Two 12th Century Kings in one bed, oh my...

[fajrdrako]

There's an article in The Guardian about the relationship between Richard I of England and Philip Augustus of France, and why they used to sleep together. It quotes my teacher (mentor, hero, personal inspiration) John Gillingham, who is still describing it pretty much the way he did when I was studying with him and he was writing his first biography of Richard.

I used to discuss this with Gillingham; his contention is that Richard and Philip were not lovers. I was more convinced he was right in the 1970s than I am now. Which is not to say I have any definitive evidence about Richard's sexuality that anyone else doesn't have, or Philip's either. It's more that I am less convinced now than I was then that 'straight' is a default setting for human beings of any station or in any century.

I am also... swayed in my judgement, fannishly speaking, on who I picture as playing Richard. Philip is no problem - he's in my head as Timothy Dalton or Jonathan Rhys Meyers, depending which movie you're thinking of, and gorgeous in either case. But neither filmed version of The Lion in Winter had a Richard that I particularly enjoyed or found sexy - no, it wasn't one of Anthony Hopkins' better roles, in my opinion - and I think fondly of the Ottawa Little Theatre production with Lawrence Aronovich as Richard and Alex Contreras as Philip. They were good. But the sexiest role in that production, surprisingly, was Jean-Claude Lizé as John.

Yeah... I like the James Goldman version.

Comments

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

I don't care one way or the other about their possible sexual relationship, but I find the Gillingham explanation (which I'd never heard before) fascinating - how better to prove that you're trusting allies than to be in a situation in which the other guy could kill you in your sleep? ("oops, sorry, I didn't mean to smother him with my pillow"...)

[cionaudha.livejournal.com]

When was JRM Philip?

Dalton is of course the default Philip; but do all versions of him make him seem so nasty? I ask because what JRM does best is Nasty.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

[sorry - reposting this due to HTML clumsiness on my part]

When was JRM Philip?

In the 2003 movie of The Lion in Winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_in_Winter_%282003_film%29) that starred Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close. It had a good cast, in my opinion.

Dalton is of course the default Philip; but do all versions of him make him seem so nasty?

Well - the script is the script, as you see, so that doesn't change. I suppose different versions have different degrees of sympthy towards Philip, depending who's playing him, but I never found the Timothy Dalton version nasty - just cornered into a terrible place and struggling to fight a fight he is for to but ill-prepared for.

I ask because what JRM does best is Nasty.

I'd recommend that movie, even if just for a 'compare and contrast' with the Peter O'Toole version - I liked both, though no one matches O'Toole for oomph. (And I am, on the whole, in general more a fan of Patrick Stewart than Peter O'Toole - though now I think of it, that's a close call.)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

how better to prove that you're trusting allies than to be in a situation in which the other guy could kill you in your sleep?

Seems to me it could backfire: someone hogs the covers and you have an international dispute on your hands.

[cionaudha.livejournal.com]

Ah. I thought perhaps it was an entirely different film or play.

O'Toole at his best is so much fun to watch.

I'm devastated that the "Macbeth" starring Stewart is sold out. We had intended to go, but zzzzzzzzzzzzip! It sold out like that.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

No, the two versions of The Lion in Winter use the same script and really very few differences - I found them surprisingly similar. It isn't any kind of re-envisioning of the story, just the same thing with different actors.

O'Toole at his best is so much fun to watch.

So very true. He's amazing. It's as if... he lifts every part he plays a notch higher than anyone else can. And make it look real.

I'm devastated that the "Macbeth" starring Stewart is sold out. We had intended to go, but zzzzzzzzzzzzip! It sold out like that.

I would have given a lot to see that! I wish. Maybe they'll film it, like they say they'll do with the McKellen version of Lear?

Well, I can hope. It's not likely.

[sparklebutch.livejournal.com]

'straight' is a default setting

Exactly. I hate that you have to "prove" (if you have an agenda to) that someone slept with people of their own gender, but you never seem to be asked to prove the other option.

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

No, it wasn't one of Anthony Hopkins' better roles, in my opinion

I'm glad to see someone else who thinks so. I'll be honest and say I think Hopkins is generally overrated, in part because he always seems to be overacting - or at least "acting!" I thought Brian Cox was much scarier as Hannibal Lector because he was so casual - and William Petersen was so much better a Will Graham than Ed Norton. Red Dragon was the only film in which I've ever seen Edward Norton struggle with a role; I couldn't believe it, but he actually didn't know what he was doing. It was astonishing, and I never would have though it of him, I think he is probably the only young-to-middle-aged American actor who I would trust with something really intellectually and emotionally complex.

I do think Jonathan Rhys-Meyers comes off as "nasty" more than Timothy Dalton does - there's this permanent sneer on JRM and he always seems a bit slimy. (I was so ready for some shocking revelation in Bend It Like Beckham that never came because of it.) Dalton's Philip seems more like a smart kid who is backed into a corner and is playing chess to get out.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Sexuality in history is an interesting question. I've heard people say it's none of our business who slept with whom in the past - which strikes me as absurd; it's a part of history as much as who fought wars and who invented things and what they thought. On an individual and an international level, it's fascinating. It's particualarly interesting what is taken as 'normal' in different cultures and at different times, which often isn't what you'd think.

And people in the past loved celebrity gossip as much as we do.¹ Funny, that.

Thing is, mostly you can't prove these things, depending on the nature of your sources. You can speculate - with varying degress of evidence and plausibility.

I would argue that the only certainty with regards to Richard is that he wasn't undersexed or asexual - since he spoke himself of his sins of lust. But what were they? I wish he'd given a few more details.

And I think part of the problem is that people discussing the matter tend to argue whether Richard was 'straight' or 'gay' as if it were some sort of absolute, without considering other possibilities. As Captain Jack Harkness says: "people with their quaint categories".

~ ~ ~

¹ By "we" I mean, our culture, our world, and our popular tabloids and TV shows. Not you and me individually singled out for prurience.

[sparklebutch.livejournal.com]

I've heard people say it's none of our business

...what happened in HISTORY because it's not like it's IMPORTANT or anything because they're all DEAD anyway.

*grumbles quietly*

And people in the past loved celebrity gossip as much as we do.

Well, of course they did. All this nonsense of "all people are equal" and "we are all unique snowflakes" - dude, NO. There will always people whose lives will be infinitely more interesting than the average life. Such is the human experience.

You can speculate

Yes, but in today's society, unless you have absolute evidence (and sometimes even then), most people will want to tell you that thinking gay is all conspiracy-theoristic of you, and assuming everyone from day 1 were always het "makes sense". Which, uh, yuck. Serious yuck. Because it tells you only about modern day politics, and nothing else.

his sins of lust

One could argue that a guy who didn't get laid much and didn't want it much, mostly due to his upbringing or something, or his religion, would freak and go all "sinner me" if he slept with someone twice. Man or woman. Or even just had thoughts. Of course, I have very little knowledge of the subject, and just theorising based on what you just told me.

Richard was 'straight' or 'gay'

I'm almost sure many said bi. And the fact is, people say "bi" as if there are only two options, but the word is just used for "inclusive" nowadays.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

This is old news to me, but yes, that's it exactly. A kin's bedchamber was a public place: they would be surrounded by squires and servants, so this was a public gesture.

It's also mentioned by the same author (Roger of Howden) that Richard was said, by his Poitevin nobles, to make a habit of raping the wives, daughters and kinswomen of his free men (no-one would have minded if it were serf-women, but this was decidedly bad form), and passing them on to his soldiers for whoring afterwards. He also had at least one acknowleged bastard, Philippe, who married the heiress of Cognac in the 1190s.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I wish celebrities in the 12th century had papparazzi hounding them as we have in our time - not that I'd wish that on anyone, but we'd get more of the story recorded for posterity. Might make it easier to judge the truth.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Gillingham is right on this, I think: however much it appeals to your personal fetishes, I don't think 1940s attempts at Freudianising 12C people (whom we can never know well enough for that) is very helpful. The author responsible for starting this wasn't aware of how public a 12C king's bedchamber was: that it would be very difficult for him and a leading noble (Count of Poitou and Duke of Aquitaine at this time) to get up to anything that would attract opprobrium from the clergy and other prominent persons.

Philippe was considered to be a womaniser (he was criticised for it, and his marital history was rather colourful), and Richard was accused of serial rape. Of women. Indeed, this is mentioned by Roger of Howden, the same writer who mentioned his alliance with Philippe in terms of their taking food from the same serving dish, and sharing a bed. It was a very public gesture of alliance deliberately to piss off Henry II.(Which it did.)

And I'm sorry, but whatever our personal tastes, it's a simple fact that straightness is the default setting for the majority of people. That's how the species continues. I don't mind what straight people do, so long as they don't expect me to join in; but I'm not going to rewrite the world to fit my own preferences.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Whether it was or wasn't rape, there are strong suspicions of rampant womanising in Poitou. There was also some nudge-nudge -wink-winking over the situation of the adolescent Cypriot princess in his entourage.

And I think part of the problem is that people discussing the matter tend to argue whether Richard was 'straight' or 'gay' as if it were some sort of absolute, without considering other possibilities. As Captain Jack Harkness says: "people with their quaint categories".

But the fact is, historically, in the West those 'quaint categories' have been rigorously policed by various social controls. Whatever we, as 21C non-heterosexuals may want the world to be like, isn't how the world has been in the past, or how it is for most people now. I'm afraid you're thinking like the sort of historical novelists who want to modernise the past, and make it conform to present-day mores.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I don't think 1940s attempts at Freudianising 12C people (whom we can never know well enough for that) is very helpful. The author responsible for starting this wasn't aware of how public a 12C king's bedchamber was: that it would be very difficult for him and a leading noble (Count of Poitou and Duke of Aquitaine at this time) to get up to anything that would attract opprobrium from the clergy and other prominent persons.

Yes, I agree. It's an extraordinarily complex issue, and even people of our age can't be said to understand sexual psychology (or orientation), let alone understand the mores, living conditions and assumptions of people 800 years ago.

That being said: my hope is to get through the prejudices and assumptions of our age, to be able to look at the 12th century more clearly. I don't think we have enough evidence to say a lot about what was going on in Richard I's head, let alone Philip's, on the matter: and to call the evidence 'sketchy' would be exaggerating its extent.

But to be able to understand individuals of another age, or our own, we have to look as carefully as we can at the truth in all its aspects. So I think that however futile it might be to try to reach conclusions here, one should ask all the questions possible of the evidence.

I don't, in fact, think this question even comes close to addressing the matter of Richard's sexuality, let alone his orientation: it's an entirely separate issue that's worth looking at for other reasons, like English/French relations in general a the time. (Insofar as the terms 'English' and 'French' are not anachronistic.)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

What I'm trying to do is avoid assumptions either way. It's clear that people in the middle ages were not uniformly chaste; and the belief these days is that sexual orientation is a matter of biochemistry, something which applies to any age. So studying and questioning the sexual habits of another age sounds to me valid, even if we can't always get answers. I agree of course that this particular instance has nothing to do with Richard's sexuality, but I don't agree that we shouldn't as questions about (a) what it does mean and (b) what Richard's actual sexual habits were.

Pretend the subject isn't sex. It could be religion, or table manners, or home decor. It seems to me that any aspect of human activity has three aspects at least:

- the official way you're supposed to do things - the letter of the law (in this case, either secular or ecclesiastical)

- the way things are actually done - either through necessity, or ignorance of the law, or simple non-obsevance, or political and philosophical divergence (the Cathar society as contrasted to their non-Cathar neighours)

- the outlaws and the underground

In any given instance, it might be difficult or impossible to separate these strands, or to follow more than one of them, but I think it's important not to confuse them, and to - as applicable - take them into account.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

my hope is to get through the prejudices and assumptions of our age, to be able to look at the 12th century more clearly.

Which means putting aside our far more liberal and flexible approach to the matter. It's a world where people believed in the reality of hellfire and damnation; in the judgement of their sins.

I don't, in fact, think this question even comes close to addressing the matter of Richard's sexuality, let alone his orientation: it's an entirely separate issue that's worth looking at for other reasons, like English/French relations in general a the time. (Insofar as the terms 'English' and 'French' are not anachronistic.)

Aquitainian-Angevin-Norman and French. England was just a tiny adjunct of the Angevin-Aquitainian domains, and really most useful because it had a royal title attached, so the Angevins could claim equal status with the Capetians.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

What I'm trying to do is avoid assumptions either way. It's clear that people in the middle ages were not uniformly chaste; and the belief these days is that sexual orientation is a matter of biochemistry, something which applies to any age.

But the biochemistry isn't everything: social mores play a part, too.

In any given instance, it might be difficult or impossible to separate these strands, or to follow more than one of them, but I think it's important not to confuse them, and to - as applicable - take them into account.

Indeed. But I think, these days, there's a fashionable desire to enrol people posthumously into various 'undergrounds', regardless of evidence or lack thereof. (I'm reminded of the efforts, in spite of genealogical documentation, to class Philippa of Hainault as Black, because she was a swarthy brunette and her son was nicknamed the Black Prince!)

It wouldn't surprise me if Richard shagged the occasional squire or servant, just for a bit of novelty: he seems to have been regarded as oversexed, he was powerful, and he could get away with it, but his reputation in his own time was as a womaniser.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I'm almost sure many said bi.

Except they didn't. His contemporary reputation was as a promiscuous and predatory heterosexual. And if Helen Nicholson's theories re: the political origins and content of the Grail stories is correct, it was believed that his lack of legitimate heirs (he had at least one bastard) was a result of the diseases he contracted in Outremer.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

[Sorry - I posted without noticing I was logged out - how did that happen?]

the biochemistry isn't everything: social mores play a part, too

All the more reason to study the issue.

I'm reminded of the efforts, in spite of genealogical documentation, to class Philippa of Hainault as Black, because she was a swarthy brunette and her son was nicknamed the Black Prince!


Hee - that becomes a linguistic game. More smoke and mirrors than sense.

his reputation in his own time was as a womaniser.

Yes. No argument there.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Re Anthony Hopkins in The Lion in Winter:

I'm glad to see someone else who thinks so.

Oh, definitely. I thought he made a very pedestrian, unglamorous Richard, considering he was a man who was the grand celebrity of his age.

I think Hopkins is generally overrated, in part because he always seems
to be overacting - or at least "acting!"

I'm struggling for an intelligent response - I know there are roles I've like him in, but I can't think of one, offhand. I haven't seen any of the Hannibal Lector movies because I am Queen of the Wimps.

Dalton's Philip seems more like a smart kid who is backed into a corner and is playing chess to get out.

Yes - I liked that interpretation of the character. And I always love his speech to Henry about his father - "You made him nothing and you made him love you for it." I know of no historical justification but it's such prime dramatic stuff.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

I've always liked what Jonathan Goldberg has to say about the whole issue (he is talking about early modern culture rather than high medieval, and early modern culture was far more hung up on these things than medieval seems to have been):

If, as Foucault argues, "sodomy was a category of forbidden acts," and "their perpetrator was nothing more than the juridical subject of them" (43), then, as Bray insists, it is impossible to call anyone in the Renaissance a homosexual, virtually impossible to believe that anyone might self-identify as a sodomite. But if, on the other hand, sodomy named sexual acts only in particularly stigmatizing contexts, there is no reason not to believe that such acts went on all the time, unrecognized as sodomy, called, among other things, friendship or patronage, and facilitated by the beds shared, for instance, by servants or students, by teachers and pupils, by kings and their minions or queens and their ladies. Thus, although sodomy is, as a sexual act, anything that threatens alliance -- any sexual act, that is, that does not promote the aim of married procreative sex...and while sodomy involves therefore acts that men might perform with men, women with women (a possibility rarely envisioned), men and women with each other, and anyone with a goat, a pig, or a horse, these acts -- or accusations of their performance -- emerge into visibility only when those who are said to have done them also can be called traitors, heretics, or the like, at the very least, disturbers of the social order that alliance -- marriage arrangements -- maintained.

Which is to say, pre-modern eras conceived of these things differently, obviously we don't know what Philip and Richard got up to (or didn't), but at the same time, the existence of the rumor plays some sort of discursive/political role and merits examination, all the same.

Which may make me a fetishist, but whatever. ;)

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

ee - that becomes a linguistic game. More smoke and mirrors than sense.

Yes: she actually figured in a poll of "Great Black Britons", when the most exotic bit in her ancestry was Turkish (which might explain her Mediterranean colouring!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

It's a very interesting quote.

The problem with talking about all these things (well, one of the problems) is the difficulty in defining terms when you are referring to times in which those terms did not exist, and we have to figure out what concepts were used in their place.

Which in itself is fascinating to track down and try to figure out.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

*grumbles quietly*

People say the funniest things about history. It's as if it has an ongoing political significance, and people have a vested interest in seeing it in a certain way, regardless of the evidence. Or they feel the need to take responsibility for people who lived hundreds of years ago - apologizing for the actions of the past. I feel no more responsible for the Inquisition than I feel responsible for Shakespeare or the invention of the flying buttress. These things happened. I wasn't there. Heck, I don't even feel responsible for the atrocities happening in 2008. I wish I was responsible: then I could stop them.

most people will want to tell you that thinking gay is all conspiracy-theoristic of you, and assuming everyone from day 1 were always het "makes sense".

Well - that's wrong. That's just wrong. Which is one reason I keep telling people I'm bi. Let them see that everyone isn't het by showing them someone who isn't.

One could argue that a guy who didn't get laid much and didn't want it much, mostly due to his upbringing or something, or his religion, would freak and go all "sinner me" if he slept with someone twice. Man or woman. Or even just had thoughts. Of course, I have very little knowledge of the subject, and just theorising based on what you just told me.

Well, in Richard's case, that doesn't apply, since he seems to have been sexual enough and then some - it's pretty certain he wasn't undersexed or asexual. But compared to, say, his brother or his father, it's hard to pin this down to specifics.

There's another reason not to take it too seriously: Richard was in Italy at the time, and he needed the Pope's help, and Popes are capricious creatures. So he did this fancy public penance for "the vines of the sin of unnatural lust" or some such phrase. It won him support - he was always good with the splashy PR. In his time, he was known as a womanizer who neglected his wife.

And of course he didn't specify what he meant by "unnatural lust". It could have meant he liked men, it could have just meant 'excessive', it could have meant anything.

It wasn't until the 1940s that anyone suggested he might be gay, and the argument was that he wasn't interested in his wife and never had any children. (Not that gay men don't have children, often enough.) But that just meant the person who came up with the theory hadn't been looking at the contemporary accounts, or discounted them: not only was he said to seduce women, but he also had an illegitimate son. The line about him sleeping with Philip Augustus looked significant, along with the 'unnatural lust'.

people say "bi" as if there are only two options, but the word is just used for "inclusive" nowadays.

Yup. Which is one reason I like the BBC calling Captain Jack Harkness 'omnisexual', even though they have never actually used the word on Torchwood. But 'flexible' is nice, too - they used that one on Doctor Who.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Well - that's wrong. That's just wrong. Which is one reason I keep telling people I'm bi. Let them see that everyone isn't het by showing them someone who isn't.

Indeed. And – if people enquire – I say I'm physically a-, emotionally bi. But most people are basically straight: no amount of wishful thinking will change that, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise, just because it doesn't appeal to oneself personally. People like us are a minority, and it's a kind of narcissism to pretend otherwise, to want to remake the world in one's own image.

And of course he didn't specify what he meant by "unnatural lust". It could have meant he liked men, it could have just meant 'excessive', it could have meant anything.

My suspicion is it's his way of dealing with the allegations of sexual predation. The way the Poitevins worded it, it sounded as if he abducted and raped women, and then gave them to his soldiers for whoring. This was bad according to contemporary mores because a) they were free women, and b) by handing them to his soldiers, he was avoiding any possible responsibility for supporting bastard children, as he would be able to deny paternity.

As to his lack of legitimate offspring and paucity of acknowledged illegitimate ones, his various illnesses, particularly the prolonged and serious fevers he had at Acre, may have done drastic things to his sperm-count.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

Exactly, yeah. That's a major part of my work on Richard II. And, I mean, it's all so highly fraught -- you get chroniclers going "ZOMG SODOMY" and then later historians (or in my case Shakespeare editors) going "ZOMG NO SODOMY" and it ends up being all about who's doing what, and with what, and to whom, rather than what that means, politically and iconographically and so forth. Or, I guess, the question is as much about queer spaces as queer people?

(Also, even in modern terms, one wonders if people have ever heard of bisexuality, but we know that our culture is weird about that, anyway.)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

That's a major part of my work on Richard II.

Which must be interesting! I envy you that.

I mean, it's all so highly fraught

Yes, sexual things usually are. And I'm not sure why. Because ... are reactions so deeply tied into our neurology? or what?

(or in my case Shakespeare editors) going "ZOMG NO SODOMY"

LOL!

I guess, the question is as much about queer spaces as queer people?

Yup, that too. It seems that no matter what neutral words you try to use to poke at the problem, you end up in a whirlpool of different conceptions.

even in modern terms, one wonders if people have ever heard of bisexuality, but we know that our culture is weird about that

Considering how many people are bi - it certainly isn't rare in my circles - is there a lot of denial going on? or just confusion?

[wanderinunicorn.livejournal.com]

I'm not a historian, I didn't read any primary sources, but I can imagine, that the contemporary chronists feared to use the word sodomy in relation to mighty kings or dynasties- so they rather wrote sin or lust -or something like that.The sodomy was a crime at this time and the punishments were draconian. The chronists knew, that an accusation without proof could have a terrible consequences for themselves. Just my two pence, sorry maybe it's a nonsense.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

The thing is, the motives and situation of every chronicler are different. In some cases, the kings or people the chronicler was describing were dead, or enemies of the regime who supported the chronicler - that would be incentive to malign a person.

And "sodomy" means different things in different chronicles - sometimes it's totally unclear what it actually means, and sometimes it's clear its not what we'd expect it to mean.

The more you look at the subject, the more complicated it is.

[colliemommie.livejournal.com]

"Dalton's Philip seems more like a smart kid who is backed into a corner and is playing chess to get out."

I like that. It certainly describes that "not panicking, not panicking" vibe he gave off whenever O'Toole's Henry stopped beinh blustery and started being astute. I wouldn't have considered him "nasty", mostly because his Philip seems to take a very intellectualized approach toward dealing with everything...which is why I like the chess simile.

I also didn't like Hopkins much, I kept wanting to quote I,Claudius at him and say "Your gloom is *magnificent*". Especially becuase his portrayl is so unlike what I picture Richard I to have been (more along the quick character summary in _Daughter_of_Time_ "rocketing to and fro like a badly made firework")

[lilithlotr.livejournal.com]

I have absolutely nothing to add. I just don't get to use this icon very often

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

- And you were quite right to post - it's gorgeous! Thank you for that bit of morning eye candy!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

It certainly describes that "not panicking, not panicking" vibe he gave off whenever O'Toole's Henry stopped being blustery and started being astute.

I love their scenes together. For all his toughness, there's something so avuncular about Henry, and something so defensive and terrified about Philip.

Especially becuase his portrayl is so unlike what I picture Richard I to have been

Yes. Whether you like him or not - and I do - he was a charismatic giant of his age, and that doesn't come across at all with the Hopkins performance. I can see him brooding, but not sulking. I think he was diabolically clever and his his weaknesses well - which doesn't even have a part in Hopkins' portrayal.