Richard I was an incorrigible womanizer (and really, of all the things Richard's enemies said about him; they never accused him of being attracted to men (NOTE: their homophobia/biphobia does necessarily not reflect my views)).
There are plenty of indications that Richard II was quite fond of both sexes, albeit quieter about being interested in men for obvious reasons. And yes, his opponents (and some of his allies) made plenty of allusions to this.
I do agree, however, that not having children does not mean that they were homosexual. But nor does having children mean that one was not interested in the same sex.
That's not what Frank McLynn says.
McLynn says just the opposite, and I must say his bibliography is rather impressive.
So, a whole lot of ducks were in the field by my house a few minutes ago; and I was trying to photograph them so I could get a precise measurement of the number of ducks; but I can't seem to view the video I took; it's still there, but I can't view it.
Also, my family wouldn't stop talking when I wanted silence for best duck-photographing.
Sure, the ducks didn't react at all to the talking; but I am slightly miffed that my family couldn't have just gone inside. Slightly miffed is about as miffed as I am when I wake up facing south instead of north; which is; hardly any at all. Slightly miffed is when you can't find your glasses because you are wearing them.
I love my family to death; but sometimes I just really, really, really don't want to hear any voices.
Richard I was an incorrigible womanizer (and really, of all the things Richard's enemies said about him; they never accused him of being attracted to men (NOTE: their homophobia/biphobia does necessarily not reflect my views)).
There are plenty of indications that Richard II was quite fond of both sexes, albeit quieter about being interested in men for obvious reasons. And yes, his opponents (and some of his allies) made plenty of allusions to this.
I do agree, however, that not having children does not mean that they were homosexual. But nor does having children mean that one was not interested in the same sex.
That's not what Frank McLynn says.
McLynn says just the opposite, and I must say his bibliography is rather impressive.
Ah, my mistake, it was Richard I rather than Richard III who I was thinking of. There is some dispute about the matter, but there is definitely enough evidence to argue that he had at least had liasons with other men at some point even if he were not predominantly homosexual.
Now, if we are arguing if there were any decidedly gay kings of England... James I is a pretty good candidate.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Indeed
When I was younger I found it hard to believe that anyone actually lived in the 1970s
Yeah, I can see that; what with his favorites like De Vere.
Richard I though, is a different story.
Also, what the heck do you mean James VI and I was homosexual? I just can't see that.
I can see Charles II and James II as being homosexual, yeah.
Maybe you meant James II.
James VI and I had something like five different male favourites, all of whom were subject to all sorts of vicious court gossip; ditto James II. Richard I... interesting stories about his conduct during the Crusades.
I know who they are and what titles they held. But generally it's not common practice to call a monarch who was in charge of a personal union by both of their titles simultaneously.
You know, I kind of understand this to be true, but I think media in general has kind of taken strides to introducing more realistic elements into itself.
Now obviously there are still elements of fantasy, but the phrase "It's not like in the shows" is certainly at this point disingenuous.
I know who they are and what titles they held. But generally it's not common practice to call a monarch who was in charge of a personal union by both of their titles simultaneously.
Because of confusion with, say, James I of Scotland et al, I think.
in my EU4 game, the king of France has "FitzGerald" as a last name (presumably transliterated into french as something like "de Geraud", but still). He's a relative of the kings of Ireland, which until recently in this game existed as a unified and independent country before it was conquered by Frederick-William of Britain.
"Fitz" is actually a Norman word, from the Old French filz, pronounced "feelts."
in my EU4 game, the king of France has "FitzGerald" as a last name (presumably transliterated into french as something like "de Geraud", but still). He's a relative of the kings of Ireland, which until recently in this game existed as a unified and independent country before it was conquered by Frederick-William of Britain.
"Fitz" is actually a Norman word, from the Old French filz, pronounced "feelts."
well it was the surname of the last King of Ireland.
I know who they are and what titles they held. But generally it's not common practice to call a monarch who was in charge of a personal union by both of their titles simultaneously.
Because of confusion with, say, James I of Scotland et al, I think.
Comments
McLynn says just the opposite, and I must say his bibliography is rather impressive.
Also, my family wouldn't stop talking when I wanted silence for best duck-photographing.
Sure, the ducks didn't react at all to the talking; but I am slightly miffed that my family couldn't have just gone inside. Slightly miffed is about as miffed as I am when I wake up facing south instead of north; which is; hardly any at all. Slightly miffed is when you can't find your glasses because you are wearing them.
I love my family to death; but sometimes I just really, really, really don't want to hear any voices.
Yeah, I can see that; what with his favorites like De Vere.
Richard I though, is a different story.
Also, what the heck do you mean James VI and I was homosexual? I just can't see that.
I can see Charles II and James II as being homosexual, yeah.
Maybe you meant James II.
Wait a minute.
Richard II, James II, Charles II.
Oh, wait, Harold II ruins that.
Also, I am here, here am I.
You know, I kind of understand this to be true, but I think media in general has kind of taken strides to introducing more realistic elements into itself.
Now obviously there are still elements of fantasy, but the phrase "It's not like in the shows" is certainly at this point disingenuous.
idk
no one else is ever offered that courtesy.