GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-03 > 1016953186


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Phillip and Richard
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:59:46 -0700
References: <d3.104d29f4.27b5e0b3@aol.com>, <016a01c095d0$e5ce1b80$84e8dcc2@alex>, <a7ivjn$fj5$1@aristotelis.cytanet.com.cy>


Pandelis wrote:

> What about William II?
>
> "Alexander Polenov" <> wrote in message
> news:016a01c095d0$e5ce1b80$...
>
>>I think Richard I hadn't time for sex because all his time was fullfilled
>>
> by
>
>>battles.
>>
>>
>>>Richard I of England was probably homosexual and Henry III of France,
>>>probably not.


Please. You cannot tell of a person is homosexual unless you see
them doing the deed (and even then, what exactly it proves is a
complex psychological and sociological issue). No children? -
try infertility. Didn't seem fond of his wife? - in an age of
arranged marriage but no divorce, don't you think that would
happen occasionally? liked to pal around with men? - ever been to
a Super Bowl party? Accused of it by his enemies? - like that
doesn't happen to straight people. Likewise, there are a lot of
homosexuals who are able to avoid 'outing' by the records of the
time, whether then or now. Simply put, the historical record
cannot provide an answer to this question, and the speculation
that has gone on by learned historians and tabloid journalists
has primarily served the agenda (whether one of politics or
finances) of the author a lot more than they have illuminated
historical reality. More to the point, the sexual preference of
a person is not relevant to their genealogy. They still were
children, husbands, wives, parents and ancestors of the same
people, so no purpose is served by discussing it in this group.

taf

This thread: