Richard the Lionheart and his male lovers

[quote]it's what I wish "Game of Thrones" was really about.

Me too.

Loved Lion in Winter scenes about Richards sexuality...what a complex person he must have been.

Yep, r1. I stopped watching GOT when Renly died.

r2 "I've been in every street in Hell. Funny, I never saw you there." Not bad for James Bond and Hannibal Lecter, huh?

After reading this page, it's pretty clear Richard the Lionheart loved men.

r5 That Annals was a surprise alright.

Is it possible this is what ".. for a horse," was about? Surely not.

"I think it would make for a great mini-series; it's what I wish "Game of Thrones" was really about"

GoT is fine the way it is, and I'm hoping its popularity will pave the way for someone to make a good show about Ultimate Masculine Gay Richard Lionhart. Everybody likes medieval combat, sexual intrigue, and fighting over power, right?

Of course it will be hard to convince Hollywood that it's time to put a gay man at the center of such a big show, but maybe the BBC would be willing to give it a shot? Or it could be part of a larger show about Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, who showed the medieval world what sexual intrigue and fighting over power were all about.

His escapades were the source of the phrase," needing some Dick."

Actually, the story of the Byzantine emperor Basil I is even more fascinating. He was arguably the first male hustler who slept his way to the throne of an empire, "marrying" two of his male lovers along the way.

For Game of Thrones enthusiasts, I recommend "The White Queen", a STARS original series. It's a medieval soap opera, whose high-points appear to me to be historically accurate. No supernatural nonsense. And no homosex, but is that really necessary?

Don't forget about us!

R8

The BBC did one drama about Richard I not so long ago. And they've covered the crusades. The problem with the Lionheart is the massacre of prisoners at Acre and the murders and burnings of Jews in London after his coronation. He's never going to get more than a one hour drama out of the BBC when there are much more sympathetic figures from British history that are easier to whitewash!

From a GoT perspective, though, I agree that the Angevins are great material.

Cool story, R10. John Palermo should option the film rights.

Does this mean that Eleanor of Aquitaine was a domineering and smothering type of mommy?

"I think that being a mommy has been my greatest achievement."

r15 "Love me little lamb, or leave me." That should answer your question.

That's "Mommie DEAREST" - and when you say it, I want you to mean it!

King William Rufus or William 11 was notoriously uninterested in women and in some biographies it us suggested that William the Conqueror may have had some of those inclinations as well.

Today, July 6, is Little Bobby's birthday!

I was going to bake a red velvet cake but I had to fight off the hordes this morning.

So instead, I promised Bobby that we'll have a wonderful meal of his favorite game-bird and then he and I will have a whole evening of quality time together.

That is, if we don't get attacked.

In all seriousness, weren't Richard and his mother, Eleanor, unusually tall for he time?

Wouldn't they be considered giants at over 6 foot five and six foot three?

Most people were around five foot.

I have heard rumours that Eleanor came from some legendary lineage such as Arthur of the roundtable or even perhaps Jesus.

I had also heard that their family line had small tails.

Most people were NOT around 5 feet R21. What is your source for that? (typical old queen acting like she knows some historic trivia when she doesnt have a clue what she is talking about.)

r13, considering the violence in GoT, I doubt the massacres in Richard's life would be too problematic; it is, as indicated above, more his homosexuality that would be the problem for the cowardly producers.

A shame, as this is the kind of TV show I would watch.

The only tall people in those days were royalty--regular peeps were short-stuff.

Malnutrition and child laboring did not assist in giving height to one's carriage.

I believe that Eleanor of Aquitaine knew that she was a descendent of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

That's why she went to visit Mary's grave, in France!

I'm Large and In-Charge.

It's a bit of a myth that people were really short back then.

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but another historical myth that has recently been disproven by research is that people married at very young ages (13, 14, 15) back in the Middle Ages and Early Modern era -- while it's true that royals tended to marry young (for political purposes), the poor and burgeoning middle class waited until their mid to late 20s, when they were more established financially, to marry and begin families.

I would have thought given the life expectancy of most people in the Middle Ages, teenage marriages would have been the norm. Waiting until your late 20s to get married is akin to waiting until you're 40 to start a family these days.

"while it's true that royals tended to marry young (for political purposes), the poor and burgeoning middle class waited until their mid to late 20s,"

The peasant classes of that time tended to marry young as well, when they were old enough to reproduce. And frequently, because they already had.

Stupid ass r22, read

I believe that Eleanor of Aquitaine knew that she was a descendent of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. That's why she went to visit Mary's grave, in France!

Oh for the love of god, BEGONE FRAU.

[quote]... back in the Middle Ages and Early Modern era... the poor and burgeoning middle class waited until their mid to late 20s, when they were more established financially, to marry and begin families.

No, they didn't, Miss Idiot. If people were marrying in their mid to late 20's in those days it was more than likely because their previous wife or husband had died.

*Should have been in a quote box at R32:

[quote]I believe that Eleanor of Aquitaine knew that she was a descendent of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. That's why she went to visit Mary's grave, in France!

BEGONE FRAU.

The exhibit of knights' armour in the Tower of London shouts Little People.

I'm sure they're stink from never bathing or brushing their teeth was a real turn on.

You're right about that R34.

"...marriage during the 1500's was an extremely formal process with certain requirements being made on both husbands and wives. If a woman was to get married it was generally expected that her parents would provide her new husband with a dowry. A dowry was the goods, monies or estates which the woman brought to a marriage. A woman with a higher dowry was seen to be more desirable, a woman with a small dowry or no dowry was unlikely to find a husband. It’s important to note however that the importance of financial incentives for marriage applied to both men and women. Just as women were expected to provide a dowry, men were expected to have mastered a trade and achieved a certain level of financial stability before they were considered viable husbands. As a result many people living in 16th Century Europe either married very late or not at all."

What was that? Did you say, "I apologize for insulting you, I was wrong"?

Eleanor of Aquitaine and her son Richard the Lionhearted were in FACT, Giants.

They were likely descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene---FACT.

They believed it, why shouldn't we?

The English and French Royals believed this to be true throughout the centuries.

The Windsors are NOT of this bloodline--they do NOT belong there!

They are the ANTI-CHRIST line!

In fact, they are descended from Dracula! Maybe Mohammed! They are not the rightful heirs to the throne.

These usurpers to the throne AKA Windsors are the anti-Christ royals who are ruining the world.

Bring back the rightful heirs!

[quote]What was that? Did you say, "I apologize for insulting you, I was wrong"?

No, you're still an idiot and you're still wrong.

You're also not a history teacher.

When I said Dracula I really meant the historical figure Vlad the Impaler, of whom Prince Charles the Usurper is descended from.

The royals are frauds!

[quote]As a result many people living in 16th Century Europe either married very late or not at all.

Actually, this only applied to the merchant class and above. Marrying in the Middle Ages was actually very simple; you didn't even need a celebrant. If the parties declared themselves married, then they were married at law.

Here's a recent, and interesting, documentary from the BBC on the matter.

[quote]Bring back the rightful heirs!

The "rightful heirs" would be the descendents of Charles II---thousands of them.

When / if Prince William becomes king, he will be the first descendant of Charles II to sit on the throne. Princess Diana descended from Charles II. The Windsors a/k/a/ the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas do not.

QEII (and therefore Charles, PoW) descends from Mary, Queen of Scots.

Richard the Lionheart and Phillip of France were a hot item for a good while. I've also read Richard the Lionheart was a very brutal man who loved wars and fighting. He was very hard on his men and the hated him.

I'm afraid R7 is confusing Richard the Lionheart, who was gay, with Richard III, who was not gay. It was Richard III who allegedly shouted, "A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!" in Shakespeare's play of that name. Shakespeare was commissioned by the Tudors, to portray Richard III as a bad guy even though he wasn't.

Funny. I looked up the King Edward Longshanks and his son after watching Braveheart, and the son was gay in real life. In fact, a mob murdered his lover in a barbaric, horrible way, and I think he was also murdered eventually. I know he was deposed.

[quote]The "rightful heirs" would be the descendents of Charles II---thousands of them.

As all of Charles II's children were illegitimate, he had no rightful heirs. Do you know what the term means?

Back to Richard and Philip - it also should be noted that Geoffrey, Henry II's and Eleanor's other, non-regnal son, lived at the French court later on, and when he died Philip was so distraught he jumped into the crypt.

Those Plantagenets must have had something. Except John.

Edward II (who you are referring to, R44) was allegedly murdered in the Tower by having a red hot poker stuck up his ass. Braveheart protrays him as a snivelling fag, which isn't surprising given Mel Gibson directed it. Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, was only 12 when she married him (unlike in the movie), but turned out to be a conniving little slut and fled Edward, shacking up with Roger Mortimer in France. they ended up coming back, killing Edward and Mortimer installed Edrward III as a puppet.

The evidence of Edward II being gay is caught up in the propaganda of the times; we'll never know the truth about that (unlike James I, who was a raging queen).

[quote] QEII (and therefore Charles, PoW) descends from Mary, Queen of Scots

Yes, they do. However---the direct line from Mary QOS went:

James VI & I

Charles I ( executed by Oliver Cromwell)

Charles II

Charles II had no legitimate children. When he died, the Crown went to his brother James II. James had re-married after the death of his first wife Anne Hyde to Mary of Modena. He was Catholic, and was deposed by his daughter Mary II and her husband William of Orange ( William III)

James had a son with Mary of Modena--James Francis Edward--who was the father of Bonnie Prince Charlie....

Oh, here's a link to Wikipedia. I'm too lazy * L * :)

It's all so very Cashelmara-esque!

Wait a minute, R46... you're saying that King Phillip of France nailed two brothers? He had serious love affairs with both King Richard and Prince Goffrey?

That's kind of gross.

I just bumping this because I want to read it later. Richard is buried in France, correct? Do we have a photo of his crypt?

Richard's body is all over the place: buried in Fontevraud Abbey with mom and dad, his heart is located in Rouen and his entrails in Chalus.

um Edward 11 was not murdered in the Tower. He was allegedly murdered at Berkely Castle about 8 months after being forced to abdicate.

Richard 11 may not have been gay in practice but he certainly favoured male favourites.

The rightful heir to the British throne is a gay man: Franz von Wittelsbach, Prince of Bavaria (though he goes by the title Herzog or Duke). He is the heir based on the House of Stuart line which has been precluded from ascension to the British throne due to a British law that prevents catholics from doing so. He is the descendant of Ludwig II another fabulous gay man.

R47, James I may have had male lovers but he also got his wife knocked up 12 times! Seems like he may have liked pussy, at least once in a while. Bisexual.

r55 that was called diplomacy carrying on the bloodline. He was about as BI as Rock Hudson marrying Phylis Gates

I never understand why some people think one's "raging queeniness" can X out het desire, or that because one is a pussyhound it follows that one cannot simultaneously be a cockhound. Some folks monomaniacally fetishize gender; some folks monomaniacally fetishize the sexual act itself.

R28 R29 R30

The lower classes also married later because the average age of menarche was also much later. Women started their periods at 17 or 18, not 11 or 12 as they do now.

R23

I don't know. I think Auntie commissions based on current PC concerns and bete noires. They'd be quite happy with a drama with a gay king. They'd avoid Muslim and Jew slaughter like the plague.

R53, I don't think we've had 11 Richards or 11 Edwards yet, so why are you writing Richard 11 as opposed to the correct Richard II?

Richard the Lionheart also had an illegitimate child and James I had more kids than usual for monarchs of his day. Being into men didn't preclude them from wanting to poke a woman every now and then.

R44, you're right that the famous line is spoken by Richard III, but I'm not sure that Elizabeth I ever directly commissioned Shakespeare to write anything.

The question of how nasty Richard III was is of much debate. His representation as a "hunchback" has often been claimed to be untrue and simply a product of the propaganda against him. Yet, the skeleton discovered in Leicester in 2012 and which has been securely identified as Richard III had severe curvature of the spine. So, he was crookbacked.

R58, there's a scene in "Romeo and Juliet" where two of Juliet's relatives are debating over whether thirteen is too young for a girl to marry. One guy says that many girls are mothers by fourteen, and the other says "And so they are ruin't" or something. So by 1567, at least, at least some girls were definitely having their periods at 13/14.

Okay, that was a few centuries after King Richard's time, but in terms of lifestyle and nutrition, Shakespeaf's world wasn't that different than Richard's.

R60

I thought we'd already covered nobility - better diet, marriage for dynastic/political reasons. I did say lower classes.

See link.

I'm pretty sure the average age of menarche actually went up during the Industrial Revolution and poorer diets - but I don't suppose that's really germane here.

The English people were so scarred by the behaviour of the three King Richarad's that no direct heir to the throne has ever dared been named Richard again. Richard the Lionherat was a megalomaniac; Richard II was probably bi-polar and complete mess as a King; and Richard III was likely a child murderer (Tudor propaganda notwithstanding) and usurper.

Another name you won't see as an English King is John, after the terrible behaviour of that King which resulted in the Magna Carta (which John subsequently ignored).

Ok, nobody has said it so I will....

[quote]and something of a gay icon

Mary!

Speaking of Eleanor of Aquitaine... The whole "Cult of Courtly Love" thing, where knights professed to eternally adore a married woman they could never touch without losing their honor.

Does anyone actually believe those courtly knights were straight?

couple of corrections-

Queen Berengaria did not leave Richard after a few months-she went on the first part of the crusade with him.

Their marraige was off course political in motives-but they had met before and liked each other.

The idea that Queen Eleanor was tall comes from her tomb effigy. Being made shortly after her death, lends credibility to that. The contents of the tomb were ransacked during the french revolution-so no bones to get an idea from.

King George V and Queen mary's 3rd son was Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester

Yet, r62, QEII names her firstborn son and heir Charles. I never understood that.

Thanks for the random fact, r66. Their fourth son, George (so-named before his brother Albert ascended to the throne), the Duke of Kent, was far and away the most interesting of the brothers.

The fifth son John, an interesting story but not interesting in himself.

For R51--picture of Richard I tomb at Fontrevualt Abbey, France. He is buried there with his Mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine and his father, Henry II. Richard is next to King John's wife, Isabelle of Angouleme.

Unfortunately, the tombs were opened during the French Revolution and the bones scattered and destroyed.

[quote]QEII names her firstborn son and heir Charles.

Charles I was a despot, but Charles II was greatly loved (and was great fun), and is considered one of England's more enjoyable monarchs, and he successfully restored the monarchy. He was also considered the first truly modern monarch. His brother was a religious nut, and his Catholicism ushered in the Glorious Revolution that resulted in parliamentary democracy and the end of the divine right of Kings and absolute monarchy.

[quote]Loved Lion in Winter scenes about Richards sexuality

Were those the scenes between Anthony Hopkins & Timothy Dalton?

I think it was the first film for both of them, btw.

Wonky eye.

Richard = Bae

Leave my husband alone! He was not gay! He just liked going on hunting trips with his buddies.

So this is what happens when you give a bitchy gay a sword.

They become the hardest mother fuckers of all time. Oh you think their brain is mean, just wait until you equip them with a sword and army! But WTF did they support the crusades? For the dick along the way! Did they need to get away from the Frau that badly?

Felip II de França e Ricard Còr de Leon

“The White Queen" stars Max Irons, at his 6’2” most beautiful.

There's no bar on kings being named Richard or John - until the 19th century, Richard I was one of England's most admired kings and certainly not viewed negatively. It's just that princes named Richard and John (of whom there were a number) died young or had the line of succession not veer their way (Edward III's younger brother was a John, for example). Princes and princesses tended to be named after parents and grandparents, so if there hadn't been a King Marmaduke or whatever for a couple of generations, the name wasn't likely to appear. England could have had a run of King Alfonsos, if Edward II's elder brother (named after his maternal grandfather, Eleanor of Castile's father) hadn't died when he was 10. There could be exceptions, as when Henry III revived the Anglo-Saxon names of royal saints Edward and Edmund for his sons, instead of the by then usual French names like William, Henry, John and Richard, and Henry VII choosing Arthur as the name of his eldest son.

[quote]instead of the by then usual French names like William, Henry, John and Richard

Oh, you mean Guillaume, Henri, Jean, and Richard. 😉

I think Alfonsos would've been Anglicized to Alfons or Alphonse.

Margaret Beaufort was 13 when she gave birth to Henry VII. She nearly died and was never able to bear another child.

Nobody likes a smart-arse, R78.