I'm basing this off some pretty specific historical information, not just a general assumption. I'm quite aware that, as you say, there is some overestimation of how young people were when they got married "back then". You're right that there's a class differentiation here, and the sheriff in question (can't recall the man's exact name) was definitely of the upper classes. And I imagine that he would have consorted with similarly upper class people, and so on and so forth. Weir was sort of vague on that point and I wish she hadn't been.
I'm not saying that it's impossible that this person was interested in boys that were genuinely very young or that she's wrong to call them "young" - but what's considered young is relative at times. It's just rather vague to point that out, especially for a background figure when it's only used to put forth a theory that another character was definitely not homosexual.
I also had the impression that speculations as to Richard I being bisexual or homosexual were based on other evidence besides that quote about him sleeping in the same bed with Philip; and whether or not it's provable, I don't think the possibility is "absurd".
I probably did word that badly, and I apologize. I don't think the possibility that anyone at anytime might be bisexual or gay or queer in anyway is ever absurd. We certainly can never know someone's inner identity even if they're living right here today unless they tell us, and guessing at the feelings and identity of a person who's been dead for centuries is a crapshoot at best. There's always the possibility that Richard I was what we would call gay or bisexual even if he never acted on that sexuality, and there's nothing absurd about that. Queer folks have existed all through out history, and I certainly don't want to erase us.
But I think basing the crux of one's estimation of someone's sexual identity on a misreading of two men in bed together is absurd, especially given the historical context that people tend to ignore. And on a personal note, I really don't like when people want to speculate on the sexualities of historical figures as though it's some sort of really nifty game or very scandalous. The "do you think he's queer" game does not fly with me, especially not in history books.
Also, Weir does a good job in this book of giving reasons WHY, even if Richard I was gay or bisexual, that this is irrefutable proof. And using this one thing to say "ah, ah, see, he's in bed with another man, see, gay! Gay! That's an automatic gay, right there!" is what I find absurd.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-30 07:44 pm (UTC)I'm not saying that it's impossible that this person was interested in boys that were genuinely very young or that she's wrong to call them "young" - but what's considered young is relative at times. It's just rather vague to point that out, especially for a background figure when it's only used to put forth a theory that another character was definitely not homosexual.
I also had the impression that speculations as to Richard I being bisexual or homosexual were based on other evidence besides that quote about him sleeping in the same bed with Philip; and whether or not it's provable, I don't think the possibility is "absurd".
I probably did word that badly, and I apologize. I don't think the possibility that anyone at anytime might be bisexual or gay or queer in anyway is ever absurd. We certainly can never know someone's inner identity even if they're living right here today unless they tell us, and guessing at the feelings and identity of a person who's been dead for centuries is a crapshoot at best. There's always the possibility that Richard I was what we would call gay or bisexual even if he never acted on that sexuality, and there's nothing absurd about that. Queer folks have existed all through out history, and I certainly don't want to erase us.
But I think basing the crux of one's estimation of someone's sexual identity on a misreading of two men in bed together is absurd, especially given the historical context that people tend to ignore. And on a personal note, I really don't like when people want to speculate on the sexualities of historical figures as though it's some sort of really nifty game or very scandalous. The "do you think he's queer" game does not fly with me, especially not in history books.
Also, Weir does a good job in this book of giving reasons WHY, even if Richard I was gay or bisexual, that this is irrefutable proof. And using this one thing to say "ah, ah, see, he's in bed with another man, see, gay! Gay! That's an automatic gay, right there!" is what I find absurd.