Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gay

To use the term in its modern sense is actually inappropriate since we have
a different understanding and moral approach to differining human sexuality.
Edward II had at least one recorded relationship with a woman prior to his
marriage and is believed to have had a child by her, given his reliance on
two particular male favourites the accusation of homosexuality is certainly
to be expected in contemporary accounts as well as modern histories and the
reputed manner of his death is certainly suggestive. The age dates for the
birth of his children by his wife wouldn't suggest that they were Mortimers
but then its a rare child who can ever be sure of its father. Incidentally
I am fairly certain from memory that Gaveston or Despenser if not both had
children. James I certainly had male favourites and was physically close
to them but there is no obvious evidence that the relationships ever
ventured into the sexual arena in fact his religious writings and known
opinions suggest he may well have found the idea abhorant.

PS

> James I was bisexual, but Edward II has come down to us as out & out
> homosexual & these find women repulsive "

Mmm a bit of an odd statement - certainly some gay men find women sexually
unappealing but many don't.

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> To use the term (gay) in its modern sense is actually inappropriate
since we have> a different understanding and moral approach to
differining human sexuality.

Do we? Homosexuality as an act is clearly defined, surely? The
Vatican's moral position, theoreticalliy, is fairly clear.

> Edward II had at least one recorded relationship with a woman prior
to his> marriage and is believed to have had a child by her, given his
reliance on> two particular male favourites the accusation of
homosexuality is certainly > to be expected in contemporary accounts
as well as modern histories and the> reputed manner of his death is
certainly suggestive.

Yes, the suggestion of homosexuality is there! Marlowe's Play
reinforced this view, even if the evidence isn't absolute. DNA
testing would clear this up and certainly the nature of Edward's death
strongly suggests that he was a passive homosexual, which type would
have the utmost difficulty with a woman, as Edward found with
Isabella. It's a bit like Julian Clary marrying Madonna: unlikely to
get much of a response in bed!

The age dates for the> birth of his children by his wife wouldn't
suggest that they were Mortimers.

And this is the point I was making, that if Isabells's children were
born out of wedlock, they were BASTARDS!!! and they weren't
Plantagenet and the name had ceased then, meaning that none of the
Lancastrian or Yorkist monarchs were Plantagenet, but Mortimer.

Incidentally> I am fairly certain from memory that Gaveston or
Despenser if not both had> children.

This may've given them an active role, as opposed to Edward's passive
one, with their King.

James I certainly had male favourites and was physically
close> to them but there is no obvious evidence that the relationships
ever> ventured into the sexual arena in fact his religious writings
and known> opinions suggest he may well have found the idea abhorant.

I know that James was observed fondling the Duke of Buckingham in a
very private place in Court and this suggests bisexual tendencies. If
James was hypocritical in his writings, well, what's new?
>
> > James I was bisexual, but Edward II has come down to us as out &
out> > homosexual & these find women repulsive "
>
> Mmm a bit of an odd statement - certainly some gay men find women
sexually> unappealing but many don't.

Passive gay men, who take the female role, e.g. Quentin Crisp, would
have no enthusiasm about a sexual encounter with females, as Quentin
openly said, otherwise, we are venturing into bisexual territory.

Incidentally, while we are on the subject of Edward III being a
bastard, it may be that Arthur Plantagenet played the pre-contract
card and said that because of this, he - Arthur - was the legitimate
heir & Edward's children by Elizabeth Grey were bastards. Richard
III's use of the precontract scam (as I see it) could be used to muddy
the waters for many!

Hey, they may have cared who was a bastard, mostly for
political reasons that could change - but why do we?

How homosexuality came into it went right by me. Can
probably stay gone.

Dora

>
> Incidentally, while we are on the subject of Edward
> III being a
> bastard, it may be that Arthur Plantagenet played
> the pre-contract
> card and said that because of this, he - Arthur -
> was the legitimate
> heir & Edward's children by Elizabeth Grey were
> bastards. Richard
> III's use of the precontract scam (as I see it)
> could be used to muddy
> the waters for many!
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> To use the term in its modern sense is actually inappropriate since
we have
> a different understanding and moral approach to differining human
sexuality.
> Edward II had at least one recorded relationship with a woman prior
to his
> marriage and is believed to have had a child by her, given his
reliance on
> two particular male favourites the accusation of homosexuality is
certainly
> to be expected in contemporary accounts as well as modern histories
and the
> reputed manner of his death is certainly suggestive. The age dates
for the
> birth of his children by his wife wouldn't suggest that they were
Mortimers
> but then its a rare child who can ever be sure of its father.
Incidentally
> I am fairly certain from memory that Gaveston or Despenser if not
both had
> children. James I certainly had male favourites and was
physically close
> to them but there is no obvious evidence that the relationships ever
> ventured into the sexual arena in fact his religious writings and
known
> opinions suggest he may well have found the idea abhorant.
>
> PS
>
> > James I was bisexual, but Edward II has come down to us as out &
out
> > homosexual & these find women repulsive "
>
> Mmm a bit of an odd statement - certainly some gay men find women
sexually
> unappealing but many don't.

Using terms such as 'gay' and 'homosexual' as complete identities is
difficult enough now at times. I am in a homosexual relationship
whilst my partner has been married in the past and has a daughter. To
try and go back to the 15th or 14th century gets even more
complicated. I don't think that there is any record of Piers Gaveston
having any children, though was married. Edward II favourite after
Gaveston, Hugh the Despenser the Younger was also married. But then
Oscar Wilde was married with children.

> Using terms such as 'gay' and 'homosexual' as complete identities is
> difficult enough now at times. I am in a homosexual relationship
> whilst my partner has been married in the past and has a daughter.

Bravo Michael! I think people's sexual preferences cover a whole spectrum
and we are being a bit too post-Freudian in this respect.

As for the 15th century, who knows? I have a long-cherished plan to write a
(fantasy) novel in which Richard has a long-standing relationship with
Francis Lovell.

Cheers

Jessica

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
>
> Hey, they may have cared who was a bastard, mostly for
> political reasons that could change - but why do we?
>
> How homosexuality came into it went right by me. Can
> probably stay gone.
>
> Dora
>
Personally, I think Richard was overly fond of bastardizing others &,
as you say, for political reasons: to advance himself and demote
others.

The homosexuality issue relates to the question of whether Edward II,
who may well have been a passive homosexual, could've possibly
fathered Edward III: the progentitor of the Lancastrian/Yorkist
factions It's ironic if Richard's bastardization of Edward V was
overshadowed by descent from a bastard himself. Of course, William
the Conqueror who really set the ball rolling for the English Royal
Family was illegitimate himself.

We may not care about who was a bastard or who was gay now, but such
matters did influence politics then!

> The homosexuality issue relates to the question of whether Edward II,
> who may well have been a passive homosexual, could've possibly
> fathered Edward III: the progentitor of the Lancastrian/Yorkist
> factions

There just isn't a shred of evidence that Edward II was a "Passive
homosexual". I mean it is pretty outdated to divide homosexuals into
passive and active, an attitude predicated on heterosexual behaviour. Does
it really matter whether or not Mortimer fathered the whole lot? Edward III
was accepted as his father's heir at the time. I'm sure that whatever his
true sexual preferences, Ed II would have done the necessary to father an
heir.

I do'nt think being gay had anything to do with the succession after Edward
II. One of the king and queen's jobs to produce heirs and obviously that was
done. If it wasn't his I don't think it would be kept that big a secret. Just
my idea of it.

As for a new topic, I just bought The Reluctant QUeen by Jean Plaidy. Anyone
here read it before?

-Victoria
"Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-Oscar
Wilde

As far as I'm aware, Piers Gaveston didn't have any children, but the
younger Despenser certainly did - one of his sons played an active
role in the early stages of the Hundred Years War and has a beautiful
tomb in Tewkesbury Abbey (as does Despenser himself).

Roger Mortimer could certainly not have been the father of Edward
III, because his liaison with Isabella did not begin until 1324-25.
Given that inheritance and inheritance rights were so important at
that time, paternity was a serious matter. My feeling is that until a
queen had safely produced an heir and a spare she would have been
given very little opportunity to consort with lovers. A close watch
would be kept on her activities so that there was no danger of a
bastard being foisted on an unwitting monarch. Once the succession
was secure, she would have more freedom. If a queen produced a son
who potentially stood in the direct line of succession and was not
her husband's, there would, I think, have been a stink of epic
proportions.

If I remember correctly, the liaison with Mortimer began in France,
while Isabella was visiting her brother Louis X. Mortimer had fled
there after escaping from the Tower. Isabella would, I think, have
been a rather freer agent at her brother's court than at home (though
there is the mystery of how Katharine of Valois managed to have three
sons by Owen Tudor without anyone apparently noticing!) I will have
to double-check my facts, but from the beginning of her liaison until
her invasion Isabella was continuously out of England. In 1325 she
accompanied the future Edward III to France where he did homage as
Duke of Guienne, and then refused either to allow him to return or to
go back herself. She stayed in France until she and Mortimer invaded
in September 1326.

Ann

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> I do'nt think being gay had anything to do with the succession
after Edward
> II. One of the king and queen's jobs to produce heirs and obviously
that was
> done. If it wasn't his I don't think it would be kept that big a
secret. Just
> my idea of it.
>
> As for a new topic, I just bought The Reluctant QUeen by Jean
Plaidy. Anyone
> here read it before?
>
> -Victoria
> "Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-
Oscar
> Wilde
>
>
>

Without a DNA check between Edward II & Edward III we'll never be
entirely sure about paternity, just as such a check between Edward
V & Elizabeth of York would be useful. I'm all for this type of
forensic archaeology!

As for what Isabella really got up to and whether she was watched as
closely as you imply, I'm not sure. Certainly, if she found herself
saddled with a passive homosexual husband unable to consummate the
relationship, who knows what she, as Queen, may've done? She
certainly didn't show any tenderness in the way she behaved later: she
took an open lover, had Edward II murdered and has come down to us as
the 'she wolf of France.'

As you say, Katherine of Valois managed to slip between the sheets
with Tudor without anyone noticing and other members of the Royal
Family were certainly not averse to secret affairs: Edward IV.
Richard III was able to use the precontract myth to claim the crown,
because who was legitimate and illegitimate had become fogged.

If Edward IV used the precontract ply on several women, was the first
his true wife, the second bigamous, Elizabeth Grey's offspring
illegitimate or was Richard telling a lie? Telling a lie in the
tradition the ruthless & treacherous character of his two older
brothers: Edward IV & Clarence, whose name has become a synonym for
treachery!

I sometimes wonder if the terrible death of their brother Rutland in
1460 (aged 13?) along with their Father, had perhaps unhinged the
brothers three?

-- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> As far as I'm aware, Piers Gaveston didn't have any children, but
the
> younger Despenser certainly did - one of his sons played an active
> role in the early stages of the Hundred Years War and has a
beautiful
> tomb in Tewkesbury Abbey (as does Despenser himself).
>
> Roger Mortimer could certainly not have been the father of Edward
> III, because his liaison with Isabella did not begin until 1324-25.
> Given that inheritance and inheritance rights were so important at
> that time, paternity was a serious matter. My feeling is that until
a
> queen had safely produced an heir and a spare she would have been
> given very little opportunity to consort with lovers. A close watch
> would be kept on her activities so that there was no danger of a
> bastard being foisted on an unwitting monarch. Once the succession
> was secure, she would have more freedom. If a queen produced a son
> who potentially stood in the direct line of succession and was not
> her husband's, there would, I think, have been a stink of epic
> proportions.
>
> If I remember correctly, the liaison with Mortimer began in France,
> while Isabella was visiting her brother Louis X. Mortimer had fled
> there after escaping from the Tower. Isabella would, I think, have
> been a rather freer agent at her brother's court than at home
(though
> there is the mystery of how Katharine of Valois managed to have
three
> sons by Owen Tudor without anyone apparently noticing!) I will have
> to double-check my facts, but from the beginning of her liaison
until
> her invasion Isabella was continuously out of England. In 1325 she
> accompanied the future Edward III to France where he did homage as
> Duke of Guienne, and then refused either to allow him to return or
to
> go back herself. She stayed in France until she and Mortimer invaded
> in September 1326.
>
> Ann
>
> --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
> > I do'nt think being gay had anything to do with the succession
> after Edward
> > II. One of the king and queen's jobs to produce heirs and
obviously
> that was
> > done. If it wasn't his I don't think it would be kept that big a
> secret. Just
> > my idea of it.
> >
> > As for a new topic, I just bought The Reluctant QUeen by Jean
> Plaidy. Anyone
> > here read it before?
> >
> > -Victoria
> > "Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty
ones."-
> Oscar
> > Wilde
> >
> >
> >

You are quite right that ultimately we don't know the truth about
relations between Edward II and Isabella (and never will). However,
it is quite possible that it took a number of years for Isabella to
develop the extreme antipathy towards Edward which is apparent in her
actions in 1326-27. I don't think we can assume that Edward
was 'unable' to consummate the marriage - he may have preferred men
but he did acknowledge an illegitimate child so he was not entirely
incapable of heterosexual relations.

As to the parallel you draw with Edward IV, I don't think we can
assume either that because a king was able to have a vigorous extra-
marital sex life, a queen could as well. Shortly before his death in
1314 Isabella's father Philip the Fair had all his three daughters-in-
law thrown into prison for alleged adultery, and following his
accession her eldest brother Louis X had his still-imprisoned wife
smothered in order to clear the way for him to marry again. He also
denied having fathered her daughter Jeanne (who was nevertheless
acclaimed Queen of Navarre on his death, though not of France).

This, of course, makes Katharine of Valois's liaison with Owen Tudor
the more puzzling (though by then she was Dowager Queen and no child
she had would be in the line of succession).

Finally, I agree with you that the deaths of their father and brother
would have come as a terrible shock to the three survivors, but we
are necessarily relying on conjecture when we consider the effects.
Quite possible though that each would have wanted in future to get
the first blow in - just as we can see Richard doing with Hastings et
al.

Ann


--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Without a DNA check between Edward II & Edward III we'll never be
> entirely sure about paternity, just as such a check between Edward
> V & Elizabeth of York would be useful. I'm all for this type of
> forensic archaeology!
>
> As for what Isabella really got up to and whether she was watched
as
> closely as you imply, I'm not sure. Certainly, if she found
herself
> saddled with a passive homosexual husband unable to consummate the
> relationship, who knows what she, as Queen, may've done? She
> certainly didn't show any tenderness in the way she behaved later:
she
> took an open lover, had Edward II murdered and has come down to us
as
> the 'she wolf of France.'
>
> As you say, Katherine of Valois managed to slip between the sheets
> with Tudor without anyone noticing and other members of the Royal
> Family were certainly not averse to secret affairs: Edward IV.
> Richard III was able to use the precontract myth to claim the
crown,
> because who was legitimate and illegitimate had become fogged.
>
> If Edward IV used the precontract ply on several women, was the
first
> his true wife, the second bigamous, Elizabeth Grey's offspring
> illegitimate or was Richard telling a lie? Telling a lie in the
> tradition the ruthless & treacherous character of his two older
> brothers: Edward IV & Clarence, whose name has become a synonym for
> treachery!
>
> I sometimes wonder if the terrible death of their brother Rutland
in
> 1460 (aged 13?) along with their Father, had perhaps unhinged the
> brothers three?
>
> -- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > As far as I'm aware, Piers Gaveston didn't have any children, but
> the
> > younger Despenser certainly did - one of his sons played an
active
> > role in the early stages of the Hundred Years War and has a
> beautiful
> > tomb in Tewkesbury Abbey (as does Despenser himself).
> >
> > Roger Mortimer could certainly not have been the father of Edward
> > III, because his liaison with Isabella did not begin until 1324-
25.
> > Given that inheritance and inheritance rights were so important
at
> > that time, paternity was a serious matter. My feeling is that
until
> a
> > queen had safely produced an heir and a spare she would have been
> > given very little opportunity to consort with lovers. A close
watch
> > would be kept on her activities so that there was no danger of a
> > bastard being foisted on an unwitting monarch. Once the
succession
> > was secure, she would have more freedom. If a queen produced a
son
> > who potentially stood in the direct line of succession and was
not
> > her husband's, there would, I think, have been a stink of epic
> > proportions.
> >
> > If I remember correctly, the liaison with Mortimer began in
France,
> > while Isabella was visiting her brother Louis X. Mortimer had
fled
> > there after escaping from the Tower. Isabella would, I think,
have
> > been a rather freer agent at her brother's court than at home
> (though
> > there is the mystery of how Katharine of Valois managed to have
> three
> > sons by Owen Tudor without anyone apparently noticing!) I will
have
> > to double-check my facts, but from the beginning of her liaison
> until
> > her invasion Isabella was continuously out of England. In 1325
she
> > accompanied the future Edward III to France where he did homage
as
> > Duke of Guienne, and then refused either to allow him to return
or
> to
> > go back herself. She stayed in France until she and Mortimer
invaded
> > in September 1326.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > --- In ,
hockeygirl1016@a...
> > wrote:
> > > I do'nt think being gay had anything to do with the succession
> > after Edward
> > > II. One of the king and queen's jobs to produce heirs and
> obviously
> > that was
> > > done. If it wasn't his I don't think it would be kept that big
a
> > secret. Just
> > > my idea of it.
> > >
> > > As for a new topic, I just bought The Reluctant QUeen by Jean
> > Plaidy. Anyone
> > > here read it before?
> > >
> > > -Victoria
> > > "Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty
> ones."-
> > Oscar
> > > Wilde
> > >
> > >
> > >

You're the first person I've ever seen confuse
"Freudian" with "biological" and "genetic"!

Dora

--- Jessica Rydill <la@...> wrote:
> > Using terms such as 'gay' and 'homosexual' as
> complete identities is
> > difficult enough now at times. I am in a
> homosexual relationship
> > whilst my partner has been married in the past and
> has a daughter.
>
> Bravo Michael! I think people's sexual preferences
> cover a whole spectrum
> and we are being a bit too post-Freudian in this
> respect.
>
> As for the 15th century, who knows? I have a
> long-cherished plan to write a
> (fantasy) novel in which Richard has a long-standing
> relationship with
> Francis Lovell.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jessica
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I'm all for it, too. In fact, while we're at it we
could trace variegate porphyria! I'm pretty sure it
was in the European royal lines by the time of King
Stephen, who had attacks that sure look like it.

Alfred the Great had a mess of problems typical of
variegate porphyria, though he could have just had a
mess of problems, something ailed the entire Saxon
royal line from his time forth, though it could have
been another mental or neurological illness, and
several closely related Merovingian kings had sudden
brief episodes of "madness" or "paralysis".

Dora



--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Without a DNA check between Edward II & Edward III
> we'll never be
> entirely sure about paternity, just as such a check
> between Edward
> V & Elizabeth of York would be useful. I'm all for
> this type of
> forensic archaeology!
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:

I don't think we can assume that Edward> was 'unable' to consummate
the marriage - he may have preferred men> but he did acknowledge an
illegitimate child so he was not entirely> incapable of heterosexual
relations.

We are heavily speculating here, but Edward may've claimed the
illegitimate child as a cover. The gay film star Rock Hudson appeared
macho for years, but he wasn't! In fact, James Dean & he were more
interested in each other on the film set of 'Giant' than the beautiful
Elizabeth Taylor.

Isabella's father Philip the Fair had all his three
daughters-in-> law thrown into prison for alleged adultery

...which suggests, if true, that women did commit adultery and so
Isabella may've cheated on Edward II.
>
Anyway, I don't suppose there will be a rush to open tombs for DNA
comparisons, but I do think a check on the bones of Elizabeth of York
& Edward V would be useful. But even if Edward V is proved to have
died in 1483, some will still blame Buckingham...

Inherited mental illness in the Royal Family from Charles VI of France
to Henry VI, possibly in the paranoid & obsessive behaviour of Henry
VII, in the overblown paranoia of Henry VIII is possible to
perceive, but there may be other social causes or diseases. Henry
VIII suiffered from syphilis!

As for later monarchs, well, mad George III stands out, but what about
present members? Anyone for Charles?


--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> I'm all for it, too. In fact, while we're at it we
> could trace variegate porphyria! I'm pretty sure it
> was in the European royal lines by the time of King
> Stephen, who had attacks that sure look like it.
>
> Alfred the Great had a mess of problems typical of
> variegate porphyria, though he could have just had a
> mess of problems, something ailed the entire Saxon
> royal line from his time forth, though it could have
> been another mental or neurological illness, and
> several closely related Merovingian kings had sudden
> brief episodes of "madness" or "paralysis".
>
> Dora
>

Have you seen the series of articles and books on royalty and
porphyria? McAlpine and Hunter traced variegate porphyria to Ithink
James I, and they confirmed their guess by testing the entire family
of the current as of 1969 Crown Prince of Hanover. This rare genetic
disorder ordinarily causes acute symptoms in about 10% of people with
the condition, so all 3rd cousins of anyone who has it have to be
tested - and at that time all European royalty were interrelated
infinite times within that degree of relationship. Six of the eight
adult membersof the family tested positive for variegate porphyria.

Another writer took up the theme, and traced the illness to Charles
VI of France; Henry VI of England was closely related to it and had
it as well, and I think something remarkable like Charles VI's mother
married the mother or grandmother of Henry Tudor. But if I am right
and the disease was already widespread in European royalty by 1200,
and ample people with its characteristic attacks of characteristic
symptoms which included red urine, then Elizabeth of York could very
easily have carried the condition.

They didn't have the genetic test yet; they tested for the
characteristic metabolic abnormalities that appear in 95% of all
people with the genetic enzyme deficiency of variegate porphyria.
Other metabolic factors as well as environmental variables such as
exposure to lead (medieval royalty guzzled it in their wine and
breathed it from the paint on their walls) determine who gets acute
symptoms. The rest of the 95% have subtler chronic symptoms like
those of mood and anxiety disorders, characteristic of subclinical
lead poisoning (which causes porphyria).

An inbred line with variegate porphyria runs the risk of having
children with two of the bad gene (one from each parent). Someone
with ONE defective gene makes 50% of the normal quantity of one of
the enzymes of the heme biosynthetic pathway (to metabolic enzymes
and not hemaglobin which is made by separate genes), and someone with
two defective genes makes about 4% of the normal supply of that
enzyme. Such children are often born dead or die in infancy and until
recently didn't often live past puberty. Sometimes they are mentally
retarded, and sometimes not.

Henry VII and Catherine of Aragon had seven or eight children,
including two sons. When Mary was 15 she was the only child left
living. I think James I had something remarkable like one child of
fifteen survive.

I have the articles and much from the books; I wonder how much of
THAT is now on line?

I also mapped out these peoples' genealogies, which are a trip. These
families formed interalliances of five or six families, who
exclusively married each other for hundreds of years until the
alliances shifted and maybe one or two mroe families joined the
pattern, and it repeated. Last serious genetic turnover before
Charles' generation, was around 1100. I have just learned of
programs that could possibly enable me to put those genealogical
charts on line.

Dora


Dora

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Inherited mental illness in the Royal Family from Charles VI of
France
> to Henry VI, possibly in the paranoid & obsessive behaviour of
Henry
> VII, in the overblown paranoia of Henry VIII is possible to
> perceive, but there may be other social causes or diseases. Henry
> VIII suiffered from syphilis!
>
> As for later monarchs, well, mad George III stands out, but what
about
> present members? Anyone for Charles?
>
>
> --- In , Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > I'm all for it, too. In fact, while we're at it we
> > could trace variegate porphyria! I'm pretty sure it
> > was in the European royal lines by the time of King
> > Stephen, who had attacks that sure look like it.
> >
> > Alfred the Great had a mess of problems typical of
> > variegate porphyria, though he could have just had a
> > mess of problems, something ailed the entire Saxon
> > royal line from his time forth, though it could have
> > been another mental or neurological illness, and
> > several closely related Merovingian kings had sudden
> > brief episodes of "madness" or "paralysis".
> >
> > Dora
> >

Richard certainly got the first blow in, but was this an over-reaction
or an astute observation of human nature? People had fought for power
like mindless reptiles for centuries, so perhaps Richard was
anticipating the next move like a good chess player or military man.


--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:

> Finally, I agree with you that the deaths of their father and
brother> would have come as a terrible shock to the three survivors,
but we> are necessarily relying on conjecture when we consider the
effects.> Quite possible though that each would have wanted in future
to get > the first blow in - just as we can see Richard doing with
Hastings et> al.
>
> Ann

In relation to Philip the Fair's daughters-in-law the point I was
making was not so much that they had the opportunity to commit
adultery, but rather that the consequences of adultery for senior
royal ladies were likely to be unpleasant (at any rate where
discovered). Under the English Statute of Treasons 1352 (still in
force) sexual relations with the queen, the wife of the heir apparent
or the king's eldest daughter while unmarried was and remains high
treason, with the medieval offender liable for hanging, drawing and
quartering (yes, James Hewitt was committing treason!).

In suggesting that Edward II 'claimed' an illegitimate child to cover
his tracks you are indeed speculating very heavily! I think we'll
have to agree to differ here.

Ann


--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> I don't think we can assume that Edward> was 'unable' to consummate
> the marriage - he may have preferred men> but he did acknowledge an
> illegitimate child so he was not entirely> incapable of
heterosexual
> relations.
>
> We are heavily speculating here, but Edward may've claimed the
> illegitimate child as a cover. The gay film star Rock Hudson
appeared
> macho for years, but he wasn't! In fact, James Dean & he were more
> interested in each other on the film set of 'Giant' than the
beautiful
> Elizabeth Taylor.
>
> Isabella's father Philip the Fair had all his three
> daughters-in-> law thrown into prison for alleged adultery
>
> ...which suggests, if true, that women did commit adultery and so
> Isabella may've cheated on Edward II.
> >
> Anyway, I don't suppose there will be a rush to open tombs for DNA
> comparisons, but I do think a check on the bones of Elizabeth of
York
> & Edward V would be useful. But even if Edward V is proved to have
> died in 1483, some will still blame Buckingham...

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> In relation to Philip the Fair's daughters-in-law the point I was
> making was not so much that they had the opportunity to commit
> adultery, but rather that the consequences of adultery for senior
> royal ladies were likely to be unpleasant (at any rate where
> discovered). Under the English Statute of Treasons 1352 (still in
> force) sexual relations with the queen, the wife of the heir
apparent> or the king's eldest daughter while unmarried was and
remains high > treason, with the medieval offender liable for hanging,
drawing and > quartering (yes, James Hewitt was committing treason!).

There was a justifiable fear that women might just jump into bed with
someone other than their husband.
>
> In suggesting that Edward II 'claimed' an illegitimate child to
cover> his tracks you are indeed speculating very heavily! I think
we'll> have to agree to differ here.
>
> Ann

Well, according to the records, Edward II with his spouse: Isabella
daughter of Philip IV, King of France had FOUR children: Edward, John,
Eleanor & Joan and yet the same source says that it's highly likely
that Gaveston was his homosexual lover. The method of Edward's murder
suggests that he was seen as a passive gay, so could he've been able
to father 4 legitimate & 1 illegitimate children? Passive gays,
according to Quentin Crisp who was one, would if they went to bed
with a beautiful woman get no reaction at all!

It's a very, very strange World!


>

Not to sound like a pain in the neck, but I don't think it was officially
proved that Henry VIII suffered from syphilis. Actually, I read that Francis
I of France died from it, but I'm not 100% sure if that is true either.

-Victoria
"Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-Oscar
Wilde

Run that past me again, Dora. I said we were being too post-Freudian? Why
biological or genetic?

Puzzled of Bath UK!


----- Original Message -----
From: Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Gay


> You're the first person I've ever seen confuse
> "Freudian" with "biological" and "genetic"!
>
> Dora
>
> --- Jessica Rydill <la@...> wrote:
> > > Using terms such as 'gay' and 'homosexual' as
> > complete identities is
> > > difficult enough now at times. I am in a
> > homosexual relationship
> > > whilst my partner has been married in the past and
> > has a daughter.
> >
> > Bravo Michael! I think people's sexual preferences
> > cover a whole spectrum
> > and we are being a bit too post-Freudian in this
> > respect.
> >
> > As for the 15th century, who knows? I have a
> > long-cherished plan to write a
> > (fantasy) novel in which Richard has a long-standing
> > relationship with
> > Francis Lovell.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jessica
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

Excuse me, Dave (apologies for familiarity but Mr Willison sounds rather
sniffy) but what is all this about passive gays?

I do think it really is incredibly outdated. As for the red hot poker
business it also had the advantage of leaving no external mark! I doubt if
it was a comment on his passivity! Previously I said we were being
post-Freudian but actually I think we are being post Kraft-Ebbing LOL - I
mean making the most horrendous stereotypical assumptions about gay men
which also happen to be anachronistic in the light of the Middle Ages!

Ok. I'll get down off me soapbox now.

Jessica


----- Original Message -----
From: <willison2001@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: Gay


The method of Edward's murder
> suggests that he was seen as a passive gay, so could he've been able
> to father 4 legitimate & 1 illegitimate children? Passive gays,
> according to Quentin Crisp who was one, would if they went to bed
> with a beautiful woman get no reaction at all!
>
> It's a very, very strange World!
>

You a pain in the neck! NEVER!!!

It's obvious to me that we need to dig up these Royal
tombs and do a fair amount of DNA analysis on the
remains.

I suspect one or two people would mind...!

--- hockeygirl1016@... wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>


<tt>
Not to sound like a pain in the neck, but I don't
think it was officially <BR>
proved that Henry VIII suffered from syphilis.
Actually, I read that Francis <BR>
I of France died from it, but I'm not 100% sure if
that is true either. <BR>
<BR>
-Victoria<BR>
"Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the
ruin of pretty ones.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Well, I've replied on this before. This was a question I raised in
view of Quentin Crisp's view about passive gay men: that they
wouldn't touch a woman with a barge pole and certain medical
articles which I read.

If Edward II was a passive gay and he does seem to have preferred
married men which may mean that he took the passive role, it seems
incongruous that he was also fathering 5 children in view of the
aforesaid information. Given the fact that his wife was quite
happy to see him anally impaled on a red hot poker, this does
beg the question: 'When did their relationship break down?' In
fact, did it ever build up?

I raised this as a question regarding the paternity of Edward III.
As I stated, a man with 5 children had them DNA tested recently and
only one was his.

Someone with the fiery temper of Isabella may well have been indulging
in extra-marital activities. Would it be that difficult to arrange
for a Queen?

On the subject of Queens: Edward II appears to have been desperately
weak as an individual, but, without DNA comparison between Edward II &
Edward III, will we ever know?

This is becoming the Edward II Society and not a reflection on the
issue of R3 & the question of who was a bastard.



--- In , "Jessica Rydill"
<la@l...> wrote:
> Excuse me, Dave (apologies for familiarity but Mr Willison sounds
rather
> sniffy) but what is all this about passive gays?
>
> I do think it really is incredibly outdated. As for the red hot
poker
> business it also had the advantage of leaving no external mark! I
doubt if
> it was a comment on his passivity! Previously I said we were being
> post-Freudian but actually I think we are being post Kraft-Ebbing
LOL - I
> mean making the most horrendous stereotypical assumptions about gay
men
> which also happen to be anachronistic in the light of the Middle
Ages!
>
> Ok. I'll get down off me soapbox now.
>
> Jessica
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <willison2001@y...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Gay
>
>
> The method of Edward's murder
> > suggests that he was seen as a passive gay, so could he've been
able
> > to father 4 legitimate & 1 illegitimate children? Passive gays,
> > according to Quentin Crisp who was one, would if they went to bed
> > with a beautiful woman get no reaction at all!
> >
> > It's a very, very strange World!
> >

DNA comparison between Edward II & Edward III is the only way of
avoiding conjecture over the paternity of Edward III.

There are relatively few sources which state explicitly that "X was a
homosexual. Yet by all accounts: Peter Damian, Alain de Lille,
Bernardine of Siena, Venetian court records, homosexual activity was
well known and reasonably widespread in locations where there were
large numbers of men. [One does not have to have a dirty mind to see
what Benedict was getting at in some parts of the Rule.] With a
limited number of figures, the evidence is personal: among English
kings, for instance, William II, Richard I, and Edward II have
all been seen as homosexual with rather good, although not absolute,
contemporary evidence. With Edward II the evidence is about as good as
it gets: that he was a bender! Few would claim him as a hero, but
accounts of his life, character, and attitudes towards him, along with
literary material such as Chaucer's discussion of the Pardoner and
Dante's conversation with Brunetto Latini do allow us to interrogate,
if not come to definite conclusions about varying medieval concepts of
gender and sexuality.

In response to Hockeygirl reagrding Henry VIII & Dora's speculations &
conjectures about the mental state of Richard III, perhaps, the
following may help.

Did Henry VIII suffer from syphilis? Was the gradual mental
deterioriation and paranoia he developed as he grew
older the result of tertiary (end stage or terminal) syphilitic
infection?

There are many schools of thought concerning Henry's possible
medical condition, and the suspicion that he might have suffered from
syphilis has been around since Henry's lifetime.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to determine after the fact just
what disease Henry VIII might have had and there is considerable
debate as to what it might have been. The traditional explanation for
his leg ulceration and mental decline in later life is syphilis, which
is also in keeping with the traditional figure of Henry VIII the
lecher. This is similar to the traditional contention that
the Tudors all died of tuberculosis, which has also been called into
question by some historians.

Personally, I don't know whether Henry VIII was affected by or died
from syphilis. It is important to remember that during Henry's
lifetime, medicine was extremely primitive. Any condition that caused
ulceration anywhere onthe body was referred to generically as "the
pox", which was also a common name for syphilis. These ulcerative
conditions could, and did include smallpox, chickenpox, the ulceration
caused by late term diabetes, and any other spreading skin rash or
sores, which were quite common considering the poor sanitary
conditions of the day. Similarly, any disease which caused
its victims to waste away was called "consumption", and could include
any illness that caused the patient to become emaciated -- cancer,
diabetes type I, tuberculosis, parasitic infections. But because of
these generic terms being used to describe a number of conditions in
Henry's day, the traditional belief that Henry died of syphilis, and
his son, Edward, died of tuberculosis, has continued.

It is known that Henry suffered for many years from an ulcerative
condition of the legs. Syphilis typically attacks mucous membranes --
the genitals, eyes and nasal lining are the most common sites for
syphilitic ulceration, resulting in the typical genital lesions,
blindness and collapse of the nasal cartilege that is associated with
advanced syphilis. Henry's leg ulceration seemed to start in one leg
after an injury in a jousting accident. This injury healed with little
complication -- only to reopen a few years later. Eventually, both of
Henry's legs and feet were affected with ulcers. It was noted by his
physicians that his toes became gangrenous as the condition advanced.
This is an ulceration pattern far more typical of advanced diabetes,
both Type I and Type II. So far as I know, there is no documentation
of Henry having suffered from ulceration of the mucous membranes.

Henry's gradual mental impairment, mainly a temper which became
increasingly irascible with age, as well as paranoia, has frequently
been blamed on the insanity which accompanies tertiary syphilis, as
the syphilis spirochetes attack the brain tissue (this commonly occurs
when the nasal passages have been infected and damaged, due to their
proximity to the brain). However, Henry also had a series of strokes
prior to his death, which would point to circulatory and blood
pressure problems, which could have been caused by late stage diabetes
or arteriosclerosis. Circulatory insufficiency to the brain is a
common cause of degenerative mental illness.

Henry's older sister, Margaret, also suffered similar progressive
mental impairment and strokes. It would be hard to prove that both
Henry and Margaret had syphilis-- but it is very likely they both
suffered from some heriditary circulatory impairment. It has recently
been proven that the preponderance toward develoing diabetes is
genetic. Since the rest of Henry's siblings died of wasting diseases
in childhood or early adolescence, with the exception of his younger
sister, Mary, who died of a similar wasting disease during pregnancy,
and since such wasting away during childhood, adolescence and
pregnancy is a symptom of untreated juvenile (Type I) diabetes, I tend
to lean away from the Henry with syphilis theory and more
toward the Henry with diabetes or another circulatory disorder theory.

As for Henry's increasing mental instability, decreased circulation to
the brain could definitely have been a contributing factor. This sort
of mental instability is common in cases of untreated diabetes, as it
is in cases of arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) and
Alzheimer's disease. Henry himself frequently complained of the stress
and burden that being King placed upon him. These complaints increased
as he grew older. His daughter, Elizabeth, who also reigned for many
years, complained similarly, and suffered from periods of depression
as she grew older.

During the Tudor period, monarchs were absolute -- the king or queen
WAS the country. They were surrounded by endless political
maneuverings and machinations. The intrigues of Henry's court alone
could fill dozens of books, as one courtier after another tried to win
a high ranking place in the scheme of things -- and Henry was well
aware that such maneuverings went on. He frequently stated that he
felt that he could trust no-one -- and this was pretty much the case!
This solitary position, feeling that you were without any close
confidante or companion, might not be difficult for a young monarch to
tolerate, but as the infirmities of age began to set in, the
loneliness must have been incredible. Henry frequently complained of
isolation and loneliness, and often wished, in his final years, "to be
just a man". It's not unreasonable to assume that this sort of stress
would lead to some mental aberration.

Also, in his final years, Henry was subjected to terribly primitive
and painful medical practices, as his ulcerated legs grew worse. The
ulcers were continually cut into, lanced, cauterized, and then dressed
with an ointment that contained ground pearls and lead! Medical
procedures were not only primitive, but were carried out under
completely unsanitary conditions. Henry's legs were continually
infected and under seige from physicians who cut into them and burned
them. The pain was continual and severe, frequently causing the old
King to cry out in pain. Henry's sleep was disturbed by the continual
pain, and his mental health was definitely affected by it. This
ordeal alone would be likely to drive anyone into insanity, and Henry
was unwell besides, suffering from dropsy (an edema resulting from
impaired circulation, which caused enormous swelling of the entire
body) and some mental impairment after his strokes. The lead poisoning
coming from that pearl and lead ointment alone would have been enough
to cause mental illness.

There have been some theories that Henry's children all suffered from
congenital syphilis. This is very, very unlikely, as congenital
syphilis is almost always accompanied by mental retardation, and all
three of Henry's legitimate children, as well as his illegitimate son,
Henry Fitzroy, were very intelligent and excellent scholars. There are
varying schools of thought about the cause of Edward's death -- like
many young Tudors before him, he wasted away prior to his death, and
his final illness has been traditionally believed to be tuberculosis.
However, he had also contracted either smallpox or measles in the year
before he died, and his wasting couldalso be attributed to diabetes,
which frequently becomes severe during the growth spurts of
adolescence. It is known that he was treated with medicines
that contained arsenic, and that he had many of the symptoms of
arsenic poisoning while on his deathbed (his hair and nails had fallen
out, he was covered with ulcers, and there was a peculiar smell,
similar to garlic, on his breath). Many medicines used at the time
contained arsenic, and it was sometimes added to wine as well, so
whether Edward's death was hastened by deliberate poisoning or not is
questionable.

Mary I, who reigned after Edward, was a middle aged woman with a long
history of migraine headache, severe dental problems with accompanying
sinus complications and menstrual irregularity. She had not enjoyed
good health since her childhood, and it is very likely that the
incredible stress that she experienced during her teens and early
adulthood, when her mother was in exile and her own legitimacy was in
question (to say nothing of her life frequently being in danger) led
to the development of some of her ailments. During her brief reign,
she suffered from two hysterical pregnancies. Her belief that she was
pregnant was intensified by the presence of symptoms that she thought
were linked with pregnancy -- cessation of menstruation,
nausea and swelling of the abdomen. It is more likely that these
symptoms were caused by cancer of the ovaries and uterus.

The idea that Elizabeth I was a sufferer of congenital syphilis is
almost laughable. Though she suffered from a few ailments, one of the
notable things about her was her robust health. She was very active,
and believed that engaging in regular exercise daily, as well as
maintaining a strict diet, was the key to keeping a vigorous body and
mind. She danced several galliards (a very taxing and lively dance)
every morning as her exercise, rode frequently, walked, played tennis
and exhibited physical energy uncommon in a woman of her time. In her
later years she did complain of stomach ailments, and it is probably
true that her teeth darkened with decay over the years, but her
overall health was far too robust and complete for her to have
been a congenital syphilitic.

The question of Henry's exact health ailment, like many other
questions about him, will probably never be satisfactorily answered,
short of an exhumation of his grave and a post mortem being carried
out (as I suggested) -- which is highly unlikely! Even if such a thing
should occur, it is a long time since Henry's death -- there are some
things that we will never definitively know.

Trying to diagnose a health condition five hundred years after the
fact, using the doctors' notes made at a time when medicine was
extremely primitive (and the notes may very well have been 'censored',
since they were about the King) is basically a guessing game. There
are five hundred years' worth of legends about Henry, and his
ulcerated leg and many marriages are a part of them. It is probably
safe to say that during the later part of his reign he was
greatly feared and hated by many -- and during the reigns of Edward
and particularly Mary, he was not a loved figure. Claiming that he
died of "the pox" would have fit in with the demonizing that took
place during this time -- the much married, bloodthirsty lecher was
killed by a disease that was the result of his own evil and corrupt
way of living.

Death by syphilis is part of the legend of Henry VIII -- and like so
many of the other parts of the legend, a definitive answer is
something that we may never have.


--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote: > Not to sound like a pain in the neck, but I don't think it
was officially> proved that Henry VIII suffered from syphilis.
Actually, I read that Francis> I of France died from it, but I'm not
100% sure if that is true either.
>
> -Victoria
> "Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty
ones."-Oscar
> Wilde
>
>
>

I do wonder if we accept (& the available evidence points that way)
that Henry VIII suffered from an inherited diabetes condition /
circulation problems (it's noticeable that Henry VII suffered from a
stroke when he died) whether this related to manic-depressive
symptoms and was the cause of problems for Charles VI of France &
Henry VI?

As I indicated, how much is legend and how much fact, as with Richard
III or Edward II, isn't easy to reach.

David

This is all extremely interesting. I will simply add a couple of
references.

Jennifer Loach, in her recent biography of Edward VI, makes out a
cogent case that his fatal illness was bronchopneumonia complicated
by lung abscesses (not uncommon before antibiotics - this was what
led to George V's serious illness in 1929, and killed the tenor
Caruso in 1923), which led to septicaemia and kidney failure.

Clifford Brewer (a surgeon by profession) in 'The Death of Kings' (a
fascinating but very uneven book) says that some of the features of
Henry VIII's medical history were consistent with syphilis, others
not, and the balance of the two is against syphilis. He suggests an
endocrine disorder known as Cushing's Syndrome, which involves under-
activity of both the pituitary and thyroid glands. He doesn't mention
diabetes, but Type II diabetes is certainly common among the middle-
aged and overweight, and would account for some at least of Henry's
troubles (I don't know enough about it to be more definite).

Ann


--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> In response to Hockeygirl reagrding Henry VIII & Dora's
speculations &
> conjectures about the mental state of Richard III, perhaps, the
> following may help.
>
> Did Henry VIII suffer from syphilis? Was the gradual mental
> deterioriation and paranoia he developed as he grew
> older the result of tertiary (end stage or terminal) syphilitic
> infection?
>
> There are many schools of thought concerning Henry's possible
> medical condition, and the suspicion that he might have suffered
from
> syphilis has been around since Henry's lifetime.
>
> Unfortunately, it is very difficult to determine after the fact
just
> what disease Henry VIII might have had and there is considerable
> debate as to what it might have been. The traditional explanation
for
> his leg ulceration and mental decline in later life is syphilis,
which
> is also in keeping with the traditional figure of Henry VIII the
> lecher. This is similar to the traditional contention that
> the Tudors all died of tuberculosis, which has also been called
into
> question by some historians.
>
> Personally, I don't know whether Henry VIII was affected by or died
> from syphilis. It is important to remember that during Henry's
> lifetime, medicine was extremely primitive. Any condition that
caused
> ulceration anywhere onthe body was referred to generically as "the
> pox", which was also a common name for syphilis. These ulcerative
> conditions could, and did include smallpox, chickenpox, the
ulceration
> caused by late term diabetes, and any other spreading skin rash or
> sores, which were quite common considering the poor sanitary
> conditions of the day. Similarly, any disease which caused
> its victims to waste away was called "consumption", and could
include
> any illness that caused the patient to become emaciated -- cancer,
> diabetes type I, tuberculosis, parasitic infections. But because of
> these generic terms being used to describe a number of conditions
in
> Henry's day, the traditional belief that Henry died of syphilis,
and
> his son, Edward, died of tuberculosis, has continued.
>
> It is known that Henry suffered for many years from an ulcerative
> condition of the legs. Syphilis typically attacks mucous membranes -
-
> the genitals, eyes and nasal lining are the most common sites for
> syphilitic ulceration, resulting in the typical genital lesions,
> blindness and collapse of the nasal cartilege that is associated
with
> advanced syphilis. Henry's leg ulceration seemed to start in one
leg
> after an injury in a jousting accident. This injury healed with
little
> complication -- only to reopen a few years later. Eventually, both
of
> Henry's legs and feet were affected with ulcers. It was noted by his
> physicians that his toes became gangrenous as the condition
advanced.
> This is an ulceration pattern far more typical of advanced
diabetes,
> both Type I and Type II. So far as I know, there is no
documentation
> of Henry having suffered from ulceration of the mucous membranes.
>
> Henry's gradual mental impairment, mainly a temper which became
> increasingly irascible with age, as well as paranoia, has
frequently
> been blamed on the insanity which accompanies tertiary syphilis, as
> the syphilis spirochetes attack the brain tissue (this commonly
occurs
> when the nasal passages have been infected and damaged, due to
their
> proximity to the brain). However, Henry also had a series of
strokes
> prior to his death, which would point to circulatory and blood
> pressure problems, which could have been caused by late stage
diabetes
> or arteriosclerosis. Circulatory insufficiency to the brain is a
> common cause of degenerative mental illness.
>
> Henry's older sister, Margaret, also suffered similar progressive
> mental impairment and strokes. It would be hard to prove that both
> Henry and Margaret had syphilis-- but it is very likely they both
> suffered from some heriditary circulatory impairment. It has
recently
> been proven that the preponderance toward develoing diabetes is
> genetic. Since the rest of Henry's siblings died of wasting
diseases
> in childhood or early adolescence, with the exception of his
younger
> sister, Mary, who died of a similar wasting disease during
pregnancy,
> and since such wasting away during childhood, adolescence and
> pregnancy is a symptom of untreated juvenile (Type I) diabetes, I
tend
> to lean away from the Henry with syphilis theory and more
> toward the Henry with diabetes or another circulatory disorder
theory.
>
> As for Henry's increasing mental instability, decreased circulation
to
> the brain could definitely have been a contributing factor. This
sort
> of mental instability is common in cases of untreated diabetes, as
it
> is in cases of arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) and
> Alzheimer's disease. Henry himself frequently complained of the
stress
> and burden that being King placed upon him. These complaints
increased
> as he grew older. His daughter, Elizabeth, who also reigned for
many
> years, complained similarly, and suffered from periods of
depression
> as she grew older.
>
> During the Tudor period, monarchs were absolute -- the king or
queen
> WAS the country. They were surrounded by endless political
> maneuverings and machinations. The intrigues of Henry's court alone
> could fill dozens of books, as one courtier after another tried to
win
> a high ranking place in the scheme of things -- and Henry was well
> aware that such maneuverings went on. He frequently stated that he
> felt that he could trust no-one -- and this was pretty much the
case!
> This solitary position, feeling that you were without any close
> confidante or companion, might not be difficult for a young monarch
to
> tolerate, but as the infirmities of age began to set in, the
> loneliness must have been incredible. Henry frequently complained
of
> isolation and loneliness, and often wished, in his final years, "to
be
> just a man". It's not unreasonable to assume that this sort of
stress
> would lead to some mental aberration.
>
> Also, in his final years, Henry was subjected to terribly primitive
> and painful medical practices, as his ulcerated legs grew worse.
The
> ulcers were continually cut into, lanced, cauterized, and then
dressed
> with an ointment that contained ground pearls and lead! Medical
> procedures were not only primitive, but were carried out under
> completely unsanitary conditions. Henry's legs were continually
> infected and under seige from physicians who cut into them and
burned
> them. The pain was continual and severe, frequently causing the old
> King to cry out in pain. Henry's sleep was disturbed by the
continual
> pain, and his mental health was definitely affected by it. This
> ordeal alone would be likely to drive anyone into insanity, and
Henry
> was unwell besides, suffering from dropsy (an edema resulting from
> impaired circulation, which caused enormous swelling of the entire
> body) and some mental impairment after his strokes. The lead
poisoning
> coming from that pearl and lead ointment alone would have been
enough
> to cause mental illness.
>
> There have been some theories that Henry's children all suffered
from
> congenital syphilis. This is very, very unlikely, as congenital
> syphilis is almost always accompanied by mental retardation, and
all
> three of Henry's legitimate children, as well as his illegitimate
son,
> Henry Fitzroy, were very intelligent and excellent scholars. There
are
> varying schools of thought about the cause of Edward's death --
like
> many young Tudors before him, he wasted away prior to his death,
and
> his final illness has been traditionally believed to be
tuberculosis.
> However, he had also contracted either smallpox or measles in the
year
> before he died, and his wasting couldalso be attributed to
diabetes,
> which frequently becomes severe during the growth spurts of
> adolescence. It is known that he was treated with medicines
> that contained arsenic, and that he had many of the symptoms of
> arsenic poisoning while on his deathbed (his hair and nails had
fallen
> out, he was covered with ulcers, and there was a peculiar smell,
> similar to garlic, on his breath). Many medicines used at the time
> contained arsenic, and it was sometimes added to wine as well, so
> whether Edward's death was hastened by deliberate poisoning or not
is
> questionable.
>
> Mary I, who reigned after Edward, was a middle aged woman with a
long
> history of migraine headache, severe dental problems with
accompanying
> sinus complications and menstrual irregularity. She had not enjoyed
> good health since her childhood, and it is very likely that the
> incredible stress that she experienced during her teens and early
> adulthood, when her mother was in exile and her own legitimacy was
in
> question (to say nothing of her life frequently being in danger)
led
> to the development of some of her ailments. During her brief
reign,
> she suffered from two hysterical pregnancies. Her belief that she
was
> pregnant was intensified by the presence of symptoms that she
thought
> were linked with pregnancy -- cessation of menstruation,
> nausea and swelling of the abdomen. It is more likely that these
> symptoms were caused by cancer of the ovaries and uterus.
>
> The idea that Elizabeth I was a sufferer of congenital syphilis is
> almost laughable. Though she suffered from a few ailments, one of
the
> notable things about her was her robust health. She was very
active,
> and believed that engaging in regular exercise daily, as well as
> maintaining a strict diet, was the key to keeping a vigorous body
and
> mind. She danced several galliards (a very taxing and lively dance)
> every morning as her exercise, rode frequently, walked, played
tennis
> and exhibited physical energy uncommon in a woman of her time. In
her
> later years she did complain of stomach ailments, and it is
probably
> true that her teeth darkened with decay over the years, but her
> overall health was far too robust and complete for her to have
> been a congenital syphilitic.
>
> The question of Henry's exact health ailment, like many other
> questions about him, will probably never be satisfactorily
answered,
> short of an exhumation of his grave and a post mortem being carried
> out (as I suggested) -- which is highly unlikely! Even if such a
thing
> should occur, it is a long time since Henry's death -- there are
some
> things that we will never definitively know.
>
> Trying to diagnose a health condition five hundred years after the
> fact, using the doctors' notes made at a time when medicine was
> extremely primitive (and the notes may very well have
been 'censored',
> since they were about the King) is basically a guessing game. There
> are five hundred years' worth of legends about Henry, and his
> ulcerated leg and many marriages are a part of them. It is probably
> safe to say that during the later part of his reign he was
> greatly feared and hated by many -- and during the reigns of Edward
> and particularly Mary, he was not a loved figure. Claiming that he
> died of "the pox" would have fit in with the demonizing that took
> place during this time -- the much married, bloodthirsty lecher was
> killed by a disease that was the result of his own evil and corrupt
> way of living.
>
> Death by syphilis is part of the legend of Henry VIII -- and like
so
> many of the other parts of the legend, a definitive answer is
> something that we may never have.
>
>
> --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote: > Not to sound like a pain in the neck, but I don't think it
> was officially> proved that Henry VIII suffered from syphilis.
> Actually, I read that Francis> I of France died from it, but I'm
not
> 100% sure if that is true either.
> >
> > -Victoria
> > "Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty
> ones."-Oscar
> > Wilde
> >
> >
> >

Glad you enjoyed that.

Thanks for the references.

'Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown' was something of an
understatement, as is suggested by Henry VIII. For Richard III the
stress must've been enormous. I always think that he looks very
worried in the NPG portrait. Well might he be...surrounded by the
eyes of wolves staring from the dark...

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> David
>
> This is all extremely interesting. I will simply add a couple of
> references.
>
> Jennifer Loach, in her recent biography of Edward VI, makes out a
> cogent case that his fatal illness was bronchopneumonia complicated
> by lung abscesses (not uncommon before antibiotics - this was what
> led to George V's serious illness in 1929, and killed the tenor
> Caruso in 1923), which led to septicaemia and kidney failure.
>
> Clifford Brewer (a surgeon by profession) in 'The Death of Kings' (a
> fascinating but very uneven book) says that some of the features of
> Henry VIII's medical history were consistent with syphilis, others
> not, and the balance of the two is against syphilis. He suggests an
> endocrine disorder known as Cushing's Syndrome, which involves
under-
> activity of both the pituitary and thyroid glands. He doesn't
mention
> diabetes, but Type II diabetes is certainly common among the middle-
> aged and overweight, and would account for some at least of Henry's
> troubles (I don't know enough about it to be more definite).
>
> Ann
>

- , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:

Type II diabetes is certainly common among the middle-> > aged and
overweight, and would account for some at least of Henry's> > troubles
(I don't know enough about it to be more definite).
> >
> > Ann
> >
The presence of gangrene in Henry's feet strongly indicates diaietes.
Things are never as simple as they seem. One can suffer from more
than one illness at a time. Henry had a complex of problems:
inherited Type II diabetes would create a falling domino effect of
poor circulation leading to strokes leading to mental instability
exasperated by unsanitary conditions and pathetically inadequate
medical practices, compounded by the ageing process and the enormous
stress of being surrounded by power hungry, sometimes murderous
subjects.

Was life any better for Richard III?

Nope!

willison2001 <willison2001@...>15/01/2003
18:19willison2001@...

> The gay film star Rock Hudson appeared
> macho for years, but he wasn't! In fact, James Dean & he were more
> interested in each other on the film set of 'Giant' than the beautiful
> Elizabeth Taylor.
now don't tell me that More was sitting watching the filming too, as you
appear to have quoted yet another reliable witness to history, miss Gossip
no less, Mr More's twin sister<G>!

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
among English
> kings, for instance, William II, Richard I, and Edward II have
> all been seen as homosexual with rather good, although not
absolute,
> contemporary evidence. With Edward II the evidence is about as good
as
> it gets: that he was a bender! Few would claim him as a hero, but
> accounts of his life, character, and attitudes towards him, along
with
> literary material such as Chaucer's discussion of the Pardoner and
> Dante's conversation with Brunetto Latini do allow us to
interrogate,
> if not come to definite conclusions about varying medieval concepts
of
> gender and sexuality.

Homosexual acts might well be as old as humanity. The term
'homosexual' is 19th century and the term 'gay' to denote an identity
based around sexuality,is from the 20th century. The term 'sodomite'
seems to be used more frequently in previous centuries:In the
Geoffrey Brereton translation of Froissart's Chronicles the public
execution of Hugh the Despenser the Younger in 1326 was so grissly
'because he was a heretic and a sodomite,even it was said with the
King, and this was why the King had driven away the Queen on his
suggestion'. The link between heresy and sodomy is interesting.

In modern times there seems more scope to choose to be exclusively
homosexual and to create a lifestyle round this identity. I have so
far seen little evidence of this being an option in Medieval times.

:In the
> Geoffrey Brereton translation of Froissart's Chronicles the public
> execution of Hugh the Despenser the Younger in 1326 was so grissly
> 'because he was a heretic and a sodomite,even it was said with the
> King, and this was why the King had driven away the Queen on his
> suggestion'. The link between heresy and sodomy is interesting.
>
The word "bugger" comes from Bulgar, as the heretical sect the Bogomils,
from Bulgaria, were alleged to have been sodomites.

The Bogomils held beliefs similar to those of the Cathars. I do think
though that in cases of heresy - especially heretical sects - there was a
tendency to throw the book at people.

Jessica

At 12:33 AM 1/17/03 -0000, you wrote:

>The word "bugger" comes from Bulgar, as the heretical sect the Bogomils,
>from Bulgaria, were alleged to have been sodomites.
>

I've never paid a great deal of attention to this issue, so I may be
misremembering something I didn't quite hear -- but wasn't "sodomy" much
more broadly defined to include practicallly anything that didn't include
the use of the approved orifice as a receptacle?

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Sodomy has been associated with the Biblical Sodom, where they got
up to practices allegedly displeasing to God.

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 12:33 AM 1/17/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
> >The word "bugger" comes from Bulgar, as the heretical sect the
Bogomils,
> >from Bulgaria, were alleged to have been sodomites.
> >
>
> I've never paid a great deal of attention to this issue, so I may be
> misremembering something I didn't quite hear -- but wasn't "sodomy"
much
> more broadly defined to include practicallly anything that didn't
include
> the use of the approved orifice as a receptacle?
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

--- In , "Jessica Rydill"
<la@l...> wrote:

I do
think
> though that in cases of heresy - especially heretical sects - there
was a
> tendency to throw the book at people.
>
> Jessica

You're not kidding. A crusade was led against the 14th century
Cathars and many of them were burnt at the stake at the instigation of
the Dominicans.

--- In , "michaelshankland
<Infernus9@a...>" <Infernus9@a...> wrote:
>
> Homosexual acts might well be as old as humanity. The term
> 'homosexual' is 19th century and the term 'gay' to denote an
identity> based around sexuality,is from the 20th century. The term
'sodomite'> seems to be used more frequently in previous centuries:In
the > Geoffrey Brereton translation of Froissart's Chronicles the
public> execution of Hugh the Despenser the Younger in 1326 was so
grissly> 'because he was a heretic and a sodomite,even it was said
with the > King, and this was why the King had driven away the Queen
on his > suggestion'. The link between heresy and sodomy is
interesting.
>
> In modern times there seems more scope to choose to be exclusively
> homosexual and to create a lifestyle round this identity. I have so
> far seen little evidence of this being an option in Medieval times.

I suspect you're right that homosexual acts are as old as humanity.
Some boys can appear as pretty as some girls. We can only speculate
about the lifestyle of Edward II, but he does seem to have been very
persistent in having his favourites, e.g. Gaveston, around him,
despite loud disapproval. However, Edward wasn't popular in general &
we have to be aware of the vilification process, which was as
prevalent for him as it was for Richard III.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> willison2001 <willison2001@y...>15/01/2003
> 18:19willison2001@y...
>
> > The gay film star Rock Hudson appeared> > macho for years, but he
wasn't! In fact, James Dean & he were more> > interested in each
other on the film set of 'Giant' than the beautiful> > Elizabeth
Taylor.
> now don't tell me that More was sitting watching the filming too, as
you> appear to have quoted yet another reliable witness to history,
miss Gossip> no less, Mr More's twin sister<G>!

Gossip is a fact of life. The above gem was quoted in a programme
about the vagaries of Hollywood. Can you name one completely reliable
witness?

> You're not kidding. A crusade was led against the 14th century
> Cathars and many of them were burnt at the stake at the instigation of
> the Dominicans.

Aha! The Domini Canes! Umberto Eco takes quite a pop at them in "The Name
of the Rose", in particular Bernard Gui. As I understand it, they were
basically a mendicant order like the Franciscans but somehow got themselves
involved in staffing inquisitions. One finds it hard to like them. The
Franciscans seem to have been a more benevolent lot.

J

> >The word "bugger" comes from Bulgar, as the heretical sect the Bogomils,
> >from Bulgaria, were alleged to have been sodomites.
> >
>
> I've never paid a great deal of attention to this issue, so I may be
> misremembering something I didn't quite hear -- but wasn't "sodomy" much
> more broadly defined to include practicallly anything that didn't include
> the use of the approved orifice as a receptacle?
>
I am sure you are right, Laura. I have not studied canonical history, only
read the odd book about Cathars etc. I think heretics tended to be accused
of antinomianism which suggested (in the lurid view of their adversaries)
that they were capable of just about anything. (I think antinomianism
involves a belief that "Anything goes").

--- Jessica Rydill <la@...> wrote:
at the instigation of<BR>
> the Dominicans.<BR>
<BR>
Aha! The Domini Canes! Umberto Eco takes
quite a pop at them in "The Name<BR>
of the Rose", in particular Bernard Gui. As
I understand it, they were<BR>
basically a mendicant order like the Franciscans but
somehow got themselves<BR>
involved in staffing inquisitions. One finds it
hard to like them. The<BR>
Franciscans seem to have been a more benevolent lot.

Canes refers to dogs, hence, the use of dog collars by priests!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

The big problem with homosexuality from a Christian
viewpoint is that it doesn't lead to reproduction,
which is thought to be God's will, and is seen as
selfish in that it is performed purely for pleasure
and not the production of bambinos, as God has
ordained.

Richard I was openly condemned for sodomy by the
Church and Edward II was widely seen to be committed
to this way of life, which makes me think that his
wife probably wondered what she'd let herself in for.
Isabella may've resented Edward's affection for
Gaveston from the start and there is evidence that
some gays have a deep aversion to women, so if
Isabella sought lovers elsewhere, as she did later
quite openly with Roger Mortimer, it may well have
been felt that this was no more scandalous than
Edward's sexual life, which was openly known.
Contemporary chronicles report him as a sodomite with
Gaveston, etc., If, as a result of a mutual breakdown
in their relationship, Isabella did get someone else
to Father her children, was the openly gay Edward in a
position to object? Pots find it difficult to call
kettles black!

--- Jessica Rydill <la@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>


<tt>
> >The word "bugger" comes from
Bulgar, as the heretical sect the Bogomils,<BR>
> >from Bulgaria, were alleged to have been
sodomites.<BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> I've never paid a great deal of attention to this
issue, so I may be<BR>
> misremembering something I didn't quite hear --
but wasn't "sodomy" much<BR>
> more broadly defined to include practicallly
anything that didn't include<BR>
> the use of the approved orifice as a
receptacle?<BR>
><BR>
I am sure you are right, Laura. I have not
studied canonical history, only<BR>
read the odd book about Cathars etc. I think
heretics tended to be accused<BR>
of antinomianism which suggested (in the lurid view of
their adversaries)<BR>
that they were capable of just about anything.
(I think antinomianism<BR>
involves a belief that "Anything goes").<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</tt>

<br>

<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"
color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td
align=center><font face=arial
size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705297333:HM/A=1394044/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/text/0,,HGTV_3936_5802,FF.html"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ho/homeandgardentv/hgtvdh03_300x250a.jpg"
alt="HGTV Dream Home Giveaway" width="300"
height="250" border="0"></a></td> </tr> </table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1394044/rand=720210156"></td></tr>
</table>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->


<br>
<tt>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
[email protected]<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>

<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>

</body></html>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > willison2001 <willison2001@y...>15/01/2003
> > 18:19willison2001@y...

Politicians in particular are notorious for saying one thing & doing
another. Tony Blair would have us believe that he has his own view on
Iraq & doesn't echo Bush as his poodle. Who would be a reliable
witness over this?
> >
> > > The gay film star Rock Hudson appeared> > macho for years, but
he
> wasn't! In fact, James Dean & he were more> > interested in each
> other on the film set of 'Giant' than the beautiful> > Elizabeth
> Taylor.
> > now don't tell me that More was sitting watching the filming too,
as
> you> appear to have quoted yet another reliable witness to history,
> miss Gossip> no less, Mr More's twin sister<G>!
>
> Gossip is a fact of life. The above gem was quoted in a programme
> about the vagaries of Hollywood. Can you name one completely
reliable witness?

willison2001 <willison2001@...>17/01/2003
10:52willison2001@...

> Can you name one completely
> reliable witness?
Elizabeth Taylor who stated that the filming was difficult because Rock and
Jimmy couldn't stand each other.
Good enough?
Paul

David

I'm not sure I'm convinced by your pot calling the kettle black
argument. Double standards are far from uncommon, and would, I think,
come into play if there was any risk of a bastard being passed off as
a potential heir to the throne. I'll reiterate that Isabella's
brother Louis X repudiated the daughter born to his first wife, had
the wife smothered and hastily married again in order to produce a
child whose paternity was not in doubt (some might think it poetic
justice that his son by his second wife was born posthumously, and
died when less than a week old).

Much later, in the 1460s, Enrique IV of Castile dithered for years
over the daughter born to his second wife, who was very probably not
his, before finally repudiating her in favour of his half-sister
Isabella the Catholic. His first marriage was unconsummated;
chroniclers refer to physical malformation, and attempts were made at
artificial insemination through a brass tube. His second wife
certainly had a lover, Don Beltran de la Cueva, at the time the child
was conceived, and the infant was known universally as Juana 'la
Beltraneja'.

Ann



--- In , DAVID WILLISON
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> The big problem with homosexuality from a Christian
> viewpoint is that it doesn't lead to reproduction,
> which is thought to be God's will, and is seen as
> selfish in that it is performed purely for pleasure
> and not the production of bambinos, as God has
> ordained.
>
> Richard I was openly condemned for sodomy by the
> Church and Edward II was widely seen to be committed
> to this way of life, which makes me think that his
> wife probably wondered what she'd let herself in for.
> Isabella may've resented Edward's affection for
> Gaveston from the start and there is evidence that
> some gays have a deep aversion to women, so if
> Isabella sought lovers elsewhere, as she did later
> quite openly with Roger Mortimer, it may well have
> been felt that this was no more scandalous than
> Edward's sexual life, which was openly known.
> Contemporary chronicles report him as a sodomite with
> Gaveston, etc., If, as a result of a mutual breakdown
> in their relationship, Isabella did get someone else
> to Father her children, was the openly gay Edward in a
> position to object? Pots find it difficult to call
> kettles black!
>
> --- Jessica Rydill <la@l...> wrote:
> <HR>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> > >The word "bugger" comes from
> Bulgar, as the heretical sect the Bogomils,<BR>
> > >from Bulgaria, were alleged to have been
> sodomites.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> ><BR>
> > I've never paid a great deal of attention to this
> issue, so I may be<BR>
> > misremembering something I didn't quite hear --
> but wasn't "sodomy" much<BR>
> > more broadly defined to include practicallly
> anything that didn't include<BR>
> > the use of the approved orifice as a
> receptacle?<BR>
> ><BR>
> I am sure you are right, Laura. I have not
> studied canonical history, only<BR>
> read the odd book about Cathars etc. I think
> heretics tended to be accused<BR>
> of antinomianism which suggested (in the lurid view of
> their adversaries)<BR>
> that they were capable of just about anything.
> (I think antinomianism<BR>
> involves a belief that "Anything goes").<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
>
> <br>
>
> <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center><font size="-1"
> color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><table border=0
> cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td
> align=center><font face=arial
> size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
>
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupweb
/S=1705297333:HM/A=1394044/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/text
/0,,HGTV_3936_5802,FF.html"
> target=_top><img
>
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ho/homeandgardentv/hgtvdh03_3
00x250a.jpg"
> alt="HGTV Dream Home Giveaway" width="300"
> height="250" border="0"></a></td> </tr> </table></td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
> src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1394044/rand=720
210156"></td></tr>
> </table>
>
> <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
>
>
> <br>
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> [email protected]<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
> <br>
>
> <br>
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> of Service</a>.</tt>
> </br>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com

--- "P.T.Bale" <paultrevor@...> wrote:
10:52willison2001@...<BR>
<BR>
> Can you name one completely<BR>
> reliable witness?<BR>
Elizabeth Taylor who stated that the filming was
difficult because Rock and<BR>
Jimmy couldn't stand each other.<BR>
Good enough?

Well, perhaps she should get together with the
producer of the documentary: 'Hollywood Babylon' &
compare notes, because the film stated the opposite.
The film also made great play over the homosexuality
of both Hudson & Dean. Perhaps, they had a love fight?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Well, of course, we don't really know, as with the question of what
actually killed Henry VIII. I've read some of Edward II's letters to
Isabella and they come over as desperately querulous and weak,
whereas, Isabella - the so-called she-wolf of France - mounted an
expedition against Edward and instead of the normal anniversary
present, it's reported that he received a red hot poker thrust up his
rectum. This may say a lot about their relationship. A woman as
strong willed as Isabella and a man as weak as Edward, which is borne
out by his inglorious reign in general, may well have tolerated
someone else doing the honours under the sheets. Louis X & Enrique IV
may well have been of stronger mettle than Edward. Highly likely in
fact.

Nevertheless, we don't really know and this is simply an 'historical
doubt' - an evaluation of the personalities involved.

It's also rumoured & supported by correspondence, that Marie
Antoinette took a lover: Count Ferson, as she remained without child
for 7 years, because of some inadequacy on the part of Louis XVI. In
fact, sexual inadequacy, whether because of homosexuality, biological
defect or simply shyness, is more common than is thought.

If you asked me to put my hand on my heart and say that no bastard was
ever passed off as the legitimate heir, I wouldn't be able to do that.
Some of these Royal residences were full of secret doors & passageways
and a strong-willed woman - I've yet to meet a weak-willed one -
could've forced the issue if her children were not going to be born by
any other means. Richard III clouded the issue by saying that
pre-contracts legitimized any offspring. After all, the founder of
the entire dynasty: William the Conqueror, was himself illegitimate.






--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> David
>
> I'm not sure I'm convinced by your pot calling the kettle black
> argument. Double standards are far from uncommon, and would, I
think,> come into play if there was any risk of a bastard being passed
off as> a potential heir to the throne. I'll reiterate that Isabella's
> brother Louis X repudiated the daughter born to his first wife, had
> the wife smothered and hastily married again in order to produce a
> child whose paternity was not in doubt (some might think it poetic
> justice that his son by his second wife was born posthumously, and
> died when less than a week old).
>
> Much later, in the 1460s, Enrique IV of Castile dithered for years
> over the daughter born to his second wife, who was very probably not
> his, before finally repudiating her in favour of his half-sister
> Isabella the Catholic. His first marriage was unconsummated;
> chroniclers refer to physical malformation, and attempts were made
at
> artificial insemination through a brass tube. His second wife
> certainly had a lover, Don Beltran de la Cueva, at the time the
child
> was conceived, and the infant was known universally as Juana 'la
> Beltraneja'.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > The big problem with homosexuality from a Christian
> > viewpoint is that it doesn't lead to reproduction,
> > which is thought to be God's will, and is seen as
> > selfish in that it is performed purely for pleasure
> > and not the production of bambinos, as God has
> > ordained.
> >
> > Richard I was openly condemned for sodomy by the
> > Church and Edward II was widely seen to be committed
> > to this way of life, which makes me think that his
> > wife probably wondered what she'd let herself in for.
> > Isabella may've resented Edward's affection for
> > Gaveston from the start and there is evidence that
> > some gays have a deep aversion to women, so if
> > Isabella sought lovers elsewhere, as she did later
> > quite openly with Roger Mortimer, it may well have
> > been felt that this was no more scandalous than
> > Edward's sexual life, which was openly known.
> > Contemporary chronicles report him as a sodomite with
> > Gaveston, etc., If, as a result of a mutual breakdown
> > in their relationship, Isabella did get someone else
> > to Father her children, was the openly gay Edward in a
> > position to object? Pots find it difficult to call
> > kettles black!
> >
> > --- Jessica Rydill <la@l...> wrote:
> > <HR>
> > <html><body>
> >
> >
> > <tt>
> > > >The word "bugger" comes from
> > Bulgar, as the heretical sect the Bogomils,<BR>
> > > >from Bulgaria, were alleged to have been
> > sodomites.<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > I've never paid a great deal of attention to this
> > issue, so I may be<BR>
> > > misremembering something I didn't quite hear --
> > but wasn't "sodomy" much<BR>
> > > more broadly defined to include practicallly
> > anything that didn't include<BR>
> > > the use of the approved orifice as a
> > receptacle?<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > I am sure you are right, Laura. I have not
> > studied canonical history, only<BR>
> > read the odd book about Cathars etc. I think
> > heretics tended to be accused<BR>
> > of antinomianism which suggested (in the lurid view of
> > their adversaries)<BR>
> > that they were capable of just about anything.
> > (I think antinomianism<BR>
> > involves a belief that "Anything goes").<BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > </tt>
> >
> > <br>
> >
> > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
> >
> > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> > <td align=center><font size="-1"
> > color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
> > </tr>
> > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> > <td align=center width=470><table border=0
> > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td
> > align=center><font face=arial
> > size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
> >
>
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupweb
>
/S=1705297333:HM/A=1394044/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/text
> /0,,HGTV_3936_5802,FF.html"
> > target=_top><img
> >
>
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ho/homeandgardentv/hgtvdh03_3
> 00x250a.jpg"
> > alt="HGTV Dream Home Giveaway" width="300"
> > height="250" border="0"></a></td> </tr> </table></td>
> > </tr>
> > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
> > src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
>
M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1394044/rand=720
> 210156"></td></tr>
> > </table>
> >
> > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
> >
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > [email protected]<BR>
> > <BR>
> > </tt>
> > <br>
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > </br>
> >
> > </body></html>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > http://uk.my.yahoo.com

David

You are quite right that we don't know about Edward and Isabella, and
ultimately will never know. I think you're correct that Louis X was a
much stronger character than Edward, though I know very little about
him. Enrique IV was in fact not unlike Edward - another weak
character who was totally unfitted to be a medieval king. The book to
read is Townsend Miller: 'Henry IV of Castile', which has all the
gory detail you could wish for.

Much later, a controversy rages over whether Tsar Paul was or was not
the child of Catherine the Great's husband, Peter III. As far as
evidence is concerned, the major problem is that we are almost
entirely dependent on Catherine's self-serving Memoirs, for what went
on in their marriage, and they depict Peter in a very poor light
(remember, she was seeking to justify her usurping his throne and
having him murdered!). The facts are not that far from those of Louis
XVI and Marie Antoinette; they married very young, the marriage was
not consummated for a number of years, amid rumours of Peter's
physical incapacity. The main difference is that Catherine did
indisputably take lovers during the later years of their marriage
(and after), and made highly ambiguous remarks when put to the
question about Paul's paternity. Paul himself was convinced that
Peter was his father and turned against Catherine as an adult because
of her treatment of him.

Ann



--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Well, of course, we don't really know, as with the question of what
> actually killed Henry VIII. I've read some of Edward II's letters
to
> Isabella and they come over as desperately querulous and weak,
> whereas, Isabella - the so-called she-wolf of France - mounted an
> expedition against Edward and instead of the normal anniversary
> present, it's reported that he received a red hot poker thrust up
his
> rectum. This may say a lot about their relationship. A woman as
> strong willed as Isabella and a man as weak as Edward, which is
borne
> out by his inglorious reign in general, may well have tolerated
> someone else doing the honours under the sheets. Louis X & Enrique
IV
> may well have been of stronger mettle than Edward. Highly likely
in
> fact.
>
> Nevertheless, we don't really know and this is simply
an 'historical
> doubt' - an evaluation of the personalities involved.
>
> It's also rumoured & supported by correspondence, that Marie
> Antoinette took a lover: Count Ferson, as she remained without
child
> for 7 years, because of some inadequacy on the part of Louis XVI.
In
> fact, sexual inadequacy, whether because of homosexuality,
biological
> defect or simply shyness, is more common than is thought.
>
> If you asked me to put my hand on my heart and say that no bastard
was
> ever passed off as the legitimate heir, I wouldn't be able to do
that.
> Some of these Royal residences were full of secret doors &
passageways
> and a strong-willed woman - I've yet to meet a weak-willed one -
> could've forced the issue if her children were not going to be born
by
> any other means. Richard III clouded the issue by saying that
> pre-contracts legitimized any offspring. After all, the founder of
> the entire dynasty: William the Conqueror, was himself illegitimate.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > David
> >
> > I'm not sure I'm convinced by your pot calling the kettle black
> > argument. Double standards are far from uncommon, and would, I
> think,> come into play if there was any risk of a bastard being
passed
> off as> a potential heir to the throne. I'll reiterate that
Isabella's
> > brother Louis X repudiated the daughter born to his first wife,
had
> > the wife smothered and hastily married again in order to produce
a
> > child whose paternity was not in doubt (some might think it
poetic
> > justice that his son by his second wife was born posthumously,
and
> > died when less than a week old).
> >
> > Much later, in the 1460s, Enrique IV of Castile dithered for
years
> > over the daughter born to his second wife, who was very probably
not
> > his, before finally repudiating her in favour of his half-sister
> > Isabella the Catholic. His first marriage was unconsummated;
> > chroniclers refer to physical malformation, and attempts were
made
> at
> > artificial insemination through a brass tube. His second wife
> > certainly had a lover, Don Beltran de la Cueva, at the time the
> child
> > was conceived, and the infant was known universally as Juana 'la
> > Beltraneja'.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > The big problem with homosexuality from a Christian
> > > viewpoint is that it doesn't lead to reproduction,
> > > which is thought to be God's will, and is seen as
> > > selfish in that it is performed purely for pleasure
> > > and not the production of bambinos, as God has
> > > ordained.
> > >
> > > Richard I was openly condemned for sodomy by the
> > > Church and Edward II was widely seen to be committed
> > > to this way of life, which makes me think that his
> > > wife probably wondered what she'd let herself in for.
> > > Isabella may've resented Edward's affection for
> > > Gaveston from the start and there is evidence that
> > > some gays have a deep aversion to women, so if
> > > Isabella sought lovers elsewhere, as she did later
> > > quite openly with Roger Mortimer, it may well have
> > > been felt that this was no more scandalous than
> > > Edward's sexual life, which was openly known.
> > > Contemporary chronicles report him as a sodomite with
> > > Gaveston, etc., If, as a result of a mutual breakdown
> > > in their relationship, Isabella did get someone else
> > > to Father her children, was the openly gay Edward in a
> > > position to object? Pots find it difficult to call
> > > kettles black!
> > >
> > > --- Jessica Rydill <la@l...> wrote:
> > > <HR>
> > > <html><body>
> > >
> > >
> > > <tt>
> > > > >The word "bugger" comes from
> > > Bulgar, as the heretical sect the Bogomils,<BR>
> > > > >from Bulgaria, were alleged to have been
> > > sodomites.<BR>
> > > > ><BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > I've never paid a great deal of attention to this
> > > issue, so I may be<BR>
> > > > misremembering something I didn't quite hear --
> > > but wasn't "sodomy" much<BR>
> > > > more broadly defined to include practicallly
> > > anything that didn't include<BR>
> > > > the use of the approved orifice as a
> > > receptacle?<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > I am sure you are right, Laura. I have not
> > > studied canonical history, only<BR>
> > > read the odd book about Cathars etc. I think
> > > heretics tended to be accused<BR>
> > > of antinomianism which suggested (in the lurid view of
> > > their adversaries)<BR>
> > > that they were capable of just about anything.
> > > (I think antinomianism<BR>
> > > involves a belief that "Anything goes").<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > </tt>
> > >
> > > <br>
> > >
> > > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
> > >
> > > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> > > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> > > <td align=center><font size="-1"
> > > color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
> > > </tr>
> > > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> > > <td align=center width=470><table border=0
> > > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td
> > > align=center><font face=arial
> > > size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
> > >
> >
>
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupweb
> >
> /S=1705297333:HM/A=1394044/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/te
xt
> > /0,,HGTV_3936_5802,FF.html"
> > > target=_top><img
> > >
> >
>
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ho/homeandgardentv/hgtvdh03_3
> > 00x250a.jpg"
> > > alt="HGTV Dream Home Giveaway" width="300"
> > > height="250" border="0"></a></td> </tr> </table></td>
> > > </tr>
> > > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
> > > src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
> >
>
M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1394044/rand=720
> > 210156"></td></tr>
> > > </table>
> > >
> > > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
> > >
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > > [email protected]<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > </tt>
> > > <br>
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > > </br>
> > >
> > > </body></html>
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com

At 09:52 AM 1/17/03 -0000, you wrote:

>
>Politicians in particular are notorious for saying one thing & doing
>another. Tony Blair would have us believe that he has his own view on
>Iraq & doesn't echo Bush as his poodle. Who would be a reliable
>witness over this?

I've seen a lot of good medieval discussion groups disintegrate into flame
fests when they veer off into current events. I'm not the moderator of this
one but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we can keep our discussions
more or less centered on the fifteenth century.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Ann,
Infidelity amongst women should come as no surprise. In a recent
television programme, it was the father of 5 children, whom he'd paid
for, who was surprised. He had to check his children for a genetic
disease, but the DNA proved beyond doubt that only his daughter was
his, his 4 sons were fathered by some other man. And yet he had not
doubted his wife previously. They were divorced of course.

In the case of Isabella, she not only had the motive to produce
children as a Mother, she also needed to produce a future King. The
openly homosexual nature of Edward II from the start of their
marriage would've exasperated someone of Isabella's temperament, who
may not have been unlike her brother Louis X in strength of will, and
whether Edward was in bed with her and Gaveston is questionable.

The outcome of their relationship, which led to Edward's terrible
murder, may've been prefigured from the start. The weak, irritable
complaining of Edward in a letter to Isabella when she'd absconded to
France with her lover & his own prolonged homosexual affairs, means
that for me the idea of Edward & Isabella, about as alike as chalk &
cheese, consummating their relationship doesn't ring true. Not
impossible, but unlikely. If Isabella took a lover later, as we know
she did, why not earlier?

As you say, Catherine the Great and Marie Antoinette MAY'VE had secret
love affairs. There's ample evidence to suggest they did. Count
Ferson, who was handsome and very wealthy, maintained a lifelong
devotion to Marie, he even arranged the ill-fated flight to Varennes
and there's no doubt that his letters to Marie explicitly display a
deep 'love' for her. Given the fact that Louis XVI didn't seem to
know what sex was about or he had some biological defect, it's not
inconceivable that, like Isabella, more was going on than meets the
eye, which especially in those days of poor contraception may've led
to children. After all, the act of intercourse doesn't take very long
and were Queens watched 24 hours a day if they didn't want to be,
especially strong-willed Queens like Isabella or Marie? In fact, what
evidence is there that any Queens were 'meek, mild & submissive' as
Hockeygirl put it?



--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> David
>
> You are quite right that we don't know about Edward and Isabella,
and
> ultimately will never know. I think you're correct that Louis X was
a
> much stronger character than Edward, though I know very little about
> him. Enrique IV was in fact not unlike Edward - another weak
> character who was totally unfitted to be a medieval king. The book
to
> read is Townsend Miller: 'Henry IV of Castile', which has all the
> gory detail you could wish for.
>
> Much later, a controversy rages over whether Tsar Paul was or was
not
> the child of Catherine the Great's husband, Peter III. As far as
> evidence is concerned, the major problem is that we are almost
> entirely dependent on Catherine's self-serving Memoirs, for what
went
> on in their marriage, and they depict Peter in a very poor light
> (remember, she was seeking to justify her usurping his throne and
> having him murdered!). The facts are not that far from those of
Louis
> XVI and Marie Antoinette; they married very young, the marriage was
> not consummated for a number of years, amid rumours of Peter's
> physical incapacity. The main difference is that Catherine did
> indisputably take lovers during the later years of their marriage
> (and after), and made highly ambiguous remarks when put to the
> question about Paul's paternity. Paul himself was convinced that
> Peter was his father and turned against Catherine as an adult
because
> of her treatment of him.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Well, of course, we don't really know, as with the question of
what
> > actually killed Henry VIII. I've read some of Edward II's letters
> to
> > Isabella and they come over as desperately querulous and weak,
> > whereas, Isabella - the so-called she-wolf of France - mounted an
> > expedition against Edward and instead of the normal anniversary
> > present, it's reported that he received a red hot poker thrust up
> his
> > rectum. This may say a lot about their relationship. A woman as
> > strong willed as Isabella and a man as weak as Edward, which is
> borne
> > out by his inglorious reign in general, may well have tolerated
> > someone else doing the honours under the sheets. Louis X &
Enrique
> IV
> > may well have been of stronger mettle than Edward. Highly likely
> in
> > fact.
> >
> > Nevertheless, we don't really know and this is simply
> an 'historical
> > doubt' - an evaluation of the personalities involved.
> >
> > It's also rumoured & supported by correspondence, that Marie
> > Antoinette took a lover: Count Ferson, as she remained without
> child
> > for 7 years, because of some inadequacy on the part of Louis XVI.

> In
> > fact, sexual inadequacy, whether because of homosexuality,
> biological
> > defect or simply shyness, is more common than is thought.
> >
> > If you asked me to put my hand on my heart and say that no bastard
> was
> > ever passed off as the legitimate heir, I wouldn't be able to do
> that.
> > Some of these Royal residences were full of secret doors &
> passageways
> > and a strong-willed woman - I've yet to meet a weak-willed one -
> > could've forced the issue if her children were not going to be
born
> by
> > any other means. Richard III clouded the issue by saying that
> > pre-contracts legitimized any offspring. After all, the founder
of
> > the entire dynasty: William the Conqueror, was himself
illegitimate.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , aelyon2001
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > David
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I'm convinced by your pot calling the kettle black
> > > argument. Double standards are far from uncommon, and would, I
> > think,> come into play if there was any risk of a bastard being
> passed
> > off as> a potential heir to the throne. I'll reiterate that
> Isabella's
> > > brother Louis X repudiated the daughter born to his first wife,
> had
> > > the wife smothered and hastily married again in order to produce
> a
> > > child whose paternity was not in doubt (some might think it
> poetic
> > > justice that his son by his second wife was born posthumously,
> and
> > > died when less than a week old).
> > >
> > > Much later, in the 1460s, Enrique IV of Castile dithered for
> years
> > > over the daughter born to his second wife, who was very probably
> not
> > > his, before finally repudiating her in favour of his half-sister
> > > Isabella the Catholic. His first marriage was unconsummated;
> > > chroniclers refer to physical malformation, and attempts were
> made
> > at
> > > artificial insemination through a brass tube. His second wife
> > > certainly had a lover, Don Beltran de la Cueva, at the time the
> > child
> > > was conceived, and the infant was known universally as Juana 'la
> > > Beltraneja'.
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > The big problem with homosexuality from a Christian
> > > > viewpoint is that it doesn't lead to reproduction,
> > > > which is thought to be God's will, and is seen as
> > > > selfish in that it is performed purely for pleasure
> > > > and not the production of bambinos, as God has
> > > > ordained.
> > > >
> > > > Richard I was openly condemned for sodomy by the
> > > > Church and Edward II was widely seen to be committed
> > > > to this way of life, which makes me think that his
> > > > wife probably wondered what she'd let herself in for.
> > > > Isabella may've resented Edward's affection for
> > > > Gaveston from the start and there is evidence that
> > > > some gays have a deep aversion to women, so if
> > > > Isabella sought lovers elsewhere, as she did later
> > > > quite openly with Roger Mortimer, it may well have
> > > > been felt that this was no more scandalous than
> > > > Edward's sexual life, which was openly known.
> > > > Contemporary chronicles report him as a sodomite with
> > > > Gaveston, etc., If, as a result of a mutual breakdown
> > > > in their relationship, Isabella did get someone else
> > > > to Father her children, was the openly gay Edward in a
> > > > position to object? Pots find it difficult to call
> > > > kettles black!
> > > >
> > > > --- Jessica Rydill <la@l...> wrote:
> > > > <HR>
> > > > <html><body>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <tt>
> > > > > >The word "bugger" comes from
> > > > Bulgar, as the heretical sect the Bogomils,<BR>
> > > > > >from Bulgaria, were alleged to have been
> > > > sodomites.<BR>
> > > > > ><BR>
> > > > ><BR>
> > > > > I've never paid a great deal of attention to this
> > > > issue, so I may be<BR>
> > > > > misremembering something I didn't quite hear --
> > > > but wasn't "sodomy" much<BR>
> > > > > more broadly defined to include practicallly
> > > > anything that didn't include<BR>
> > > > > the use of the approved orifice as a
> > > > receptacle?<BR>
> > > > ><BR>
> > > > I am sure you are right, Laura. I have not
> > > > studied canonical history, only<BR>
> > > > read the odd book about Cathars etc. I think
> > > > heretics tended to be accused<BR>
> > > > of antinomianism which suggested (in the lurid view of
> > > > their adversaries)<BR>
> > > > that they were capable of just about anything.
> > > > (I think antinomianism<BR>
> > > > involves a belief that "Anything goes").<BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > </tt>
> > > >
> > > > <br>
> > > >
> > > > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
> > > >
> > > > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> > > > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> > > > <td align=center><font size="-1"
> > > > color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
> > > > </tr>
> > > > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> > > > <td align=center width=470><table border=0
> > > > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td
> > > > align=center><font face=arial
> > > > size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupweb
> > >
> >
/S=1705297333:HM/A=1394044/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/te
> xt
> > > /0,,HGTV_3936_5802,FF.html"
> > > > target=_top><img
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ho/homeandgardentv/hgtvdh03_3
> > > 00x250a.jpg"
> > > > alt="HGTV Dream Home Giveaway" width="300"
> > > > height="250" border="0"></a></td> </tr> </table></td>
> > > > </tr>
> > > > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
> > > > src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
> > >
> >
>
M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1394044/rand=720
> > > 210156"></td></tr>
> > > > </table>
> > > >
> > > > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <br>
> > > > <tt>
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > > > [email protected]<BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > </tt>
> > > > <br>
> > > >
> > > > <br>
> > > > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > > > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > > > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > > > </br>
> > > >
> > > > </body></html>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com

And no-one would dispute such evidence that you cited. Although there are
often numerous reasons why chroniclers will tell the most blatant lies <g>.
On the DNA well it depends if you could actually get a sample and gain
permission to exhume you have some additional problems due to the fact that
Isabella and Edward II have a fair number of common ancestors.

Incidentally whether they weren't or not you could argue that the succession
righted itself - Edward II's heir at law if he was childless would have been
his half brother Thomas Earl of Norfolk (one surviving daughter ancestress
of the Mowbray's and the Howards - so his direct descendant was Anne Boleyn
mother of Elizabeth I), as its unlikely Margaret of Brotherton would have
been considered - the next heir was the other half brother Edmund E of
Kent - his daughter Joan married Edward III's eldest son and was the mother
of Richard II - as both his brother's male lines were extinct its likely
that the succession wouldn't have passed to his sisters but to the male line
descendants of his uncle Edmund Earl of Lancaster - his descendants include
Blanche first wife of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster and the ancestress of
Henry IV, V and VI another descendant was Maud of Lancaster her daughter
Elizabeth de Burgh married Lionel of Antwerp Duke of Clarence and was the
ancestress of Richard Duke of York, Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III and
her lineal descendants include ever English Monarch since the accession of
Henry VIII in 1509.

Using the personal opinion of one individual about their own sexual
preference and their view of others who share that sexual preference is
simply bad science. On a personal note in common with the vast majority of
modern scientific and psycological evidence suggests that it is a) hard to
place same sex relationships between men as being either passive or dominant
b) that like all sexuality the variations between individuals is
considerable and there is little to suggest that the majority of gay men are
incapable of penetrative sexual intercourse.

In the case of Edward II - it was profoundly to his advantage politically to
assure his subjects of his capability of ensuring the succession. Producing
heirs was the one way of ensuring that he could in private continue to live
how he wished to do.
Incidentally whilst Isabella certainly grew to loathe her husband and prefer
the company of others she was just 16 years old when she married Edward II
and her first surviving child was born when she was 19/20 its therefore
within the bounds of probability that the child was indeed her husbands.
For her youngest daughter (born about 13 or so years later perhaps you have
more of a case <g>)

----- Original Message -----
From: <willison2001@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Gay


> DNA comparison between Edward II & Edward III is the only way of
> avoiding conjecture over the paternity of Edward III.
>
> There are relatively few sources which state explicitly that "X was a
> homosexual. Yet by all accounts: Peter Damian, Alain de Lille,
> Bernardine of Siena, Venetian court records, homosexual activity was
> well known and reasonably widespread in locations where there were
> large numbers of men. [One does not have to have a dirty mind to see
> what Benedict was getting at in some parts of the Rule.] With a
> limited number of figures, the evidence is personal: among English
> kings, for instance, William II, Richard I, and Edward II have
> all been seen as homosexual with rather good, although not absolute,
> contemporary evidence. With Edward II the evidence is about as good as
> it gets: that he was a bender! Few would claim him as a hero, but
> accounts of his life, character, and attitudes towards him, along with
> literary material such as Chaucer's discussion of the Pardoner and
> Dante's conversation with Brunetto Latini do allow us to interrogate,
> if not come to definite conclusions about varying medieval concepts of
> gender and sexuality.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

David

I would never suggest that women are incapable of adultery! My
impression is that married men and married women engage in adultery
in roughly equal proportions, but women are more holier-than-thou
about the subject! I believe that DNA testing demonstrates that a far
greater proportion of children were not the offspring of their
official fathers than anyone thought possible! Clearly, there are an
awful lot of unfaithful women out there.

I would agree that it is possible that Isabella's four children were
not fathered by Edward II, but my conclusion, which differs from
yours, is that on a balance of probabilities Edward was the father at
least of Edward III, the most important of them. That he seems to
have preferred men does not necessarily preclude his having sexual
relations with Isabella, even if only on a 'think of England' basis
and before returning with relief to Piers Gaveston or the Younger
Despenser.

As to why Isabella did not take a lover early in the marriage, when
she is known to have had lovers later, I think the obvious conclusion
is that it may have taken some years before the desire coincided with
the opportunity. After all, Catherine the Great married Peter III in,
I think, 1743-44 (once again, I'm at work so books are not to hand),
but so far as is known (and her Memoirs make no bones about the
subject) did not start taking lovers until 8-10 years later, despite
her marriage being, according to her own account, a disaster from the
wedding night (she claims that Peter preferred mock battles with lead
soldiers).

Ann


--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Ann,
> Infidelity amongst women should come as no surprise. In a
recent
> television programme, it was the father of 5 children, whom he'd
paid
> for, who was surprised. He had to check his children for a genetic
> disease, but the DNA proved beyond doubt that only his daughter was
> his, his 4 sons were fathered by some other man. And yet he had
not
> doubted his wife previously. They were divorced of course.
>
> In the case of Isabella, she not only had the motive to produce
> children as a Mother, she also needed to produce a future King.
The
> openly homosexual nature of Edward II from the start of their
> marriage would've exasperated someone of Isabella's temperament,
who
> may not have been unlike her brother Louis X in strength of will,
and
> whether Edward was in bed with her and Gaveston is questionable.
>
> The outcome of their relationship, which led to Edward's terrible
> murder, may've been prefigured from the start. The weak, irritable
> complaining of Edward in a letter to Isabella when she'd absconded
to
> France with her lover & his own prolonged homosexual affairs, means
> that for me the idea of Edward & Isabella, about as alike as chalk
&
> cheese, consummating their relationship doesn't ring true. Not
> impossible, but unlikely. If Isabella took a lover later, as we
know
> she did, why not earlier?
>
> As you say, Catherine the Great and Marie Antoinette MAY'VE had
secret
> love affairs. There's ample evidence to suggest they did. Count
> Ferson, who was handsome and very wealthy, maintained a lifelong
> devotion to Marie, he even arranged the ill-fated flight to
Varennes
> and there's no doubt that his letters to Marie explicitly display a
> deep 'love' for her. Given the fact that Louis XVI didn't seem to
> know what sex was about or he had some biological defect, it's not
> inconceivable that, like Isabella, more was going on than meets the
> eye, which especially in those days of poor contraception may've
led
> to children. After all, the act of intercourse doesn't take very
long
> and were Queens watched 24 hours a day if they didn't want to be,
> especially strong-willed Queens like Isabella or Marie? In fact,
what
> evidence is there that any Queens were 'meek, mild & submissive' as
> Hockeygirl put it?
>
>
>
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > David
> >
> > You are quite right that we don't know about Edward and Isabella,
> and
> > ultimately will never know. I think you're correct that Louis X
was
> a
> > much stronger character than Edward, though I know very little
about
> > him. Enrique IV was in fact not unlike Edward - another weak
> > character who was totally unfitted to be a medieval king. The
book
> to
> > read is Townsend Miller: 'Henry IV of Castile', which has all the
> > gory detail you could wish for.
> >
> > Much later, a controversy rages over whether Tsar Paul was or was
> not
> > the child of Catherine the Great's husband, Peter III. As far as
> > evidence is concerned, the major problem is that we are almost
> > entirely dependent on Catherine's self-serving Memoirs, for what
> went
> > on in their marriage, and they depict Peter in a very poor light
> > (remember, she was seeking to justify her usurping his throne and
> > having him murdered!). The facts are not that far from those of
> Louis
> > XVI and Marie Antoinette; they married very young, the marriage
was
> > not consummated for a number of years, amid rumours of Peter's
> > physical incapacity. The main difference is that Catherine did
> > indisputably take lovers during the later years of their marriage
> > (and after), and made highly ambiguous remarks when put to the
> > question about Paul's paternity. Paul himself was convinced that
> > Peter was his father and turned against Catherine as an adult
> because
> > of her treatment of him.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "willison2001
> > <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Well, of course, we don't really know, as with the question of
> what
> > > actually killed Henry VIII. I've read some of Edward II's
letters
> > to
> > > Isabella and they come over as desperately querulous and weak,
> > > whereas, Isabella - the so-called she-wolf of France - mounted
an
> > > expedition against Edward and instead of the normal anniversary
> > > present, it's reported that he received a red hot poker thrust
up
> > his
> > > rectum. This may say a lot about their relationship. A woman
as
> > > strong willed as Isabella and a man as weak as Edward, which is
> > borne
> > > out by his inglorious reign in general, may well have tolerated
> > > someone else doing the honours under the sheets. Louis X &
> Enrique
> > IV
> > > may well have been of stronger mettle than Edward. Highly
likely
> > in
> > > fact.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, we don't really know and this is simply
> > an 'historical
> > > doubt' - an evaluation of the personalities involved.
> > >
> > > It's also rumoured & supported by correspondence, that Marie
> > > Antoinette took a lover: Count Ferson, as she remained without
> > child
> > > for 7 years, because of some inadequacy on the part of Louis
XVI.
>
> > In
> > > fact, sexual inadequacy, whether because of homosexuality,
> > biological
> > > defect or simply shyness, is more common than is thought.
> > >
> > > If you asked me to put my hand on my heart and say that no
bastard
> > was
> > > ever passed off as the legitimate heir, I wouldn't be able to
do
> > that.
> > > Some of these Royal residences were full of secret doors &
> > passageways
> > > and a strong-willed woman - I've yet to meet a weak-willed one -

> > > could've forced the issue if her children were not going to be
> born
> > by
> > > any other means. Richard III clouded the issue by saying that
> > > pre-contracts legitimized any offspring. After all, the
founder
> of
> > > the entire dynasty: William the Conqueror, was himself
> illegitimate.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , aelyon2001
> > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I'm convinced by your pot calling the kettle
black
> > > > argument. Double standards are far from uncommon, and would,
I
> > > think,> come into play if there was any risk of a bastard being
> > passed
> > > off as> a potential heir to the throne. I'll reiterate that
> > Isabella's
> > > > brother Louis X repudiated the daughter born to his first
wife,
> > had
> > > > the wife smothered and hastily married again in order to
produce
> > a
> > > > child whose paternity was not in doubt (some might think it
> > poetic
> > > > justice that his son by his second wife was born
posthumously,
> > and
> > > > died when less than a week old).
> > > >
> > > > Much later, in the 1460s, Enrique IV of Castile dithered for
> > years
> > > > over the daughter born to his second wife, who was very
probably
> > not
> > > > his, before finally repudiating her in favour of his half-
sister
> > > > Isabella the Catholic. His first marriage was unconsummated;
> > > > chroniclers refer to physical malformation, and attempts were
> > made
> > > at
> > > > artificial insemination through a brass tube. His second wife
> > > > certainly had a lover, Don Beltran de la Cueva, at the time
the
> > > child
> > > > was conceived, and the infant was known universally as
Juana 'la
> > > > Beltraneja'.
> > > >
> > > > Ann
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> > > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > > The big problem with homosexuality from a Christian
> > > > > viewpoint is that it doesn't lead to reproduction,
> > > > > which is thought to be God's will, and is seen as
> > > > > selfish in that it is performed purely for pleasure
> > > > > and not the production of bambinos, as God has
> > > > > ordained.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard I was openly condemned for sodomy by the
> > > > > Church and Edward II was widely seen to be committed
> > > > > to this way of life, which makes me think that his
> > > > > wife probably wondered what she'd let herself in for.
> > > > > Isabella may've resented Edward's affection for
> > > > > Gaveston from the start and there is evidence that
> > > > > some gays have a deep aversion to women, so if
> > > > > Isabella sought lovers elsewhere, as she did later
> > > > > quite openly with Roger Mortimer, it may well have
> > > > > been felt that this was no more scandalous than
> > > > > Edward's sexual life, which was openly known.
> > > > > Contemporary chronicles report him as a sodomite with
> > > > > Gaveston, etc., If, as a result of a mutual breakdown
> > > > > in their relationship, Isabella did get someone else
> > > > > to Father her children, was the openly gay Edward in a
> > > > > position to object? Pots find it difficult to call
> > > > > kettles black!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Jessica Rydill <la@l...> wrote:
> > > > > <HR>
> > > > > <html><body>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <tt>
> > > > > > >The word "bugger" comes from
> > > > > Bulgar, as the heretical sect the Bogomils,<BR>
> > > > > > >from Bulgaria, were alleged to have been
> > > > > sodomites.<BR>
> > > > > > ><BR>
> > > > > ><BR>
> > > > > > I've never paid a great deal of attention to this
> > > > > issue, so I may be<BR>
> > > > > > misremembering something I didn't quite hear --
> > > > > but wasn't "sodomy" much<BR>
> > > > > > more broadly defined to include practicallly
> > > > > anything that didn't include<BR>
> > > > > > the use of the approved orifice as a
> > > > > receptacle?<BR>
> > > > > ><BR>
> > > > > I am sure you are right, Laura. I have not
> > > > > studied canonical history, only<BR>
> > > > > read the odd book about Cathars etc. I think
> > > > > heretics tended to be accused<BR>
> > > > > of antinomianism which suggested (in the lurid view of
> > > > > their adversaries)<BR>
> > > > > that they were capable of just about anything.
> > > > > (I think antinomianism<BR>
> > > > > involves a belief that "Anything goes").<BR>
> > > > > <BR>
> > > > > <BR>
> > > > > </tt>
> > > > >
> > > > > <br>
> > > > >
> > > > > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
> > > > >
> > > > > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> > > > > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> > > > > <td align=center><font size="-1"
> > > > > color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
> > > > > </tr>
> > > > > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> > > > > <td align=center width=470><table border=0
> > > > > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td
> > > > > align=center><font face=arial
> > > > > size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupweb
> > > >
> > >
> /S=1705297333:HM/A=1394044/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/te
> > xt
> > > > /0,,HGTV_3936_5802,FF.html"
> > > > > target=_top><img
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ho/homeandgardentv/hgtvdh03_3
> > > > 00x250a.jpg"
> > > > > alt="HGTV Dream Home Giveaway" width="300"
> > > > > height="250" border="0"></a></td> </tr> </table></td>
> > > > > </tr>
> > > > > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
> > > > > src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1394044/rand=720
> > > > 210156"></td></tr>
> > > > > </table>
> > > > >
> > > > > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <br>
> > > > > <tt>
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > > > > [email protected]<BR>
> > > > > <BR>
> > > > > </tt>
> > > > > <br>
> > > > >
> > > > > <br>
> > > > > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > > > > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > > > > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > > > > </br>
> > > > >
> > > > > </body></html>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > > > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > > > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com

We could do with a family tree to work out all of these
relationships. The Society of Antiquaries carries one I believe? You
are saying that other sprigs from Edward I rejoined the Royal family
later?

Regarding passive homosexuality, apart from Quentin Crisp, the
taking of a non-penetrative role by some men is mentioned elsewhere,
I believe it crops up in Emile Zola & Aldous Huxley and I've read in
medical articles that a habituation to this role has occurred with
some men. They receive, but they don't give! Sounds like some of my
friends.

As for the relationship between Edward & Isabella, as I've said, I
don't suppose we'll ever know. One can only surmise from their
characters, actions & the outcome of their 'marriage.' I think it
would be fair to say that Isabella must've at least been disappointed
married to such a weak man who had a male lover.

Anyway, we better not dwell too much on the events of pre-1327 or
Laura will be ticking us off for being outside the 15th century.
Don't mention Blair!


-- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> And no-one would dispute such evidence that you cited. Although
there are> often numerous reasons why chroniclers will tell the most
blatant lies <g>.
> On the DNA well it depends if you could actually get a sample and
gain> permission to exhume you have some additional problems due to
the fact that> Isabella and Edward II have a fair number of common
ancestors.
>
> Incidentally whether they weren't or not you could argue that the
succession> righted itself - Edward II's heir at law if he was
childless would have been> his half brother Thomas Earl of Norfolk
(one surviving daughter ancestress> of the Mowbray's and the Howards -
so his direct descendant was Anne Boleyn> mother of Elizabeth I), as
its unlikely Margaret of Brotherton would have> been considered - the
next heir was the other half brother Edmund E of> Kent - his daughter
Joan married Edward III's eldest son and was the mother> of Richard II
- as both his brother's male lines were extinct its likely
> that the succession wouldn't have passed to his sisters but to the
male line> descendants of his uncle Edmund Earl of Lancaster - his
descendants include> Blanche first wife of John of Gaunt Duke of
Lancaster and the ancestress of> Henry IV, V and VI another descendant
was Maud of Lancaster her daughter> Elizabeth de Burgh married Lionel
of Antwerp Duke of Clarence and was the> ancestress of Richard Duke of
York, Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III and> her lineal descendants
include ever English Monarch since the accession of> Henry VIII in
1509.
>
> Using the personal opinion of one individual about their own sexual
> preference and their view of others who share that sexual preference
is> simply bad science. On a personal note in common with the vast
majority of> modern scientific and psycological evidence suggests that
it is a) hard to> place same sex relationships between men as being
either passive or dominant
> b) that like all sexuality the variations between individuals is
> considerable and there is little to suggest that the majority of gay
men are> incapable of penetrative sexual intercourse.
>
> In the case of Edward II - it was profoundly to his advantage
politically to> assure his subjects of his capability of ensuring the
succession.
Producing> heirs was the one way of ensuring that he could in private
continue to live> how he wished to do.
> Incidentally whilst Isabella certainly grew to loathe her husband
and prefer> the company of others she was just 16 years old when she
married Edward II> and her first surviving child was born when she was
19/20 its therefore> within the bounds of probability that the child
was indeed her husbands.> For her youngest daughter (born about 13 or
so years later perhaps you have> more of a case <g>)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <willison2001@y...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Gay
>
>
> > DNA comparison between Edward II & Edward III is the only way of
> > avoiding conjecture over the paternity of Edward III.
> >
> > There are relatively few sources which state explicitly that "X
was a
> > homosexual. Yet by all accounts: Peter Damian, Alain de Lille,
> > Bernardine of Siena, Venetian court records, homosexual activity
was
> > well known and reasonably widespread in locations where there were
> > large numbers of men. [One does not have to have a dirty mind to
see
> > what Benedict was getting at in some parts of the Rule.] With a
> > limited number of figures, the evidence is personal: among English
> > kings, for instance, William II, Richard I, and Edward II have
> > all been seen as homosexual with rather good, although not
absolute,
> > contemporary evidence. With Edward II the evidence is about as
good as
> > it gets: that he was a bender! Few would claim him as a hero, but
> > accounts of his life, character, and attitudes towards him, along
with
> > literary material such as Chaucer's discussion of the Pardoner and
> > Dante's conversation with Brunetto Latini do allow us to
interrogate,
> > if not come to definite conclusions about varying medieval
concepts of
> > gender and sexuality.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >

Sadly, we never will know, so a conclusion isn't possible.

I will say that I wouldn't be surprised if strong Queens, such as
Isabella, Catherine, Margaret of Anjou & Marie Antoinette, did betray
their painfully weak husbands. The desire to procreate is very strong
and necessary for the survival of the species and where continuing the
Royal succession is a motive, the incentive would be very strong.

Edward II, Henry VI, Tsar Peter and Louis XVI cut ludicrous figures as
husbands. It's strange that no-one ever considers very camp men, such
as Kenneth Williams & Julian Clary, as likely candidates for
procreative marriage. The four monarchs, for various reasons, seem
equally unlikely, not impossible I grant you, but unlikely. There is
the story, supported by letters, that the brother of Marie Antoinette,
seven years into their marriage, had to tell Louis XVI what he was
supposed to do. I mean...?

As for pathetic Peter, schizophrenic Henry and very gay Edward, I
think the Court must remain out...the Jury might have some difficulty
deciding.

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> David
>
> I would never suggest that women are incapable of adultery! My
> impression is that married men and married women engage in adultery
> in roughly equal proportions, but women are more holier-than-thou
> about the subject! I believe that DNA testing demonstrates that a
far
> greater proportion of children were not the offspring of their
> official fathers than anyone thought possible! Clearly, there are an
> awful lot of unfaithful women out there.
>
> I would agree that it is possible that Isabella's four children were
> not fathered by Edward II, but my conclusion, which differs from
> yours, is that on a balance of probabilities Edward was the father
at
> least of Edward III, the most important of them. That he seems to
> have preferred men does not necessarily preclude his having sexual
> relations with Isabella, even if only on a 'think of England' basis
> and before returning with relief to Piers Gaveston or the Younger
> Despenser.
>
> As to why Isabella did not take a lover early in the marriage, when
> she is known to have had lovers later, I think the obvious
conclusion
> is that it may have taken some years before the desire coincided
with
> the opportunity. After all, Catherine the Great married Peter III
in,
> I think, 1743-44 (once again, I'm at work so books are not to hand),
> but so far as is known (and her Memoirs make no bones about the
> subject) did not start taking lovers until 8-10 years later, despite
> her marriage being, according to her own account, a disaster from
the
> wedding night (she claims that Peter preferred mock battles with
lead
> soldiers).
>
> Ann
>
>
> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Ann,
> > Infidelity amongst women should come as no surprise. In a
> recent
> > television programme, it was the father of 5 children, whom he'd
> paid
> > for, who was surprised. He had to check his children for a
genetic
> > disease, but the DNA proved beyond doubt that only his daughter
was
> > his, his 4 sons were fathered by some other man. And yet he had
> not
> > doubted his wife previously. They were divorced of course.
> >
> > In the case of Isabella, she not only had the motive to produce
> > children as a Mother, she also needed to produce a future King.
> The
> > openly homosexual nature of Edward II from the start of their
> > marriage would've exasperated someone of Isabella's temperament,
> who
> > may not have been unlike her brother Louis X in strength of will,
> and
> > whether Edward was in bed with her and Gaveston is questionable.
> >
> > The outcome of their relationship, which led to Edward's terrible
> > murder, may've been prefigured from the start. The weak,
irritable
> > complaining of Edward in a letter to Isabella when she'd absconded
> to
> > France with her lover & his own prolonged homosexual affairs,
means
> > that for me the idea of Edward & Isabella, about as alike as chalk
> &
> > cheese, consummating their relationship doesn't ring true. Not
> > impossible, but unlikely. If Isabella took a lover later, as we
> know
> > she did, why not earlier?
> >
> > As you say, Catherine the Great and Marie Antoinette MAY'VE had
> secret
> > love affairs. There's ample evidence to suggest they did. Count
> > Ferson, who was handsome and very wealthy, maintained a lifelong
> > devotion to Marie, he even arranged the ill-fated flight to
> Varennes
> > and there's no doubt that his letters to Marie explicitly display
a
> > deep 'love' for her. Given the fact that Louis XVI didn't seem to
> > know what sex was about or he had some biological defect, it's not
> > inconceivable that, like Isabella, more was going on than meets
the
> > eye, which especially in those days of poor contraception may've
> led
> > to children. After all, the act of intercourse doesn't take very
> long
> > and were Queens watched 24 hours a day if they didn't want to be,
> > especially strong-willed Queens like Isabella or Marie? In fact,
> what
> > evidence is there that any Queens were 'meek, mild & submissive'
as
> > Hockeygirl put it?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , aelyon2001
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > David
> > >
> > > You are quite right that we don't know about Edward and
Isabella,
> > and
> > > ultimately will never know. I think you're correct that Louis X
> was
> > a
> > > much stronger character than Edward, though I know very little
> about
> > > him. Enrique IV was in fact not unlike Edward - another weak
> > > character who was totally unfitted to be a medieval king. The
> book
> > to
> > > read is Townsend Miller: 'Henry IV of Castile', which has all
the
> > > gory detail you could wish for.
> > >
> > > Much later, a controversy rages over whether Tsar Paul was or
was
> > not
> > > the child of Catherine the Great's husband, Peter III. As far as
> > > evidence is concerned, the major problem is that we are almost
> > > entirely dependent on Catherine's self-serving Memoirs, for what
> > went
> > > on in their marriage, and they depict Peter in a very poor light
> > > (remember, she was seeking to justify her usurping his throne
and
> > > having him murdered!). The facts are not that far from those of
> > Louis
> > > XVI and Marie Antoinette; they married very young, the marriage
> was
> > > not consummated for a number of years, amid rumours of Peter's
> > > physical incapacity. The main difference is that Catherine did
> > > indisputably take lovers during the later years of their
marriage
> > > (and after), and made highly ambiguous remarks when put to the
> > > question about Paul's paternity. Paul himself was convinced that
> > > Peter was his father and turned against Catherine as an adult
> > because
> > > of her treatment of him.
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "willison2001
> > > <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > Well, of course, we don't really know, as with the question of
> > what
> > > > actually killed Henry VIII. I've read some of Edward II's
> letters
> > > to
> > > > Isabella and they come over as desperately querulous and weak,
> > > > whereas, Isabella - the so-called she-wolf of France - mounted
> an
> > > > expedition against Edward and instead of the normal
anniversary
> > > > present, it's reported that he received a red hot poker thrust
> up
> > > his
> > > > rectum. This may say a lot about their relationship. A woman
> as
> > > > strong willed as Isabella and a man as weak as Edward, which
is
> > > borne
> > > > out by his inglorious reign in general, may well have
tolerated
> > > > someone else doing the honours under the sheets. Louis X &
> > Enrique
> > > IV
> > > > may well have been of stronger mettle than Edward. Highly
> likely
> > > in
> > > > fact.
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, we don't really know and this is simply
> > > an 'historical
> > > > doubt' - an evaluation of the personalities involved.
> > > >
> > > > It's also rumoured & supported by correspondence, that Marie
> > > > Antoinette took a lover: Count Ferson, as she remained without
> > > child
> > > > for 7 years, because of some inadequacy on the part of Louis
> XVI.
> >
> > > In
> > > > fact, sexual inadequacy, whether because of homosexuality,
> > > biological
> > > > defect or simply shyness, is more common than is thought.
> > > >
> > > > If you asked me to put my hand on my heart and say that no
> bastard
> > > was
> > > > ever passed off as the legitimate heir, I wouldn't be able to
> do
> > > that.
> > > > Some of these Royal residences were full of secret doors &
> > > passageways
> > > > and a strong-willed woman - I've yet to meet a weak-willed one
-
>
> > > > could've forced the issue if her children were not going to be
> > born
> > > by
> > > > any other means. Richard III clouded the issue by saying that
> > > > pre-contracts legitimized any offspring. After all, the
> founder
> > of
> > > > the entire dynasty: William the Conqueror, was himself
> > illegitimate.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , aelyon2001
> > > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure I'm convinced by your pot calling the kettle
> black
> > > > > argument. Double standards are far from uncommon, and would,
> I
> > > > think,> come into play if there was any risk of a bastard
being
> > > passed
> > > > off as> a potential heir to the throne. I'll reiterate that
> > > Isabella's
> > > > > brother Louis X repudiated the daughter born to his first
> wife,
> > > had
> > > > > the wife smothered and hastily married again in order to
> produce
> > > a
> > > > > child whose paternity was not in doubt (some might think it
> > > poetic
> > > > > justice that his son by his second wife was born
> posthumously,
> > > and
> > > > > died when less than a week old).
> > > > >
> > > > > Much later, in the 1460s, Enrique IV of Castile dithered for
> > > years
> > > > > over the daughter born to his second wife, who was very
> probably
> > > not
> > > > > his, before finally repudiating her in favour of his half-
> sister
> > > > > Isabella the Catholic. His first marriage was unconsummated;
> > > > > chroniclers refer to physical malformation, and attempts
were
> > > made
> > > > at
> > > > > artificial insemination through a brass tube. His second
wife
> > > > > certainly had a lover, Don Beltran de la Cueva, at the time
> the
> > > > child
> > > > > was conceived, and the infant was known universally as
> Juana 'la
> > > > > Beltraneja'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ann
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , DAVID
WILLISON
> > > > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > The big problem with homosexuality from a Christian
> > > > > > viewpoint is that it doesn't lead to reproduction,
> > > > > > which is thought to be God's will, and is seen as
> > > > > > selfish in that it is performed purely for pleasure
> > > > > > and not the production of bambinos, as God has
> > > > > > ordained.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard I was openly condemned for sodomy by the
> > > > > > Church and Edward II was widely seen to be committed
> > > > > > to this way of life, which makes me think that his
> > > > > > wife probably wondered what she'd let herself in for.
> > > > > > Isabella may've resented Edward's affection for
> > > > > > Gaveston from the start and there is evidence that
> > > > > > some gays have a deep aversion to women, so if
> > > > > > Isabella sought lovers elsewhere, as she did later
> > > > > > quite openly with Roger Mortimer, it may well have
> > > > > > been felt that this was no more scandalous than
> > > > > > Edward's sexual life, which was openly known.
> > > > > > Contemporary chronicles report him as a sodomite with
> > > > > > Gaveston, etc., If, as a result of a mutual breakdown
> > > > > > in their relationship, Isabella did get someone else
> > > > > > to Father her children, was the openly gay Edward in a
> > > > > > position to object? Pots find it difficult to call
> > > > > > kettles black!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- Jessica Rydill <la@l...> wrote:
> > > > > > <HR>
> > > > > > <html><body>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <tt>
> > > > > > > >The word "bugger" comes from
> > > > > > Bulgar, as the heretical sect the Bogomils,<BR>
> > > > > > > >from Bulgaria, were alleged to have been
> > > > > > sodomites.<BR>
> > > > > > > ><BR>
> > > > > > ><BR>
> > > > > > > I've never paid a great deal of attention to this
> > > > > > issue, so I may be<BR>
> > > > > > > misremembering something I didn't quite hear --
> > > > > > but wasn't "sodomy" much<BR>
> > > > > > > more broadly defined to include practicallly
> > > > > > anything that didn't include<BR>
> > > > > > > the use of the approved orifice as a
> > > > > > receptacle?<BR>
> > > > > > ><BR>
> > > > > > I am sure you are right, Laura. I have not
> > > > > > studied canonical history, only<BR>
> > > > > > read the odd book about Cathars etc. I think
> > > > > > heretics tended to be accused<BR>
> > > > > > of antinomianism which suggested (in the lurid view of
> > > > > > their adversaries)<BR>
> > > > > > that they were capable of just about anything.
> > > > > > (I think antinomianism<BR>
> > > > > > involves a belief that "Anything goes").<BR>
> > > > > > <BR>
> > > > > > <BR>
> > > > > > </tt>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <br>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> > > > > > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> > > > > > <td align=center><font size="-1"
> > > > > > color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
> > > > > > </tr>
> > > > > > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> > > > > > <td align=center width=470><table border=0
> > > > > > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td
> > > > > > align=center><font face=arial
> > > > > > size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupweb
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
/S=1705297333:HM/A=1394044/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/te
> > > xt
> > > > > /0,,HGTV_3936_5802,FF.html"
> > > > > > target=_top><img
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ho/homeandgardentv/hgtvdh03_3
> > > > > 00x250a.jpg"
> > > > > > alt="HGTV Dream Home Giveaway" width="300"
> > > > > > height="250" border="0"></a></td> </tr> </table></td>
> > > > > > </tr>
> > > > > > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
> > > > > > src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1394044/rand=720
> > > > > 210156"></td></tr>
> > > > > > </table>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <br>
> > > > > > <tt>
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > > > > > [email protected]<BR>
> > > > > > <BR>
> > > > > > </tt>
> > > > > > <br>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <br>
> > > > > > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > > > > > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > > > > > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > > > > > </br>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > </body></html>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > > > > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > > > > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com

willison2001 <willison2001@...>16/01/2003
12:02willison2001@...

> among English
> kings, for instance, William II, Richard I, and Edward II have
> all been seen as homosexual with rather good, although not absolute,
> contemporary evidence.
Rufus was criticised by chroniclers, allof whom were churchmen, all of whom
disapproved of his militaristic lifestyle and liberal court, especially as
he was not inclined towards the church. Hence he was accused of all and
every sin they could think of, sodomy amongst them. This of course does not
necessarily mean sodomy with anothe man or men. The sexuality of Richard I
was not in question until fairly recently, and John Gillingham has squashed
the gay strories sufficently well for my money. Yes Edward II was accused of
favouring male favourites, but he also fathered 4 children, which it is
possible for the majority of gay men to do. Oscar Wilde springs immediately
to mind.
>With Edward II the evidence is about as good as
> it gets: that he was a bender!
I think such comments show where you are with respect to sexual orientation
and a knowledge of sexual behaviour. You clearly have a problem in this
area.
BUT.....
Is anywhere the place to discuss such topics with the language of the
gutter?
No.
AND.....Is this really the forum to be discussing such things? What does
Edward II's sexuality have to do with Richard III?

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> willison2001 <willison2001@y...>16/01/2003
> 12:02willison2001@y...
>
> > among English
> > kings, for instance, William II, Richard I, and Edward II have
> > all been seen as homosexual with rather good, although not
absolute,
> > contemporary evidence.
> Rufus was criticised by chroniclers, allof whom were churchmen, all
of whom
> disapproved of his militaristic lifestyle and liberal court,
especially as
> he was not inclined towards the church. Hence he was accused of all
and
> every sin they could think of, sodomy amongst them. This of course
does not
> necessarily mean sodomy with anothe man or men. The sexuality of
Richard I
> was not in question until fairly recently, and John Gillingham has
squashed
> the gay strories sufficently well for my money. Yes Edward II was
accused of
> favouring male favourites, but he also fathered 4 children, which
it is
> possible for the majority of gay men to do. Oscar Wilde springs
immediately
> to mind.
> >With Edward II the evidence is about as good as
> > it gets: that he was a bender!
> I think such comments show where you are with respect to sexual
orientation
> and a knowledge of sexual behaviour. You clearly have a problem in
this
> area.
> BUT.....
> Is anywhere the place to discuss such topics with the language of
the
> gutter?
> No.
> AND.....Is this really the forum to be discussing such things? What
does
> Edward II's sexuality have to do with Richard III?

If the overall view of the list subscribers is that we should keep
our postings to the 15th century/early 16th century then fine: I
think however that drawing on the reputation of Edward II for
example or (say) Richard II, how they were portrayed at the time, how
they are viewed now, can help us to understand the overall principle
of kingship in Medieval times. The whole notion of what makes
a 'good' or 'bad' Medieval king and the overall need to stress
complexities and ambiguities is worth studying for anyone interested
in Richard III. One of Edward II's greatest failings is that he
elevated his lovers Gaveston and the Younger Despenser too far too
quickly within the complex patronage networks of his time, perhaps
isolating too many powerful factions. The question of how a Medieval
king asserted his authority, did they have to rule with the support-
or at least the consent- of the barons (?) is important in trying to
understand both the 14th and the 15th centuries.

At 06:38 PM 1/17/03 +0100, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

>AND.....Is this really the forum to be discussing such things? What does
>Edward II's sexuality have to do with Richard III?
>

To my mind, the only connection would be if we were doing a comparison of
the way factions in the English later middle ages used concupiscience and
deviancy as ways of denigrating one's successor and/or opponent. Thus, we
have the Edward II sodomy stories; the witchcraft allegations, with serious
overtones of sexual beguilement, against assorted queens; and Richard III's
own commentary on Edward IV and on Henry Tudor's forces. But I don't
believe that was the conversation folks were having -- I've been zoning in
and out of the discussion.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Laura Blanchard17/01/2003 4:51lblanchard@...

> but wasn't "sodomy" much
> more broadly defined to include practicallly anything that didn't include
> the use of the approved orifice as a receptacle?
Yes. And between men and women as well as men and men.
also animals!
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> was

> BUT.....
> Is anywhere the place to discuss such topics with the language of
the
> gutter?
> No.
>
If you bothered to follow the thread though you'd know that this
started as a discussion about who in fact was a bastard, which Richard
III was very fond of alleging against others.

The use of the words: homosexual, gay, sodomite & bender (in fact, gay
& bender are equally colloquial) all much of a much in the context of
the thread, have been used, which may or may not offend some.
Personally, I couldn't care less what people do so long as it doesn't
hurt anyone, but I would suggest that YOU are the one with the problem
and appear to be riding on a very high horse with a very small mind.

If you want to discuss Richard III directly, why are you sticking your
beak into this thread?

willison2001 <willison2001@...>18/01/2003
2:13willison2001@...

> I would suggest that YOU are the one with the problem
> and appear to be riding on a very high horse with a very small mind.
just the sort of rude ill informed remark I should have expected from you
and your insulting manner. Time to delete unread anything from the willi
man!

Of course you're not 'rude ill informed & with an insulting manner!'
I've never read anything from you that shouldn't be deleted & as for
you deleting my material, do you think I care?



In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> willison2001 <willison2001@y...>18/01/2003
> 2:13willison2001@y...
>
> > I would suggest that YOU are the one with the problem
> > and appear to be riding on a very high horse with a very small
mind.
> just the sort of rude ill informed remark I should have expected
from you
> and your insulting manner. Time to delete unread anything from the
willi
> man!