#ive even heard (mostly younger) queer people say these arguments | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

incarnateirony · 5 years

Note

as an emerging lgbtq+ (i'm 'BT') guy i am so glad you're making the point you made in your last post. I've always gravitated towards Dean because he is so 'imperfect' in his queerness, like me. but he's not a uwu soft queer so apparently that bothers a lot of ppl on here? Especially younger queer women, I've noticed. But a lot of guys, cis and trans, struggle with being attracted to men so much in a way that is simply different (not better or worse) than (1/2)

being wlw, especially depending on one’s generation and region, etc. basically what i’m saying is a lot of the few queer men that there are in the fandom stay quieter as it is almost completely queer women dictating what is and what isnt, and not quite empathizing with the unique struggle many queer men have with internalized homophobia/being Unmanly for being attracted to men. hope this wasn’t too all over the place, ive had this on my mind for a Long time and i’m glad you brought it up. (2/2)

ps: I’m not trying to put down queer women for being a significant part of the fandom. I just really wish the environment of the fandom felt more like somewhere queer men’s voices can be heard better, considering the largest pairing is, needless to say, mlm

Well, first of all, welcome Nonnie. I take it you’re addressing this untitled post addressing intersectionality, representation vs tokenization, represented demographics and just general motivations of those in discussion, yes? (x)

You’ll find this is a longstanding topic of my blog, be it excavating creator commentary people have buried for their own motivations and talked down and around, or dual faceted issues.

(If you haven’t read the crosslinks on the post you’re addressing, you may want to read The Problem With Dreamhunter (x) It discusses exactly this issue, even if it was written over a year ago at that point, showing just how cyclic this issue is. It talks about MLM/WLW intersectional issues, migrating goalposts, a bunch of show stuff and some of Bobo’s sociopolitical commentary from 2003 about advancing LGBT representation through moderate incremental methods being proven effective at expanding the media presence/platform exponentially above liberal, or more severe/extreme styles)

But when it comes down to it, basically: Yeah, you right.

I didn’t just arbitrarily develop this opinion. I didn’t… just magically tune in to what the LGBT men that literally dodge fandom, for exactly the reasons you say, and know it’s because of the reasons you say – like that didn’t manifest. It came from leaving fandom (un)”safe” spaces. It came from engaging a great variety of LGBT males in real life, many of which engage the content. From observing how they spoke of the content in multifandom servers, or even *why* they chose to avoid speaking up.

And no, I personally didn’t get a read of you, like, insulting LGBT women for their part in fandom. Women engage social media for primetime TV fandoms at an exponential rate above men, so it’s almost unavoidable and it’s nobody’s fault really, but that says nothing for the perpetual habit of drowning out their voices to the fact that– well, they literally abandon engaging.

I’ve seen it enough times it *hurts* me. I shouldn’t *have* to pull my gay writing buddy out of holes to face this, and him still hide silently. I shouldn’t *have* to be the vein of news and information on the show to the bi male friend I have that refuses to touch this fandom. I shouldn’t *have* to even speak up about this. I really do want *you all* to speak up about this, because I can only speak so far, because you’re right: OUR JOURNEYS ARE DIFFERENT.

Hell, even a cis lgbt male vs a trans lgb(t obvious) male have entirely different journeys even though they’re both validly men. These battles are not the same. One community can speak up to defend another, and help hold them up and amplify them if there’s just not enough of them to project the way they need to, and this is something *greatly under respected* in this fandom. Nobody’s holding up the LGBT male voices when actually talking about representation. And you’re right, it’s mostly women, and you’re right, our path is different and our struggles and needs and wants and lives are different. But unless you take a considerable amount of time talking and sharing and learning personally the perspective of the LGBT male community, you’re not… really… helping them speak.

And let it be said, “holding up LGBT male voices” does not and should never equate to “despite having multiple LGBT men saying one thing, I found the one LGBT male saying the thing that matches what I want, who may or may not even actually be in the targeted demographic set of the character we’re discussing representation about, because it’s more than just being bi, it’s entire lives, paths and challenges– but you know, I found the ONE, so fuck the others.” That’s using your friends as tokens and cards. If you want to genuinely add to the conversation, what you do is you introduce your male LGBT friend to the other male LGBT friends and let them have a long conversation to talk out the sources of their disagreements before engaging in conversation.

But drawing a pretty base line collective from all people in the represented demographic, respectfully learning the majority wants and needs and struggles, and helping voice those is pretty key.

Women can sit here all day, and pass around things they’ve been told by other women are woke points, or things that sound progressive and good, and often sort of decontextualized from their purpose (be that the dresswear mentioned shortly hereafter, or what LGBT want/expect/SHOULD want or expect – but in the end, if you’re not sitting down and having dialogues – not just with one, or two, or even three LGBT men – but large handfuls and subsets, able to actually critically examine the differences in LGBT males of gen X, Y, or Z and their lives and stories – if you’re not doing that… If *that* isn’t the core of your discussion values, rather than pass-along buzz vibes– then you’re really not talking representation. You think you are. But you’re not.

There’s the uh. Thing. You noticed. About how women expect the men to engage.

When it comes to young queer women, I’m going to risk pissing some people off, but the long and short of it is (I could probably dig up the link but it’s been an eternity) a while ago they ran a psychological study to figure out why young women were attracted to yaoi, and gay porn, especially what is essentially stereotypical force-role type gay porn. It has to do with blooming attraction, primal fear, and trying to make the men more appealing in a way that does not intimidate them.

This later manifests into feminizing them, setting twink/bear roles that go beyond into top/bottom, and conflating it with penetration, position, power, dom/sub, fork/spoon, sometimes served with a dose of internalized misogyny being projected into the vessel of whatever twink/sub is positioned, and generally— like, kink culture. Often this is passed with narrowly progressive-masked arguments of “Men should be allowed to be feminine if they want!” rather than a genuine answer to, “Why do you perpetually heterosexually resize, or reframe, and enforce heterosexual structure onto characters that do not meet this mold, and why is that a personal gain to you?” because in the end– it’s a personal gain. And again, at that point it’s not about representation.

Now again, I’m not… shaming anyone for having a kink. But kink/fetish needs/wants have blurred themselves in as if to hedge on equal territory to discussing canon content. Or sprinkling the quite literal fetishized art (power to you if that’s your thing, I guess, even if I do bear discomfort over fetishization of any LGBT demographic, even by another LGBT demographic) and reasoning with dialogue that implies it as being representative, and inserting that into the representation discussion, which *literally* just makes the entire bog muddier, makes the LGBT men trying to speak more easily dismissed in a vat of “just women/fetishists”, it just– it’s Not a Good. I’m… personally not a fan of it. Like at all. A lot of it makes me angry tbh. So I don’t engage. I don’t browse fanfiction. I look at very little art.

Hell most of the people around here don’t even realize it’s actually a *minority* of LGBT men that choose to engage in penetrative sex, but it’s become a topic of outright obsession around here. There is so much simple… lack of awareness and discussion of the lives LGBT men lead, even by LGBT women because again – we don’t have your path. We can only listen to you. (And BOY have I gotten earfuls from my LGBT male friends absolutely going apeshit banana bonkers over fandom’s obsession with penetration culture, gender role enforcement while feigning it as liberation, and all kinds of other stuff. And that’s what I base most of my talking points on.)

Because if I’m going to talk representation, I’m going to talk about representing the demographic the character is supposed to represent, not molding him into a tokenized wash-over of every single person’s wants. If you’re an LGBT woman that can resonate with Dean Winchester, that’s great. Sometimes representation can be shared. But a character’s origin determines what demo he represents and not all of any given representative’s character’s attributes, methods, functions, anything – not all of it is going to meet any one person’s goals collectively, but the target demographic is inevitably closer to it.

Another point to raise is that it feels like people have lost track of *what* the representation battle is about. It isn’t just about any one person attaching to any one character. It’s about developing a TVscape that looks more representative of the real world, with a fair presence of PoC, of women, of LGBT people of all types, of the disabled community, of people that are even more than one of these, of people with different stories: people. About, well, normalizing it, because it should be normal. About saturating television enough that one day, and that day will not just be tomorrow per convenience, that people won’t be desperate for representation even vaguely in their wheelhouse, that they can turn on and see people of any intersectional type and go– wow, the world finally realizes we’re real. And that in that wide, realistic menu, yes, being able to turn a channel and eventually see someone *just like you*. A day when any show turned on has at least *someone* in your wheelhouse because every show eventually should have some sort of realistic spread, but if you find the *right* show, *there you are.*

That’s how it’s built. We don’t start by footstomping and tokenizing everyone to be vaguely representative of everyone or it doesn’t count because it didn’t work for *them*. We start by sharing truly diverse narratives, each unique to their own, just as diverse as straight stories are, maybe even more. That’s the only way you’re actually going to end up with a TVscape full of The Gays, and full enough to find *explicitly yourself* in there.

Deleting normalized, non-sensationalist text for lacking either visibility or flavor, even if you weren’t the intended demographic for it to speak to, is quite literally contrary to the entire fight.

and tbh?

This shit is why I hate shipping culture.

And I say that as someone who presumably “ships” Dean and Cas, if it’s shipping to address canon bullshit happening in front of you and just watch the show as it folds out without going into denial for *whatever* personal reason.

There’s a lot of well intended people, most shipping fandom is full of good beans, but as a collective group – skewed by sociopathically manipulated dialogues we can literally track the origins of – have been driven into much of the above while genuinely believing they were doing the right thing, in a long chain of being told this was what and how to fight for, without really stopping and critically examining the nuance of the conversation. Because why would you? Seems to be the popular gay thing to do – while a lot of bisexual people currently hide their commentary via reblog hashtags or hedge awkwardly into an anon box sideways.

That all said, it continues to be my focus. It will never change on this blog. I will never surrender to being pressured, be it by antis or bitters or people just wanting to argue, into pretending things that were text are subtext. I will not move that goalpost. You are real, and you are valid, and you are welcome in my inbox any time, Nonnie, confidentiality guaranteed. Like, DM too.

but lmao like shit, dawg. There’s a reason the LGBT guys I’ve had as writing partners as Dean literally refuse to play with another Cas. That’s not just because I’m a *super aweSOME auTHOr*, it’s because they recognize I do not come from the wing lost to fanfiction, to troll wars, or even to shipping culture, love of a ship be damned. I don’t try to force gender roles on them. I listen when they speak, and often, surprise many with the angle I ever enter discussion or listening from to begin with, because of spending so many years listening to begin with. It’s an intrinsic understanding of why they resonate with the content, not what I can pull some transformative art stuff on or wanting to *make* it into anything else to fit *my* molds. It’s because of being someone engaged to the male perspective, without the need to twist or change a character to be content with it, and being WILLING to hold those challenging conversations.

Listen first. Talk later. But never in front of or over the people you claim to be talking for.

33 notes · View notes

storyswept · 6 years

Text

Jon Snow and Dragons (Part I: Of the Existence of Dragons and Their Dangers)

Introductory Note

This analysis is based on book quotes mentioning dragons, taken mostly from Jon's chapters. Other POV chapters were only quoted if they were conversing with Jon and dragons came up, or if relevant to the current discussion. I bolded the parts I found interesting.

Warning: spoilers for all published books, mention of a very popular theory on Jon's parentage. Plus, I have watched the show, so I'm sure it must be coloring my opinions.

Part I: Of the Existence of Dragons and Their Dangers

Of the Existence of Dragons

[Jon] had the Stark face if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son. "What are you reading about?" he asked.

"Dragons," Tyrion told him.

"What good is that? There are no more dragons," the boy said with the easy certainty of youth.

"So they say," Tyrion replied. "Sad, isn't it? When I was your age, I used to dream of having a dragon of my own." (AGOT, Tyrion II)

At the start of the series, Jon Snow tells us: "there are no more dragons", just moments after Tyrion was reflecting on his parentage. How ironic. Since Jon has no reason to question his beliefs, the next volumes find him issuing similar opinions on the subject:

"I have never seen a dragon."

"No one has. The last dragons died a hundred years ago or more. But this was before that." (Ygritte & Jon, ASOS, Jon V)

We should have twenty trebuchets, not two, and they should be mounted on sledges and turntables so we could move them. It was a futile thought. He might as well wish for another thousand men, and maybe a dragon or three. (ASOS, Jon VIII)

And finally:

"Pyp should learn to hold his tongue. I have heard the same from others. King's blood, to wake a dragon. Where Melisandre thinks to find a sleeping dragon, no one is quite sure. It's nonsense. Mance's blood is no more royal than mine own. He has never worn a crown nor sat a throne. He's a brigand, nothing more. There's no power in brigand's blood." (Jon, AFFC, Samwell I)

"He is not dead. Stannis is the Lord's chosen, destined to lead the fight against the dark. I have seen it in the flames, read of it in ancient prophecy. When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone. Dragonstone is the place of smoke and salt."

Jon had heard all this before. "Stannis Baratheon was the Lord of Dragonstone, but he was not born there. He was born at Storm's End, like his brothers." (ADWD, Jon X)

I'm sure Jon isn't the only person to find this notion nonsensical. Far from it in fact. But we readers know all about the return of the dragons in the East, which did involve blood magic. Also, if R+L=J is true, then Jon has indeed royal blood… another way to point out that Jon Snow knows nothing (compared to us) and that dragons can indeed be woken.

In "A Dance with Dragons", Jon hears from Tycho Nestoris of "troubling reports":

The narrow sea is perilous this time of year, and of late there have been troubling reports of strange ships seen amongst the Stepstones."

"Salladhor Saan?"

"The Lysene pirate? Some say he has returned to his old haunts, this is so. And Lord Redwyne's war fleet creeps through the Broken Arm as well. On its way home, no doubt. But these men and their ships are well-known to us. No, these other sails … from farther east, perhaps … one hears queer talk of dragons."

"Would that we had one here. A dragon might warm things up a bit."

"My lord jests. You will forgive me if I do not laugh. We Braavosi are descended from those who fled Valyria and the wroth of its dragonlords. We do not jape of dragons."

No, I suppose not. "My apologies, Lord Tycho." (ADWD, Jon IX)

He doesn't take the assertion very seriously, as you can tell. And who can blame him? (well, aside from people who don’t think dragon jokes are funny). It's rumors… for now.

However, considering Aegon and the Golden Company's arrival in Westeros and Sam finding out the truth in Braavos, I think we can safely say Jon's beliefs on dragons will find themselves challenged in the future, if he survives his stabbing that is.

It's not unlikely Jon will want the dragons on their side in the fight against the Others. Why?

Remember his throwaway comments in the quotes above :

"He might as well wish for another thousand men, and maybe a dragon or three" (ASOS, Jon VIII)

"Would that we had one here. A dragon might warm things up a bit." (ADWD, Jon IX)

Add to this Maester Aemon's belief, that Daenerys was their hope (because of dragons):

"No one ever looked for a girl," he said. "It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar, I thought . . . the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King's Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet. What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it." Just talking of her seemed to make him stronger. "I must go to her. I must. Would that I was even ten years younger."

(...)

"No," the old man said. "It must be you. Tell them. The prophecy . . . my brother's dream . . . Lady Melisandre has misread the signs. Stannis . . . Stannis has some of the dragon blood in him, yes. His brothers did as well. Rhaelle, Egg's little girl, she was how they came by it . . . their father's mother . . . she used to call me Uncle Maester when she was a little girl. I remembered that, so I allowed myself to hope . . . perhaps I wanted to . . . we all deceive ourselves, when we want to believe. Melisandre most of all, I think. The sword is wrong, she has to know that . . . light without heat . . . an empty glamor . . . the sword is wrong, and the false light can only lead us deeper into darkness, Sam. Daenerys is our hope. Tell them that, at the Citadel. Make them listen. They must send her a maester. Daenerys must be counseled, taught, protected. For all these years I've lingered, waiting, watching, and now that the day has dawned I am too old. I am dying, Sam." Tears ran from his blind white eyes at that admission. (AFFC, Samwell IV)

Unless Sam never gets around to telling him, I don't think Jon would dismiss one of his mentors' opinion so easily.

But is relying on dragons really the safest way to defeat the Others? As Aemon just told us, "we all deceive ourselves, when we want to believe".

Of Dragons and Their Dangers

In fact, Jon is exposed to plenty of evidence that speaks of the dragons being dangerous.

Exhibit A: the rest of Jon and Tyrion's conversation about dragons.

"(…) When I was your age, I used to dream of having a dragon of my own."

"You did?" the boy said suspiciously. Perhaps he thought Tyrion was making fun of him.

"Oh, yes. Even a stunted, twisted, ugly little boy can look down over the world when he's seated on a dragon's back." Tyrion pushed the bearskin aside and climbed to his feet. "I used to start fires in the bowels of Casterly Rock and stare at the flames for hours, pretending they were dragonfire. Sometimes I'd imagine my father burning. At other times, my sister."

Jon Snow was staring at him, a look equal parts horror and fascination. Tyrion guffawed. "Don't look at me that way, bastard. I know your secret. You've dreamt the same kind of dreams."

"No," Jon Snow said, horrified. "I wouldn't …" (AGOT, Tyrion II)

Jon is understandably horrified at what Tyrion is insinuating.

What we can conclude: Dragons can be used to burn people (not a mind-blowing conclusion, I realise). Even your family if that your thing…

Exhibit B:

"Ashes and cinders."

"Kings and dragons."

Dragons again. For a moment Jon could almost see them too, coiling in the night, their dark wings outlined against a sea of flame.

"If she knew, she would have taken the boy away from us. Dalla's boy, not your monster. A word in the king's ear would have been the end of it." And of me. Stannis would have taken it for treason. "Why let it happen if she knew?"

"Because it suited her. Fire is a fickle thing. No one knows which way a flame will go." Val put a foot into a stirrup, swung her leg over her horse's back, and looked down from the saddle. "Do you remember what my sister told you?" (ADWD, Jon VIII)

What Dalla told him:

Jon faced him. "If you've had the Horn of Joramun all along, why haven't you used it? Why bother building turtles and sending Thenns to kill us in our beds? If this horn is all the songs say, why not just sound it and be done?"

It was Dalla who answered him, Dalla great with child, lying on her pile of furs beside the brazier. "We free folk know things you kneelers have forgotten. Sometimes the short road is not the safest, Jon Snow. The Horned Lord once said that sorcery is a sword without a hilt. There is no safe way to grasp it." (ASOS, Jon X)

Melisandre gives a counter-argument to this:

He turned back to the red priestess. Jon could feel her warmth. She has power. The thought came unbidden, seizing him with iron teeth, but this was not a woman he cared to be indebted to, not even for his little sister. "Dalla told me something once. Val's sister, Mance Rayder's wife. She said that sorcery was a sword without a hilt. There is no safe way to grasp it."

"A wise woman." Melisandre rose, her red robes stirring in the wind. "A sword without a hilt is still a sword, though, and a sword is a fine thing to have when foes are all about. (ADWD, Jon VI)

What we can conclude:

Dragons are associated with kings, ashes and cinders.

Fire is a fickle thing, and so is sorcery. Dragons are no different. As Maester Aemon said: "Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame." (AFFC, Samwell IV)

Sometimes the short road is not the safest: Dragons might destroy a lot of the dead, but also a lot of the living as well.

A treacherous weapon is better than no weapon if you have foes. There's risk of personal injury however.

Exhibit C:

"My lord jests. You will forgive me if I do not laugh. We Braavosi are descended from those who fled Valyria and the wroth of its dragonlords. We do not jape of dragons."

No, I suppose not. "My apologies, Lord Tycho." (ADWD, Jon IX)

What we can conclude: Angering dragons or dragonlords has consequences.

Exhibit D:

Burning dead children had ceased to trouble Jon Snow; live ones were another matter. Two kings to wake the dragon. The father first and then the son, so both die kings. The words had been murmured by one of the queen's men as Maester Aemon had cleaned his wounds. Jon had tried to dismiss them as his fever talking. Aemon had demurred. "There is power in a king's blood," the old maester had warned, "and better men than Stannis have done worse things than this." The king can be harsh and unforgiving, aye, but a babe still on the breast? Only a monster would give a living child to the flames. (ADWD, Jon I)

"Refuse, and the boy will burn. Not on the morrow, nor the day after … but soon, whenever Melisandre needs to wake a dragon or raise a wind or work some other spell requiring king's blood. Mance will be ash and bone by then, so she will claim his son for the fire, and Stannis will not deny her. If you do not take the boy away, she will burn him." (ADWD, Jon II)

"Pyp should learn to hold his tongue. I have heard the same from others. King's blood, to wake a dragon." (AFFC, Samwell I)

"I looked at that book Maester Aemon left me. The Jade Compendium. The pages that told of Azor Ahai. Lightbringer was his sword. Tempered with his wife's blood if Votar can be believed. Thereafter Lightbringer was never cold to the touch, but warm as Nissa Nissa had been warm. In battle the blade burned fiery hot. Once Azor Ahai fought a monster. When he thrust the sword through the belly of the beast, its blood began to boil. Smoke and steam poured from its mouth, its eyes melted and dribbled down its cheeks, and its body burst into flame."

What we can conclude:

Lightbringer seems to have an effect similar to dragons.

The price for dragons is high.

Conclusion

Currently, Jon Snow believes dragons to be extinct. If he survives and finds out about their return, textual evidence suggests he might be interested in them as a potential weapon against the Others. However, Jon's chapters seem to contain warnings about their use. Which asks the question: will he heed them?

Link to Part II: Of Dragons and Gold

#asoiaf #jon snow #dragons #asoiaf meta #original post

5 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 7 years

Note

What do you think is the likelihood that Richard II of England was queer?

Short answer: Possibly yes, but most likely asexual if anything.

Longer answer: Have some Thoughts on the ways in which we construct historical “queerness” and standards of proof (this also serves excellently as a post for Queer History Friday thank you very much) and emotional relationships vis a vis sexual ones, especially in the limited medium of medieval chronicles.

To start, Richard was only 10 years old when he became king (his father was the Black Prince, who died in 1376, and his grandfather was Edward III, who died in 1377) and he died when he was only 33 ( b.1367-d.1400), so he was quite young during all of this time. Even during the 1387-88 crisis with the Lords Appellant, which set the stage for the troubles that basically ended his reign, he was only 20 years old, so it’s pretty understandable that a young man would turn to wise older courtiers for experience and advice. This was especially the case because Richard had three powerful and full-grown uncles, led by John of Gaunt (whose son, Henry Bolingbroke, would later depose Richard and become Henry IV). They were definitely viewed as a possible threat to the throne (as was usually the case with primogeniture, when an underage son of an eldest brother got the heirs and honours and the other brothers missed out) and a regency council was quickly established in hopes of giving Richard a power base away from them. But the English people deeply mistrusted these councils/councillors, and that discontent led to the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, the first major crisis of Richard’s reign (he was only 14). In the aftermath of that, there was continued shuffling around as to who had the effective reins of government and who had influence and so forth. So there was plenty of environment for an ambitious man to get close to the young king and influence/try to win his patronage and trust.

Richard was definitely known to have had male favorites, particularly Robert de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, and Michael de la Pole, his chancellor. The only actual imputation of his possible homosexuality with de Vere comes from the Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham:

According to rumour, his [Richard]’s closeness to Lord Robert and his deep love and affection for him was not without some taint of an obscene relationship, and Lord Robert’s fellow nobles and barons spoke in whispers of their indignation that so mediocre a man should aim at so high an office, seeing that he had no nobility of birth or endowment of other virtues that might rank him above the others.

While Walsingham’s work is one of the major and indeed only sources we have for some events in mid-to-late 14th century England, he definitely had a few axes to grind (against John of Gaunt, Henry IV, and others, as well as to some degree Richard himself) and furthermore, all this proves is that jealous rivals of de Vere’s had no trouble suggesting that he and Richard must be having a sordid affair. This is very understandable given that Richard’s great-grandfather, Edward II, had also had male favorites (Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger) who he had extensively relied upon and given honors seemingly above their station (and as I have discussed in some other posts, 14th-century England was ABSOLUTELY OBSESSED with class/station. It was the be-all and end-all of their lives, including dictating how they were allowed to behave and what clothes they were allowed to wear; the heretical/religious reformer group, the Lollards, and their leader, John Wycliffe, mocked this with their famous couplet “When Adam delved and Eve span/Who then was the gentleman?”) Furthermore, Edward II was absolutely having affairs with Gaveston and then Despenser, and he had been forced to abdicate (as indeed Richard II was later deposed) and this memory was definitely the first thing that would come to mind for the question of whether a 14th-century English king was once more too dependent on and attached to male favorites.

Jean Froissart, a French chronicler, describes Michael de la Pole in his Tales as a sort of Iago/Wormtongue figure giving Richard bad advice, but doesn’t seem to think there was anything scandalous about their relationship per se:

But in one night, Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk who at that time was the heart and sole council of the king, and in whom he placed his whole confidence, undid the whole business. I know not what his intentions were for so doing; but I heard afterwards, he should say to the king, “At, ah, my lord, what are you thinking of? You intend then to follow the plan your uncles have devised. Know, that if you do so; you will never return, for the duke of Lancaster wishes for nothing more earnestly than your death, that he may be king. How could he dare advise your entering such a country in the winter? […] Take care of your own person, you are young and promising; and there are those who profess much, but who little love you.“ (ch. 173).

As noted, Froissart was French, therefore not intimately familiar with the inner workings of the English court, and the takeaway here seems to be that de la Pole, supposedly warning Richard against the treachery of his powerful uncles, steers him into a military disaster instead. He describes de la Pole as “the heart and sole council of the king” but again, doesn’t feel the need to intimate anything else. (Which, although the French got along fairly well with Richard II after the endless wars of Edward III, Froissart would probably do if that was there for the bad habits of an English king to be remarked upon.) Furthermore, both de Vere and de la Pole were definitely into women: de Vere caused a scandal by divorcing his wife, Richard’s cousin, and marrying one of the queen’s bedchamber attendants instead (so yes, powerful people have always had affairs with the nanny, apparently) and de la Pole had eight children with his wife. As we like to remind folks around these parts, Bisexuality Exists, so obviously, both of them having affairs/fruitful marriages with women would not necessarily preclude some kind of strategic sexual liasion with Richard, especially if questions of power or career advancement were involved. But given that the only source on this is the hostile hearsay passed along by Walsingham, aka that de Vere’s enemies were happy to accuse him of deviant sexual behavior with the king in the model of Edward II’s scandals, I am less inclined to think so.

Furthermore, Richard’s relationships with both of his wives were emotionally close and loving. His first wife, Anne of Bohemia, married him in 1382, when they were both about 15. They quickly became devoted to each other and she was known for her influence on him. What is now known as the Crown of Princess Blanche may have been made for her, and she appears alongside Richard in the Liber Regalis, a book possibly made for her coronation service and which still mostly functions as the order of service for major royal ceremonies. Anne’s death in 1394, probably from plague, absolutely devastated Richard, to the point he ordered the manor where she had died torn down. The Historia Vitae et Regni Ricardi II notes this and memorialises her warmly:

Hoc anno, die 7 mensis Junii, die viz. festo Pentecostes, apud Shen Anna, Regina Angliae, diem suum clausit extremum. Propter quod Rex, ejus mortem dolendo, illud nobile regiumque Manorium solo prosterni fecit. […] Sepulta est cum maxima solennitate in Ecclesia Westmonasterio, in die Sanctae Annae sequente, cujus festum ut Ecclesia Anglicana solennius celebraretur ista Regina et Domino Papa impetravit. (p.126)

I can’t be arsed to do a full word-for-word translation, but the sense of the passage is that Anne died on the 7th of June, near Pentecost, and that Richard in his grief ordered the manor where she died to be destroyed. She was buried at Westminster with full solemnity and feasts and commemoration from the English church, and from the Pope. The chronicler goes on to praise her kindness and her piety, as Anne came from Bohemia and was not popular at first because Foreign, but had won over the people with her charity and mercy. We see this also in Richard Maidstone’s Concordia, a verse epic detailing Richard II’s reconciliation with the citizens of London in 1392, in which Anne’s intervention was pivotal. Multiple passages are devoted to praising Anne’s beauty, her love for Richard and vice versa, and her moderating effect on him:

The queen is able to deflect the king’s firm rule, So he will show a gentle face to his own folk.A woman soothes a man by love: God gave him her. O gentle Anne, let your sweet love be aimed at this!(line 227-230)

A queen can, for her people, speak the words that please - None but a woman can do what no man would dare.When fearful Hesther stood before King Assuer’s throne, She brought to naught the edicts that the king hadpassed.For this, no doubt, almighty God gave you to be A partner in this reign, a Hesther for the realm.(439-444)

At his command she stands. “What, Anna, do you seek?” He asks. “Just speak, and your desires will bemet.”“Sweet king of mine,” she said, “my man, my strength, my life! Sweet love, without whom life to me would be likedeath! (465-468)

Therefore, Richard and Anne’s devotion to each other can barely be questioned, but nonetheless, they had no children. (They are now buried jointly in Westminster, and Richard had ordered their effigies to be carved holding hands.) Jeffrey Hamilton suggests (p.190) that the marriage may not have been consummated (though I’m not sure on what evidential grounds, and unfortunately a page is missing in the e-version so I can’t get his full argument). (See my followup discussion of the deep unlikeliness of a fully chaste marriage here.) Furthermore, when Richard did remarry in 1396, it was to the seven-year-old daughter of Charles VI of France, Isabella of Valois, in an attempt to make a peace treaty. The youth of the bride was brought up as a potential stumbling block in negotiations, but Richard essentially replied that he was fine waiting (he himself was still only 29) and that wasn’t a problem. He then proceeded to befriend the seven-year-old girl, visit her often at Windsor, make funny conversation with her, and otherwise be genuinely decent to a young girl in a foreign country, and he’s not recorded as having any mistresses or illegitimate children that we know of. So even if he was married to a young girl, he a) treated her respectfully and kindly and like a friend, and b) apparently didn’t have the need to go elsewhere for sex. For her part, Isabella adored Richard, so much that she flatly refused a remarriage, after being widowed at the age of 10, to Henry V, son of Richard’s usurper Henry IV. It’s fair to say that she probably wouldn’t have if he mistreated her.

So as ever, this has gotten long, but yes. This is why I am inclined to suggest that if anything, Richard II was probably ace. He had close and loving emotional relationships with both men and women (and as I’ve also discussed a bit, emotional/romantic male friendship was a thing in the medieval era, especially as related to knights and chivalry, in a way that would be considered homoerotic today). However, his political difficulties and probable personality disorder ended up getting him deposed, and he didn’t have any children even though he and Anne loved each other very much and were married for 12 years. He was also fine marrying a young girl for political reasons, but was not very interested in/fine with waiting for any possible sex, and instead actually treated said child well and kindly. The accusations (and as ever, it is “accusations”) of homosexuality come from hearsay hostile sources, and Walsingham is, as far as I know, the only chronicler to suggest it (in comparison to the numerous pieces of chronicle evidence in many different places that discuss the queerness of Richard I). Which as I said above, makes sense given that Edward II had been brought down by reliance on (sexual) male favorites, and it was an easily available paradigm to critique the resented influence of Richard II’s male favorites.

In terms of “Probably Asexual/Ace-spec Historical Figures,” moreover, there is almost no way to prove it, since the underlying assumption (as @extasiswings and I were chatting about) is that all people must be having sex with someone, and the “default” for this sexual expression is het/straight sex. Richard II was by all appearances biromantic, and emotionally close to members of both genders, but it is less clear if that translates to sexual relations with either.

#history #medieval history #queer history #queer history friday #richard ii #whysogrimm #ask

44 notes · View notes