Richard I - my pet hate

Originally posted by Melisende Unfortunately, Richard's alleged homosexuality will forever be the yardstick by which he is judged as both a ruler and a man.   What is curious though, are the number of comparisons that can be made between Richard and his contemporary Philip Augustus, and Saint Louis - the latter two Kings who have not had such personal enmity directed at them.   Philip Augustus: Many complain of Richard's treatment of his betrothed, Alice, sister of Philip - yet Philip himself did not lift a finger to rescue his other sister Agnes from her poor treatment in Byzantium following the death of her husband Emperor Alexius II.  It was said that Philip himself was indifferent to his own family.  Philip actually gave his blessing to Richard upon releasing him from his betrothal - why - his fear of an alliance between Richard and Tancred of Sicily was more than his concern for his sister's reputation.   Philip spent most of his time on Crusade suffering from illness - which was the reason he returned early from the Crusade - his departure, however, gave rise to taunts of cowardice and traitorous desertion.  Prior to leaving, Philip promised Richard he would not attack his lands - but as soon as Philip returned home, he reneged and intrigued with John against Richard.  Hardly a man to be trusted.   Philip's own personal and moral conduct was not much better than Richard's.  However, unlike Philip, Richard did not have England placed under Interdict for the sake of a woman.  Philip wanted to annul his marriage to Ingebjorg and marry a bride of his own choosing - sound familiar. Excommunication and Interdict followed when he didn't toe the moral line.   Saint Louis IX: Like Richard - Louis heavily taxed his subjects, including the clergy (which proved extremely unpopular).  The first Crusade of Louis lasted TEN years - three years in preparation (1245 - 1248); the actual Crusade (1248 - 1250); his prolonged and voluntary stay - four years (1250 1254).  So, Louis himself spent some time out of his own Kingdom - something Richard was vilified for.   Unlike Richard, however, Louis' Crusade was a complete failure - "to Palestine, which he loved even more dearly [than France], he had brought little but disappointment and sorrow".  And yet Richard was vilified for his Crusading intentions and lack of love for England - but no derogatory comment against Saint Louis for harbouring the same feelings.  I believe Matthew Paris in his "Chronica" was alleged to have said "it might have been better for Outremer had he never left France".   The only reasons for Louis return to France were: the death of his beloved mother - whom he relied upon as both regent and advisor (something he shared in common with Richard - a love for his mother - oops must be a homosexual!!); internal strife, civil war and rebellion (his kingdom was hardly stable); and the fact that his mother Blanche, whilst alive, refused to fund and supply his Crusade any further.  So Louis absence from France on Crusade was not wholly welcomed within his own kingdom - his return was demanded and yet Louis ignored this.  But yet again, Louis embarked upon another Crusade (1269 - 1270) - barely ten years after the debacle of his first attempt.  This time, his second Crusade not only ended in failure but in his own death.   Henry II: Richard can even be compared with his own father.   Richard was again criticised for refused to give Aquitaine to John.  Upon the death of his own father, Henry refused to give out the patrimony left to his younger brothers but instead kept the lot for himself.  In fact, disinheriting his own brothers in order to satisfy his own personal greed.   Richard, just like his father, conducted a civil war on behalf of his mother - Henry gladly fought for the crown of England on behalf of his mother, Empress Maud, a woman whom he greatly admired, respected and who advice he followed - oops, must be a homosexual!!   Summary: Richard was no better or worse than any other King or indeed man of his time.  And it seems that some of the actions that Richard is readily vilified for other Kings are praised for.  It all comes down to personal bias - and the fact that many continue to judge Richard by today's standards and not the standards of his own times.     Someone has to play devil's advocate!

Bravo on the wonderful summary. I can only agree that the presence of women in political power in the Middle Ages in no way is proof that the man in charge is was a homosexual.

Women, as important figures in the court with a tendency to survive better than men, brought with them a wealth of diplomatic and even military experience. Listening to one's mother may not merely have been a sign of deference, but rather a very smart way of gaining access to valuable experience and knowledge.

Unfortunately, Richard's alleged homosexuality will forever be the yardstick by which he is judged as both a ruler and a man.

Edited by Melisende - 10-Apr-2007 at 07:11

Originally posted by duchess Richard inexcusably waited until both he and Philip started the trip to the holy land to divulge to him the fact that betrothal he had spent many many years pressing with Alys...wont come fruition , that I'm sure he knew would not have been any welcoming news for Philip , in fact it was meant to antagonize him... [/QOUTE]   You can view this two ways - (1) as you have mentioned above; or (2) Richard, keeping the betrothal to Alys alive as per his father's wishes, wanted to tell Philip face to face that the betrothal was over.   You could also say that maybe Richard, as a vassal of Philip's (re: Aquitaine) was just fed up with having to fawn or, in modern terms, "to suck up" to Philip.  Remember, Richard wanted Philip's support for the CRUSADE - it would make perfect sense to keep the "pretense" of the betrothal still alive knowing full well it would not come to fruition.  Can we really assume that after all those years that Philip was so niave to believe that the betrothal would actually go ahead?? I think not - and he used that as an excuse to leave Messina.  Both men had their reasons.  Blame cannot be placed solely upon the shoulders of one simply for convenience sake - or personal dislike.   Originally posted by duchess   during the second crusade , it was most ardently Raymond the prince of Antioch ( alleged lover of Eleanor ) who came in between man and wife. Actually it was a matter of politics that came between man and wife.  Eleanor supported her uncle's view on the direction that the Second Crusade should take place, whilst Louis was firmly for making a pilgrimage to Jersualem.  Again, there is absolutely NOTHING to suuport that theory that Raymond and Eleanor were lovers - pure propaganda to help Lous save face knowing that upon their return divorce was in the wind and Louis would no longer have the financial use of Eleanor's very rich estates - MONEY was the source of the rumours.   [QUOTE=duchess] Berengaria was definitely some one Philip didn't even relish to meet , while on her way to Messina Philip left in advance JUST so he wouldn't have to meet her and tried all he could to delay her arrival in the process.

Originally posted by duchess Isn't it a common trait among homosexuals in general .. to have a certain matriarch..or be very close with their mothers?

I do not know. I have heard it said that male homosexuals are very close to their mothers, but I've also heard it said that male homosexuals hate their mothers (and, by extension, all women). Obviously, they can't both be true, unless it's just something that depends upon the individual gay man. But I've seen no scientific studies either way (but, then again, I haven't exactly gone out looking for academic studies of gay men's relationships with their mothers).

good point melisende however you can always look at it this way, Richard was raised to be a duke of Aquitaine..that was his role , and the only person he had to learn about playing that role was his mother , he idolized her.
Isn't it a common trait among homosexuals in general..to have a certain matriarch role model?..or be very close with their mothers?
Richard (Eleanor's heir ) in many respects tried to be his mother , he went on crusade as she did , he tried to govern Aquitaine as she did and he ' allegedly ' bedded a Capet  ( Philip II Louis' heir) and who also went on crusade with him , a little too similar..don't you think Melisende?
and not to mention..Richard and Philip were good friends prior to the crusade and when they returned to France , their friendship was over , Louis and Eleanor went on crusade..and the marriage was effectively over , maybe I'm too quixotic..but the incidents do seem to resemble each other
As for the incident at Vezelay , i hardly contribute that to Louis...it wasn't his fault he didn't order the place to be ransacked or burned or pillaged , hes one of the few medieval kings whom i regard with admiration , he was kind and affable , had a big heart , and in my honest opinion..he came to fulfill the knightly chivalrous ideal.
oh and he was good looking...lol ( sorry had to say it )
obviously i was enraptured by him...as im sure many people found him to be
let me just add that richard wanted to marry alys for the longest time he and philip both pressed for the marriage , but henry prevaricated , her affair was ongoing at the time , so i hardly think that richard was against the idea of marrying alys just because she was ' used ' by his father.


Edited by duchess - 07-Apr-2007 at 17:01

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl     He shold instead have tried to conquer ile-de-France, making him rightful king of France, thus making england only duchy.

And by what right would he claim the French throne? And why would this make England a mere duchy?

Edited by heikstheo - 01-Apr-2007 at 10:25

i think that there are some common misconceptions here id like to point out , first of all , a lot has been said about Richard's alleged homosexuality , today many historians agree he was in fact homosexual , although there is still some speculation , there are quite a few references to this , as well if u study his person u might come to an understanding of this too.
let me just add that Richard really wasn't a French man , he was in every way a southerner , i.e more in keeping with such courts as those of Navarre and Castille rather than France or england he was groomed and raised to be a duke of Aquitaine , as well we cant really accuse Richard of causing the revolts of the Aquitaine's nobility who were notoriously known to be of a volatile and unruly nature , and having reason for grief since they have had in turn two ' alien ' lords prior to Richard , Louis VII and king henry II respectively.
Richard was a reputed womanizer ,  one contemporary resource reads ' he did not scruple to resort to rape: 'he carried off the the wives daughters and kinswoman of his freemen by force , and made them his concubines, and when he sated his lust on them , he handed them over to his knights for whoring '.
in those days homosexuality was seen as a mortal sin..and was a sensitive subject  for both faiths , yet his reputation of being a womanizer only leads me to believe he was in a state of denial..as according to his environment which condemned homosexuality, as well...Richard had only one woman whom he was emotionally involved with , and that was his mother , he had no love for his wife Berengaria of Navarre , whose conjugal visits to her where far and in between and even then only in keeping with his need to sire a male heir , when he died...she was left almost destitute another sign of his disaffection towards her.
we should also lets take in perspective that there are in fact quite a few contemporary sources which may lead us to believe he was indeed a homosexual , besides bedding with Philip which was substantial enough to be mentioned by the chronicle as was said above , he ' so honored him that every day they ate at the same table , shared the plate, and at night the bed did not separate them ' , there was another contemporary source which said that Richard met a hermit in a forest who warned him of the sins of Sodom , another  was that he confessed for ' sins against nature ' and was flogged before he went on crusade , not to mention in those days lets not forget people believed in the divine right of kings , the only people who would dare say something that horrendous about a king..would be a member of the clergy , who could have easily winked at something like Richards sexual preference in exchange for him going on crusade , as well in the reign of henry II  england first witnessed the torturing of people accused of homosexuality , which henry himself saw as a sin against god , as well it would remain a wonder why henry showed more of a dislike towards his son Richard than any of his other sons , although the young king..and duke Geoffrey were just as treacherous as he was.
he had re-trusted Geoffrey..and made him his regent in Normandy even after the rebellion of 1172-3 , but he really did dislike Richard , in fact he wanted to wrestle the duchy of Aquitaine from its rightful suzerains ( Eleanor and Richard ) in order to provide john lack land with an inheritance yet he did not try to confiscate any of the fiefs owed to the young king or duke Geoffrey.
modern biographers today have also suspected that Berengaria's brother king Sancho VII was one of Richards lovers , this is just me , but could it be possible...that in those days..since same gender marriages were unknown , and in order to bind they're love and allegiance together..that they married each others sister? , lets not forget although it was henry and Louis who first arranged for the marriage between Richard and Alys of France , Philip also pressed for the match and was extremely annoyed , hurt and maddened at the fact that Richard supplemented his sister with Berengaria , or was it rather..that he supplement Philip by Sancho VII both on a political..and perhaps personal level?? ( I've read that king Sancho was his lover in numerous books , but it would be easier to just look up Richard on the Wikipedia , it is mentioned briefly there.)
in regards to Philip using Richards homosexuality for winning public opnion over to his side , this would feel highly unlikely if it was he who bedded with him...lol

Edited by duchess - 29-Mar-2007 at 09:35

Unfortunately - it did back then - it was a crime punishable by death.

Edited by Melisende - 20-Feb-2007 at 06:10

I think there's a problem with what is meant by "homosexual" here. In Richard's day you were despicable and un-manly if you submitted to the role of "woman". If one stayed in the male role, things were less problematic. It makes it harder to make a call on homsexuality, certainly in a modern sense.

 

 

�.it would be impossible for me to address all of the comments made in this thread�.. however, the whole topic has been a very interesting enterprise�.i would just like to add a few thoughts and words to the discussion�.

 

�many of the negative judgements about Richard have been formed with the neglect of his English kingdom in mind (as addressed earlier in the thread)�and the English king�s leadership of the Third Crusade has generally been regarded as one of limited success, if not complete failure�.however, there are some arguments that point to degrees of success�.and can at least salvage some degree of respectability to Richard�s crusading reputation�

 

�.chronicle accounts of Richard�s crusade have often been coloured according to the political alignment and propaganda needs of those countries and personalities that featured in Richard�s reign�.. German and French accounts differ in their interpretation of Richard�s deeds with many attacking the king�s decision making, along with accusations of ineffective leadership�.. Many of the English contemporary accounts of Richard�s exploits have portrayed the king with an obvious tendency to highlight the positive aspects of Richard�s reign and his �successful� crusade in the East�.. this ensured that Richard had a fair degree of control over what John Gillingham describes as the king�s �publicity machine��..

 

��.nevertheless, there are a number of Arab chroniclers who have written in detail about Richard and in particular his relationship with Saladin�..I have lifted these quotes from a previous work I did but I think it is useful to highlight them in short form here�..

 

�the Muslim records often refer to the English king�s diplomatic style of leadership, �his wisdom, experience, courage and energy�, and it is evident that the Muslims feared Richard�s diplomacy skills and  �the cunning of this accursed man��..arguably, because the Muslims never �had to face a subtler or bolder a opponent� it is relatively safe to assume that Arab accounts provide a reliable indication of Richard�s successes and failures, as seen from the �enemy�s� point of view�.

 

�..It could also be argued that Richard gave the Christian crusaders a sense of prestige that had been lost by the disaster of the Second Crusade�� Baha al-Din noted that Muslim �hearts were filled with fear and apprehension� upon the arrival of the English king in the holy land�..

 

�.In addition, when Acre surrendered, Richard managed to capture the ships employed in the Egyptian fleet, a substantial defeat for Saladin and a noteworthy success���.Gillingham has also proposed that this victory marked the end of Saladin�s challenge against the Christian dominance at sea. For Richard, Acre was a great success and it showed the Muslim forces that the king was resolute, determined and an enemy to be both feared and respected�� The Arab chronicler Baha al-Din wrote of Richard�s conduct in the siege of Acre as one of �good judgement� and �extreme daring��.

 

�.in June 1192, Richard attacked a army caravan on its way from Egypt, scattering the Muslim soldiers, seizing valuable supplies and depriving Saladin of much need reinforcement in men, arms and transport. It has been stated that strategically, it was an important strike, rightly regarded by Richard�s contemporaries as one of the king�s greatest victories. Even Baha al-Din noted that the defeat �was a most disgraceful event; it was long since Islam had suffered so serious a disaster�, adding that Saladin was never �more grieved or rendered more anxious��.

 

��At a time when Christian influence in the East was diminishing, I think Richard at least provided some degree of Christian �victory�, and managed to ensure the continued survival of Crusader presence in Muslim territory for the next 100 years�. �.In the words of Baha al-Din the Muslims �never had to face a craftier or a bolder enemy��.

 

 

Sources referred to

 

�..although I must point out that Gillingham�s works are very much �pro� Richard and seek to paint a more positive picture of the English king�.

 

John Gillingham, Royal Newsletters, Forgeries and English Historians: Some Links between Court and History in the Reign of Richard I

 

John Gillingham, Richard the Lionheart (London, 1989)

 

John Gillingham, Richard I (London, 1999)

 

Amin Maalouf, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes(London, 1984)

 

J. O. Prestwich, Richard Coeur de Lion:Rex Bellicosus (Rome, 1980)