possible sexual preferences, he married twice but had no children. In the case of his second marriage, this is hardly surprising, as Isabella of Valois was only about seven when they married in 1396 and so still a child at Richard's deposition. Interestingly, she was a much older sister of Henry V's queen. Richard's first wife was Anne of Bohemia, whom he married in 1383 when they were both 15-16. She died in 1394 and Richard was apparently distraught at her death. He ordered that the palace at Sheen where she died should be destroyed, and when the Earl of Arundel(?) arrived late for the funeral, Richard knocked him down, causing the funeral to be delayed because Westminster Abbey had to be reconsecrated after this shedding of blood. However, Richard certainly had a very intense relationship with Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, which is presumably the basis for the suggestion that he was homosexual, along with his failure to
produce children. Once again, however, could Richard or Anne of Bohemia have been sterile?
Ann (this is as confusing as all these Edwards!)
----- Original Message ----
From: "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)" <axsc@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 10 July, 2008 5:09:38 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Ann:
Satisfy my curiosity! Edward II surely didn't live long enough for Isabella to have twenty children -- I have just looked at Genealogics, and Leo gives four children by Isabella of France,
1. Edward III, King of England 1327-1377, b. 13 Nov 1312, Windsor Castle, Berkshire
2. John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, b. Abt 15 Aug 1316, Eltham Palace
3. Eleanor of England, b. 18 Jun 1318, Woodstock
4. Joan of England, b. 5 Jul 1321, Tower of London
Also an illegitimate son Adam by an unknown mother, born, say, 1305-ish (BIOGRAPHY from Genealogics: He was travelling on campaign against the Scots in 1322, under the tutelage of Hugo Chastilloun so presumably born about 1305-1310. Nothing is known about him beyond this time. The final item regarding him showed that he was at Newcastle-on- Tyne on 18 September 1322, and it is assumed from the absence of further expense records that he died shortly afterwards.) I would suggest his birth as closer to 1305 than 1310 -- not absolutely impossible to take a 12-year-old on campaign, but he'd be a burden rather than an asset.
A betrothal to Philippa de Dampierre when Edward was ten years old is also mentioned, but nothing came of it.
Edward II himself is child 16 of 16 (three older brothers, Alfonso, John, and Henry, d.v.p. ) of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile; is that what you were thinking of?
L.P.H.,
Ann
Stephen Lark:
Sorry, Anne, he was one of about twenty and very much a tailender at that - it is a few months since I checked Castelli/ van der Pas.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
I think Edward II had only four legitimate children plus one illegitimate, but unlike Richard I there is definite evidence of homosexual leanings, in the form of his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser, and possibly the mode of his murder.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
Stephen Lark
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
Those you list are the ones I know about.
I think what has happened is that there has been a bit of confusion between Edward I and Edward II - Edward II was ONE OF 20 children, he didn't HAVE 20 children.
Edward I did have some 20 children by his two marriages, although from memory only Edward II and three daughters survived to adulthood of some 16 children from his marriage to Eleanor of Castile. Those from his marriage to Margaret of France were clearly more robust, as three reached adulthood out of four, even though the king was about 60 at the time of the marriage and Margaret (half-sister of Philip the Fair) in her early 20s! Interestingly, Edward I is the only medieval king to have issue from two marriages.
Edward II indeed had four children by Isabella of France, plus the illegitimate Adam. Edward was born in 1284, so presumably fathered Adam while in his early 20s.
As to Richard II and his possible sexual preferences, he married twice but had no children. In the case of his second marriage, this is hardly surprising, as Isabella of Valois was only about seven when they married in 1396 and so still a child at Richard's deposition. Interestingly, she was a much older sister of Henry V's queen. Richard's first wife was Anne of Bohemia, whom he married in 1383 when they were both 15-16. She died in 1394 and Richard was apparently distraught at her death. He ordered that the palace at Sheen where she died should be destroyed, and when the Earl of Arundel(?) arrived late for the funeral, Richard knocked him down, causing the funeral to be delayed because Westminster Abbey had to be reconsecrated after this shedding of blood. However, Richard certainly had a very intense relationship with Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, which is presumably the basis for the suggestion that he was homosexual, along with his failure to
produce children. Once again, however, could Richard or Anne of Bohemia have been sterile?
Ann (this is as confusing as all these Edwards!)
----- Original Message ----
From: "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)" <axsc@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 10 July, 2008 5:09:38 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Ann:
Satisfy my curiosity! Edward II surely didn't live long enough for Isabella to have twenty children -- I have just looked at Genealogics, and Leo gives four children by Isabella of France,
1. Edward III, King of England 1327-1377, b. 13 Nov 1312, Windsor Castle, Berkshire
2. John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, b. Abt 15 Aug 1316, Eltham Palace
3. Eleanor of England, b. 18 Jun 1318, Woodstock
4. Joan of England, b. 5 Jul 1321, Tower of London
Also an illegitimate son Adam by an unknown mother, born, say, 1305-ish (BIOGRAPHY from Genealogics: He was travelling on campaign against the Scots in 1322, under the tutelage of Hugo Chastilloun so presumably born about 1305-1310. Nothing is known about him beyond this time. The final item regarding him showed that he was at Newcastle-on- Tyne on 18 September 1322, and it is assumed from the absence of further expense records that he died shortly afterwards.) I would suggest his birth as closer to 1305 than 1310 -- not absolutely impossible to take a 12-year-old on campaign, but he'd be a burden rather than an asset.
A betrothal to Philippa de Dampierre when Edward was ten years old is also mentioned, but nothing came of it.
Edward II himself is child 16 of 16 (three older brothers, Alfonso, John, and Henry, d.v.p. ) of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile; is that what you were thinking of?
L.P.H.,
Ann
Stephen Lark:
Sorry, Anne, he was one of about twenty and very much a tailender at that - it is a few months since I checked Castelli/ van der Pas.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
I think Edward II had only four legitimate children plus one illegitimate, but unlike Richard I there is definite evidence of homosexual leanings, in the form of his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser, and possibly the mode of his murder.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
Stephen Lark
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-10 18:46:26
typically children of this era began training to be adults at about age 7. this was age peerage boys became pages, then were promoted to squires at about age 14, and knighted, if worthy about age 21.
boys were entering university at age 13.
while r3and e4 may have been "there to inspire", i've no doubt they were there to lead too, even if was with the advice of a learned council of elders, before these young men gave their commands/decisions.
--- On Thu, 7/10/08, oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
Subject: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To:
Received: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 12:40 PM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
<axsc@...> wrote:
> I would suggest his birth as closer to 1305 than 1310 -- not
absolutely impossible to take a 12-year-old on campaign, but he'd be a
burden rather than an asset.
Perhaps not. Edward the future IV rode at the head of an army at age
12. Even if he was more symbolic than actual leader, he obviously
wasn't a nuisance, since he was there to inspire his people.
Twelve-year- old Richard the future III traveled around the kingdom as
a commissioner of array (correct me if that is not the correct title)
recruiting men for his brother's armies, so he must have been able to
conduct himself well, even impress people.
Katy
boys were entering university at age 13.
while r3and e4 may have been "there to inspire", i've no doubt they were there to lead too, even if was with the advice of a learned council of elders, before these young men gave their commands/decisions.
--- On Thu, 7/10/08, oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
Subject: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To:
Received: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 12:40 PM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
<axsc@...> wrote:
> I would suggest his birth as closer to 1305 than 1310 -- not
absolutely impossible to take a 12-year-old on campaign, but he'd be a
burden rather than an asset.
Perhaps not. Edward the future IV rode at the head of an army at age
12. Even if he was more symbolic than actual leader, he obviously
wasn't a nuisance, since he was there to inspire his people.
Twelve-year- old Richard the future III traveled around the kingdom as
a commissioner of array (correct me if that is not the correct title)
recruiting men for his brother's armies, so he must have been able to
conduct himself well, even impress people.
Katy
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a n
2008-07-10 18:47:23
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Richard certainly had a very intense relationship with Robert de
Vere, Earl of Oxford, which is presumably the basis for the suggestion
that he was homosexual, along with his failure to
> produce children. Once again, however, could Richard or Anne of
Bohemia have been sterile?
> Ann (this is as confusing as all these Edwards!)
She could have been. As another example, King John was married to
Isabel of Gloucester for ten years and they had no children. He had
the marriage annulled on the grounds of consanguinity when he fell for
12-year-old Isabel of Angouleme. She bore him at least four children.
(The reference I checked said John also had at least 14 illegitimate
children.)
Evidently Isabel of Gloucester really was barren -- she married twice
more and never produced a child.
Katy
Richard certainly had a very intense relationship with Robert de
Vere, Earl of Oxford, which is presumably the basis for the suggestion
that he was homosexual, along with his failure to
> produce children. Once again, however, could Richard or Anne of
Bohemia have been sterile?
> Ann (this is as confusing as all these Edwards!)
She could have been. As another example, King John was married to
Isabel of Gloucester for ten years and they had no children. He had
the marriage annulled on the grounds of consanguinity when he fell for
12-year-old Isabel of Angouleme. She bore him at least four children.
(The reference I checked said John also had at least 14 illegitimate
children.)
Evidently Isabel of Gloucester really was barren -- she married twice
more and never produced a child.
Katy
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-10 18:55:29
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> typically children of this era began training to be adults at about
age 7. this was age peerage boys became pages, then were promoted
to squires at about age 14, and knighted, if worthy about age 21.
>
> boys were entering university at age 13.
>
> while r3and e4 may have been "there to inspire", i've no doubt they
were there to lead too, even if was with the advice of a learned
council of elders, before these young men gave their commands/decisions.
I have wondered if one of the minor turning points of history
occurred at Stony Stratford when Gloucester's contingent met up with
Earl Rivers' group escorting young Edward to London for his
coronation. Edward was 13 years old and presumably raised to be a
king, yet when Gloucester told him to get down off his horse, he
obeyed.
I would expect he lost some stature for that. If he had remained
mounted and said "Uncle, you forget yourself" the rest of the story
probably would have remained the same. But I can't help thinking that
moment was a brick in the wall against his ever assuming the throne.
At any rate, it sure is a dramatic moment. Have we any evidence it
ever actually happened?
Katy
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> typically children of this era began training to be adults at about
age 7. this was age peerage boys became pages, then were promoted
to squires at about age 14, and knighted, if worthy about age 21.
>
> boys were entering university at age 13.
>
> while r3and e4 may have been "there to inspire", i've no doubt they
were there to lead too, even if was with the advice of a learned
council of elders, before these young men gave their commands/decisions.
I have wondered if one of the minor turning points of history
occurred at Stony Stratford when Gloucester's contingent met up with
Earl Rivers' group escorting young Edward to London for his
coronation. Edward was 13 years old and presumably raised to be a
king, yet when Gloucester told him to get down off his horse, he
obeyed.
I would expect he lost some stature for that. If he had remained
mounted and said "Uncle, you forget yourself" the rest of the story
probably would have remained the same. But I can't help thinking that
moment was a brick in the wall against his ever assuming the throne.
At any rate, it sure is a dramatic moment. Have we any evidence it
ever actually happened?
Katy
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-10 19:39:41
Exactly - I was correcting myself.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Edward II was certainly at the tail end of a big family - off the top of my head he was the youngest, or virtually the youngest, of 16. His father Edward I then had four children from his second marriage.
However, Edward II had four children by Isabella of France, not 20.
We are mixing up Edward I's childen and Edward II's!
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 8:15:20 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Sorry, Anne, he was one of about twenty and very much a tailender at that - it is a few months since I checked Castelli/ van der Pas.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
I think Edward II had only four legititimate children plus one illegitimate, but unlike Richard I there is definite evidence of homosexual leanings, in the form of his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser, and possibly the mode of his murder.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@ talktalk. net>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 4:43:12 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively, Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the birth of his illegitimate son?
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@yahoo. ca>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Edward II was certainly at the tail end of a big family - off the top of my head he was the youngest, or virtually the youngest, of 16. His father Edward I then had four children from his second marriage.
However, Edward II had four children by Isabella of France, not 20.
We are mixing up Edward I's childen and Edward II's!
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 8:15:20 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Sorry, Anne, he was one of about twenty and very much a tailender at that - it is a few months since I checked Castelli/ van der Pas.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
I think Edward II had only four legititimate children plus one illegitimate, but unlike Richard I there is definite evidence of homosexual leanings, in the form of his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser, and possibly the mode of his murder.
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@ talktalk. net>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 4:43:12 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Ann and Paul: I am with you both on this one, although I respect those who disagree.
Edward II had about 20 legitimate children to Richard I's none but this doesn't make him 100% heterosexual - we have evidence in his case - and Michael K. Jones doubts the interpretation of Howden's remarks.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
Dare I say that James VI & I's homosexuality (I suppose technically bisexuality, as he fathered several children so must have been able to function with his queen) is well enough known (it's in plenty of history books, including some 'popular' ones) and substantiated by evidence of his relations with several male favourites. In Richard I's case the basis for suggestions of homosexuality seem entirely based on Roger of Howden's remark about the sin of Sodom, plus the fact that he had no legitimate children. As to the latter, could we not reasonably conclude that Berengaria was barren? Alternatively, Richard seems to have had at least one serious illness while on crusade - could that not have left him sterile some time after the birth of his illegitimate son?
Ann
----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@yahoo. ca>
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
mr. bale
when you use words such as "Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. ",
especially in this forum, to rebutt a point you disagree with, you cross the line with such a comparison. don't be all surprised when you get hit back with a "diatribe".
king james's sexuality is not common knowledge. if it was you would see evangelical christians burning his version of the bible. not everyone reads or studies history.
your defense of richard i's sexuality with his sexual exploits of the hetrosexual kind don't remove the probability of his having had homosexual relationships. homosexuality was known as the aristocratic vice.
bad for the commoners, but shh don't talk about what the lords spiritual and temporal do.
roman soldiers did it, so what makes you think that such a behaviour wasn't occurring in the centuries long after? in this generation we are dealing with revelations that priests have been molesting children, boys and girls for decades.
"recorded queer" are not my words, they are repeated by me, as heard when discussing king james with a homosexual friend. they are his words said in almost the same breath as he stated.."ah yes, the king who would be queen." ergo, i will not wear your distain for having repeated them. i have several gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. moreover, i have found them to be more open minded and caring individuals than the majority of "so called" normal aka hetrosexual people.
one can be sitting in a ramshackle shack and still live in the ivory tower of their mind. i.e. the unibomber. quite simply mr. bale you chose to sideswipe me with an indirect hit on my integrity, and still continue to do so with your "above it all" response.
if you sling mud, expect it to be slung back. the demeaning tone in your response does nothing to hide your attitude, i.e..excuse me all while i piss on fayre rose. btw, the word piss is in the bible. don't sit all aghast, look it up.
now to the forum, i do apologise for this heated public display and i invite mr. bale to take it private if he so chooses.
one thing we do agree on..i'd rather be discussing richard and sharing information about him and his era than publically rolling in the filth of innuendo spewed to make a point.
regards
roslyn..female the last time i checked.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Some diatribe there.
My apologies to anyone offended by this person's reading of my
comments, which were making no such personal attack, but responding
to something he or she (don't know what sex fayre rose is, though I
imagine it a female) wrote I thought inaccurate. I clearly touched
more than one nerve.
Makes one think twice before entering any discussion at all. Please
don't let such unpleasantness put anyone off posting though. About
Richard III of course! :-)
Now to fayre rose.
I don't deal in personal likes or dislikes, just in what's written.
You see animosity of a personal nature in my posts when there is none
intended, so maybe you should look at yourself first before rushing
to the attack.
No facts from me? O.K.
Historical records about Richard I's sexuality?
Fact. Roger of Howden said ' He carried off his subjects wives,
daughters, and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when
he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down to his soldiers
to enjoy". Very homosexual that!!
Roger also tells of the friendship between Richard and Philip of
France that so alarmed Henry II. They were so close they even shared
the same bed. But as Gillingham writes 'this does not mean - as some
modern writers assume - they were having a homosexual affair.... as
it was common for people of the same sex to share the same bed".
Henry II and William Marshall often shared the same bed, yet nobody
suggests they were lovers!
There are IN FACT numerous contemporary tales of Richard's very
heterosexual leanings, including more than one of him falling madly
in love with an unsuitable female, a nun on one occasion, when he
besieged the convent she was in.
Roger of Howden did report the tale of the hermit who came to the
king in 1195 rebuking him for his sins telling him to 'remember the
destruction of Sodom', and to mend his ways. That became the basis of
the 1948 book starting the tales of Richard's homosexuality which
have become common now. Read Gillingham as I suggested. It's a bloody
good read, as well as one of the best biographies of any monarch I've
ever read, in or out of my ivory tower! :-)
If only you could see where I am sitting! Some tower!
King James the First was a "recorded queer" you write - nice turn of
phrase- 'not common knowledge' you say, accusing me of not checking
facts.
EVERY book ever written about James VI and I talks about his
sexuality and fondness for male favourites. It is a very well known
fact.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Richard the Third, so I'll let
you get back to whatever it is you want to rant about, while I get
back to the reason for the forum.
Now the recent Hastings discussion was very interesting and thought
provoking.
Can we now find something as good to talk about?
Paul
On 8 Jul 2008, at 13:32, fayre rose wrote:
> amazing paul, you really do have a nasty streak to your
> personality. or you quite simply don't like me. i've been on this
> forum for a couple of years now.
>
> perhaps you could dig up a positive comment you've made in that
> time, aside from a "yeah, me too".
>
> spreading rumours like more? give me a break, you really had to dig
> some to come up with that as a comparison. did it make you proud as
> you typed it? when is the last time you actually contributed a
> research detail, link or anything but a "oooheeer, me too" comment?
>
> quite frankly paul, you have struck me as a person as a legend in
> their own mind for quite sometime. i often delete your fawning and
> inane comments before i have finished reading them.
>
> people like you shut down intelligent conversation and debate.
>
> historical records indicate richard i played at least on both sides
> of field. it would appear you are the individual who has a problem
> with an person's sexuality. king james the first, the one who
> ordered the kjv be REWRITTEN was also a recorded queer. it's just
> not common knowledge.
>
> lot's daughters also decided to sleep with their father, does this
> mean the bible condones incest?
>
> paul, i really don't care if you don't like me. it's a waste of
> energy to deal with you, and a distraction. while you sit in your
> feigned ivory tower twiddling your thumbs or whatever, i'm on the
> ground digging for facts. try it sometime you might learn something.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
> Subject: Re: Richard I and Prince John,
> was Re: What's in a name?
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2008, at 02:12, fayre rose wrote:
>
>> good king richard the lionheart was possibly homosexual, or
>> bisexual. he produced one out of wedlock child and none from his
>> legal marriage.
>
> Spreading unsubstantiated rumours, like More. Are you also
> suggesting homosexuality and bisexuality is 'bad'?
>
> The gay tag wasn't ever mentioned until someone suggested it in a
> 1948 book. This was based on someone accusing Richard of the 'sin of
> Sodom'. If you check your Bible the sin of Sodom God destroyed the
> city for was lack of hospitality, nothing sexual. But then his boy
> Lot had offered his teenaged virgin daughters to the inhabitants
> hadn't he? So he couldn't accuse the Sodomites of sexual misbehaviour
> could he?
> Check out Gillingham's book on Richard 1 for a good rounded portrait.
>
> I do agree that John has had a rough ride though, not helped by most
> writers about him having been churchmen.
>
> Now can we get back to our Richard soon please?
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-10 21:45:58
my gut feeling is that e5 was not a "sylly child" aka one of innocence (lacking in world knowledge). this lad was raised to be king and he would know it to be so.
margaret d'anjou's son, edward was giving commands to cut off heads at age 7, so the story goes.
i've a feeling there has been a lot of embellishment of what actually occurred at stoney stratford.
most of it being told to *begin* the painting of an evil picture of a power hungry richard and turn the attention off of the duke of buckingham.
recently i was looking at the duke of buckingham's grandfather's bio.
it provided glimpses of the possibility of buckie perhaps doing a little revenge trip on the yorkists and the "turncoat" lancasterian woodville family. buckie was about 3 when his father died from injuries caused in the battle of st. albans. his grandfather then raised him. grandpa died when henry was about 6. definitely old enough to be influenced by family gossip.
buckie is then "captured" by the woodville clan and e4. he was then forced into a marriage with the "queen's sister" catherine, so we're told. buckie's family had been strongly lancastrian...and they didn't like the duke of york, grandfather of the princes in the tower.
i would not doubt that his widowed mother influenced his thought process towards e4 and r3. buckie's mother was another margaret beaufort, dau edmund d. of somerset and eleanor beauchamp. (this edmund was the rumoured father of margaret d'anjou's son edward the former husband of anne neville who married r3.)
eleanor was the half sister of anne beauchamp, widow of the kingmaker and mother of anne r3's wife. there was some dispute regarding inherited land between the beauchamp sibs. r3's mother-in-law anne won the inheritance.)
continuing with this family dysfunctionality, buckie's grandmother was anne neville an elder sister of cecily m. duke of york. therefore york's brother in law was buckie's grandfather, the very same humphrey stafford who said york 'had nothing to lean to but the king's grace.' humphrey was a staunch supporter of margaret d'anjou. he was also a compatriot and son in law of duke of somerset.
below is the link for the bio on humphrey. upon rereading it, grandpa appears to have also been a companion of the duke of bedford, elizabeth woodville's mother jacquetta's first husband.
now i'm wondering if the story we are told that buckie hated being married to catharine woodville to be true. leaves the mind swirling from all these intermarriages and family plots/frictions.
buckingham would certainly have cause to not like the yorkists when you look at the deaths in his immediate family caused by the wars of the roses.
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/humphreystafford1.htm
--- On Thu, 7/10/08, oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
Subject: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To:
Received: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 1:55 PM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, fayre rose
<fayreroze@. ..> wrote:
>
> typically children of this era began training to be adults at about
age 7. this was age peerage boys became pages, then were promoted
to squires at about age 14, and knighted, if worthy about age 21.
>
> boys were entering university at age 13.
>
> while r3and e4 may have been "there to inspire", i've no doubt they
were there to lead too, even if was with the advice of a learned
council of elders, before these young men gave their commands/decisions.
I have wondered if one of the minor turning points of history
occurred at Stony Stratford when Gloucester's contingent met up with
Earl Rivers' group escorting young Edward to London for his
coronation. Edward was 13 years old and presumably raised to be a
king, yet when Gloucester told him to get down off his horse, he
obeyed.
I would expect he lost some stature for that. If he had remained
mounted and said "Uncle, you forget yourself" the rest of the story
probably would have remained the same. But I can't help thinking that
moment was a brick in the wall against his ever assuming the throne.
At any rate, it sure is a dramatic moment. Have we any evidence it
ever actually happened?
Katy
margaret d'anjou's son, edward was giving commands to cut off heads at age 7, so the story goes.
i've a feeling there has been a lot of embellishment of what actually occurred at stoney stratford.
most of it being told to *begin* the painting of an evil picture of a power hungry richard and turn the attention off of the duke of buckingham.
recently i was looking at the duke of buckingham's grandfather's bio.
it provided glimpses of the possibility of buckie perhaps doing a little revenge trip on the yorkists and the "turncoat" lancasterian woodville family. buckie was about 3 when his father died from injuries caused in the battle of st. albans. his grandfather then raised him. grandpa died when henry was about 6. definitely old enough to be influenced by family gossip.
buckie is then "captured" by the woodville clan and e4. he was then forced into a marriage with the "queen's sister" catherine, so we're told. buckie's family had been strongly lancastrian...and they didn't like the duke of york, grandfather of the princes in the tower.
i would not doubt that his widowed mother influenced his thought process towards e4 and r3. buckie's mother was another margaret beaufort, dau edmund d. of somerset and eleanor beauchamp. (this edmund was the rumoured father of margaret d'anjou's son edward the former husband of anne neville who married r3.)
eleanor was the half sister of anne beauchamp, widow of the kingmaker and mother of anne r3's wife. there was some dispute regarding inherited land between the beauchamp sibs. r3's mother-in-law anne won the inheritance.)
continuing with this family dysfunctionality, buckie's grandmother was anne neville an elder sister of cecily m. duke of york. therefore york's brother in law was buckie's grandfather, the very same humphrey stafford who said york 'had nothing to lean to but the king's grace.' humphrey was a staunch supporter of margaret d'anjou. he was also a compatriot and son in law of duke of somerset.
below is the link for the bio on humphrey. upon rereading it, grandpa appears to have also been a companion of the duke of bedford, elizabeth woodville's mother jacquetta's first husband.
now i'm wondering if the story we are told that buckie hated being married to catharine woodville to be true. leaves the mind swirling from all these intermarriages and family plots/frictions.
buckingham would certainly have cause to not like the yorkists when you look at the deaths in his immediate family caused by the wars of the roses.
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/humphreystafford1.htm
--- On Thu, 7/10/08, oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
Subject: Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
To:
Received: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 1:55 PM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, fayre rose
<fayreroze@. ..> wrote:
>
> typically children of this era began training to be adults at about
age 7. this was age peerage boys became pages, then were promoted
to squires at about age 14, and knighted, if worthy about age 21.
>
> boys were entering university at age 13.
>
> while r3and e4 may have been "there to inspire", i've no doubt they
were there to lead too, even if was with the advice of a learned
council of elders, before these young men gave their commands/decisions.
I have wondered if one of the minor turning points of history
occurred at Stony Stratford when Gloucester's contingent met up with
Earl Rivers' group escorting young Edward to London for his
coronation. Edward was 13 years old and presumably raised to be a
king, yet when Gloucester told him to get down off his horse, he
obeyed.
I would expect he lost some stature for that. If he had remained
mounted and said "Uncle, you forget yourself" the rest of the story
probably would have remained the same. But I can't help thinking that
moment was a brick in the wall against his ever assuming the throne.
At any rate, it sure is a dramatic moment. Have we any evidence it
ever actually happened?
Katy
Richard I and Prince John, was Re: What's in a name?
2008-07-11 04:21:29
fayre rose wrote:
> buckie is then "captured" by the woodville clan and e4. he was then
forced into a marriage with the "queen's sister" catherine, so we're
told. buckie's family had been strongly lancastrian...and they didn't
like the duke of york, grandfather of the princes in the tower.
Ann:
The Woodvilles were Lancastrian until Elizabeth's marriage to Edward -
- and I have never seen what was so disparaging about marriage to the
queen's sister. It would give you powerful connections at court
automatically . . . .
> eleanor was the half sister of anne beauchamp, widow of the
kingmaker and mother of anne r3's wife. there was some dispute
regarding inherited land between the beauchamp sibs. r3's mother-in-
law anne won the inheritance.)
Ann:
An interesting case, IIRC -- Anne Beauchamp Neville was the full
sister of the decedent, and Eleanor was the half sister. In these
circumstances, are you deemed to inherit from your brother (Anne) or
do the property rights go backward to your late father and
redistribute among HIS co-heiresses (Anne AND Eleanor)?
> continuing with this family dysfunctionality, buckie's grandmother
was anne neville an elder sister of cecily m. duke of york.
therefore york's brother in law was buckie's grandfather, the very
same humphrey stafford who said york 'had nothing to lean to but the
king's grace.' humphrey was a staunch supporter of margaret d'anjou.
he was also a compatriot and son in law of duke of somerset.
Ann:
What I like about the genealogical details is how on earth
writers, history OR fiction, always manage to sound as though every
one of these people was totally committed to either White or Red, and
any relative taking the other side must be both distant and
practically a stranger. And the connections are intergenerational
since Cicily Neville was the youngest in her family (and child of the
second wife, so the oldest of her twenty-five siblings was easily old
enough to be her parent if not grandparent). Cicily went on to have
a large family herself so HER youngest's oldest aunts and
uncles . . . etc., etc.
L.P.H.,
Ann
> buckie is then "captured" by the woodville clan and e4. he was then
forced into a marriage with the "queen's sister" catherine, so we're
told. buckie's family had been strongly lancastrian...and they didn't
like the duke of york, grandfather of the princes in the tower.
Ann:
The Woodvilles were Lancastrian until Elizabeth's marriage to Edward -
- and I have never seen what was so disparaging about marriage to the
queen's sister. It would give you powerful connections at court
automatically . . . .
> eleanor was the half sister of anne beauchamp, widow of the
kingmaker and mother of anne r3's wife. there was some dispute
regarding inherited land between the beauchamp sibs. r3's mother-in-
law anne won the inheritance.)
Ann:
An interesting case, IIRC -- Anne Beauchamp Neville was the full
sister of the decedent, and Eleanor was the half sister. In these
circumstances, are you deemed to inherit from your brother (Anne) or
do the property rights go backward to your late father and
redistribute among HIS co-heiresses (Anne AND Eleanor)?
> continuing with this family dysfunctionality, buckie's grandmother
was anne neville an elder sister of cecily m. duke of york.
therefore york's brother in law was buckie's grandfather, the very
same humphrey stafford who said york 'had nothing to lean to but the
king's grace.' humphrey was a staunch supporter of margaret d'anjou.
he was also a compatriot and son in law of duke of somerset.
Ann:
What I like about the genealogical details is how on earth
writers, history OR fiction, always manage to sound as though every
one of these people was totally committed to either White or Red, and
any relative taking the other side must be both distant and
practically a stranger. And the connections are intergenerational
since Cicily Neville was the youngest in her family (and child of the
second wife, so the oldest of her twenty-five siblings was easily old
enough to be her parent if not grandparent). Cicily went on to have
a large family herself so HER youngest's oldest aunts and
uncles . . . etc., etc.
L.P.H.,
Ann
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.