| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Culfy
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
United Kingdom
113 Posts |
 Posted - 01/18/2006 : 09:01:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by R. Dittmar
quote:
Originally posted by Culfy
The problem with the portrayal of Edward II in the film is that it makes out that it was his homosexuality that was the problem; in actual fact, at that time, it wouldn't have been a particular problem for a monarch to be gay (it didn't cause Richard the Lionheart any problems). The problem was that he was seen as a weak king in thrall of favourites such as Gaveston. However the film makes much more of his homosexuality (including snide references to him being unable to have children by his wife)
Culfy,
This is an interesting historical question given this biography at the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_II_of_England
The requisite cautions about Wikipedia conceded, if some of the facts mentioned here are accurate is there really any reason to believe that he was gay given the fact that between his wife and mistress he sired several children?
For that matter, how solid is the evidence that Richard the Lionhearted was gay? I've heard this before as well, but why does anyone believe it? I could be all smirky and Seinfeldian and say "There's not anything wrong with that", but I've always had a larger question as to how much we can say about the sex lives of people who lived 700+ years ago - were they gay or straight.
By all means don't take this as a personal dig, because if anything it's a dig against Gibson (or his screenwriter) for buying in to pure speculation.
Thanks for the info. I never take anything posted on the internet as a personal dig (even "you are a moron who said get a life" since this is basic etiquette on IMDB). I was really discussing the portrayal of Edward II where he is definitely made out to be gay and this is referred to snidely (including the proposition, definitely false, that in fact it was William Wallace who sired the English line on Isabella). My point is really that the fact of Edward II's sexually would really not have made any difference to public portrayal of him, however Gibson and Wallace (the screenwriter) portray the english as either mincing queens or bloodthirsty maniacs (which the scottish might regard as fair comment)
On the subject of Richard the Lionheart, again from Wikkipedia
"Throughout his life preachers were to thunder at him to beware the fate of Sodom, and his marriage does not seem to have ever been consummated. However, he is known to have had at least one illegitimate child."
Certainly evidence to suggest some partiality to homosexuality.
========================
Notes from a small cavy
www.culfy.blogspot.com |
 |
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 3:24:53 PM
|
| BTW, the biggest historical error in Braveheart, and that's saying a lot, was depicting the British government as being English speakers. In thirteenth century England, nobles primarily spoke Norman French. English was the tongue of the peasant masses. |
|
|
|
twitterpate
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
1026 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 4:04:59 PM
|
Well, I thought that the worst mistake Braveheart made was omitting mention that the English came to call Isabelle "the She-wolf of France". Darn, that's a great historical nickname. Almost as good as the Viking known as "Ivor the Boneless".
I want to see a movie made about Ivor. |
|
|
|
Pip
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 5:38:35 PM
|
Nothing packs 'em into the theatre down here in the Lone Star State like a movie dubbed in Norman French.
Pip |
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 10:06:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Culfy
Thanks for the info. I never take anything posted on the internet as a personal dig (even "you are a moron who said get a life" since this is basic etiquette on IMDB). I was really discussing the portrayal of Edward II where he is definitely made out to be gay and this is referred to snidely (including the proposition, definitely false, that in fact it was William Wallace who sired the English line on Isabella). My point is really that the fact of Edward II's sexually would really not have made any difference to public portrayal of him, however Gibson and Wallace (the screenwriter) portray the english as either mincing queens or bloodthirsty maniacs (which the scottish might regard as fair comment)
On the subject of Richard the Lionheart, again from Wikkipedia
"Throughout his life preachers were to thunder at him to beware the fate of Sodom, and his marriage does not seem to have ever been consummated. However, he is known to have had at least one illegitimate child."
Certainly evidence to suggest some partiality to homosexuality.
I'm very glad to hear I didn't vere into anything that might be thought of as a dig. I know the subject is somewhat controversial, and as a big history buff myself I can't image suppressing the tendency to speculate on such matters.
After hearing a lot of speculation over the years, however, I'm just not sure anymore that there are any reliable grounds for such speculation. As I mentioned I've actually heard a lot about Richard before, but do we really have grounds to accuse? I've read, for example, that the obsessively pro-creative Henry VIII threw over his fourth wife because he found her physically unattractive. Was Richard's marriage arranged to further his father's political aims? If so, his lack of ardor could just be due to the fact that he found his wife unappealing. The fact that he sired children at all calls into question the gay trope. Even the reference to sodomy might be somewhat ambiguous. Doesn't sodomy refer in the broader sense to non-procreative sex? Maybe Richard was actually a Bill Clinton-esque philanderer addicted to behind-the-throne quickies with the palace interns.
Royal history is also fraught with distortions due to the fact that subsequent dynasties want to cast previous dynasties in the worst light possible. Royals in China were notorious for destroying all records of a prior dynasty and replacing them with scurrilous accusations of venality. The story of the Empress Wu makes for an interesting case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Wu
Chinese histories have long accused her of not only all kinds of skullduggery, but of all kinds of nymphomaniacal behavior well into her 70’s. More recent histories have argued that all these stories about her were fomented by succeeding dynasties just to discredit their predecessors.
The flip side of the coin is current attempts to co-opt historical figures into taking sides in current political debates. There was a big flap in the U.S. a couple of years ago because a book accused Abraham Lincoln of being gay. The current Republican party sort-of kind-of half-heartedly opposes same-sex marriage and Lincoln was the first Republican President. Once again, however, Lincoln fathered four children and by almost all historical accounts was happily married before the whole Civil War thing took its toll on him and his wife, so evidence as to his homosexuality is thin in the extreme.
I can’t disparage, discourage or disdain conjectures about historical personages given my own fascination with the subject, but I’ve become convinced that all speculation as to their most intimate moments is by definition completely baseless.
|
|
|
|
Culfy
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
United Kingdom
113 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 08:04:25 AM
|
quote:
I can’t disparage, discourage or disdain conjectures about historical personages given my own fascination with the subject, but I’ve become convinced that all speculation as to their most intimate moments is by definition completely baseless.
Hear, hear! See similar speculations as to Bill Shakespeare's sexuality (mainly on the grounds of the lovely boy of the sonnets).
Meanwhile, speaking of accents, I was shocked to discover that the actress playing Daphne Moon in Frasier actually was English as that is the worst attempt at a Mancunian accent ever.
========================
Notes from a small cavy
www.culfy.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
tam1MI
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
558 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 12:26:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Culfy
Meanwhile, speaking of accents, I was shocked to discover that the actress playing Daphne Moon in Frasier actually was English as that is the worst attempt at a Mancunian accent ever.
I thought it was supposed to be Cockney... |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 11:08:32 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pip
Nothing packs 'em into the theatre down here in the Lone Star State like a movie dubbed in Norman French.
Gibson's Passion of the Christ was in Aramaic and that didn't seem to have trouble packing in the masses, even in Texas. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked