Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2  3 ... 7  8  9 

 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
posticon Reading the Conqueror and the Red



It is, one feels, incumbent on any participant in the pursuit of collective knowledge to recall the best examples of expressing those aspects of the subject which one considers important to comprehending why an individual or historical perspective is rendered noble to memory and insight.(noble rendu à mémoire et perspicacité).

Thus, in the case of reading about the Conqueror and the Red, one is constantly reminded of how a standpoint is constructed from multifarious sources rather like tributaries to a river(comme un point de vue est construit de sources varies, plutôt comme tributaries à une rivière).
The following extract is from “William 11, Rufus, the Red King”, a book by Emma Mason,and, in my view, buries an irritating prejudice concerning the Red, namely that he was “gay”.

“ It was a later secular cleric,Wace, writing the third part of his Roman de Rou between 1170 and the mid-1170’s, who indicated that the king was bisexual, in an anecdote set in the context of his expedition to dislodge an occupying force from the city of Le Mans. He is said to have taken time out in order to have a bit of fun, indulging in a series of encounters both heterosexual and homosexual. The episode is lightly disguised, but its meaning would be clear enough to those for whom Wace wrote, Henry 11 and his courtiers”. (page 126)

Lydia Giles, Chairperson (personal capacity)
Apr/13/2006, 2:42 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
Athelstan937 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2005
Location: The Lands of the Hicce
Posts: 127
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red


What are you on!
"Thus, in the case of reading about the Conqueror and the Red, one is constantly reminded of how a standpoint is constructed from multifarious sources rather like tributaries to a river(comme un point de vue est construit de sources varies, plutôt comme tributaries à une rivière)."
More like rather like drains to a sewer in the case of these two!
Besides if this view is so how come you are quoting one source(tributary)from the many that make up the river?Selective and subjective prattle as usual.
I couldn't give two hoots as to his [sign in to see URL] matters is that Rufus be remembered for the nasty piece of work he was and for the pillaging/debauchery that he inflicted upon anyone without any reason save for his own nefarious pursuits.
Athelstan937(Private Personal No reference to sex capacity)
Apr/13/2006, 3:38 pm Link to this post Send Email to Athelstan937   Send PM to Athelstan937
 
Housecarl 1066 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red


Athelstan

Let those blinkered WTF imberciles read their Ladybird books of retrospective indoctrination, and leave the real history to those who have intelligence, mayurity, balance and abilities of discussion and analysis- not them!

BTW, WTF- You'll find that, if you had reached puberty enough to lift heavy books other than 'A' is for 'Apple', William II was homosexual! Much reviled by the clergy partly for it he was, too.

---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Apr/13/2006, 4:24 pm Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red


Housecarl:

I don't care much, one way or another, what William "Rufus"'s sexual orientation may or may not have been. My guess is, he probably *was* gay, but what do I know? I wasn't there, after all. Plus the fact that he never married and never seems to have created any children that anybody knows about, would kind of suggest this rather strongly. But I don't suppose the WTF sees this, any more than they see that William II
was pretty greedy and obnoxious in other ways.
Anne G
Apr/13/2006, 11:00 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
Housecarl 1066 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red


Doesn't bother me whether Wm II was gay, bio or straight, but WTF imberciles seem to get all riled up pretty easily about it?

Is an alcoholic still an alcoholic just because they also happen to drink fresh orange every so often? emoticon

Last edited by Housecarl 1066, Apr/13/2006, 11:28 pm


---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Apr/13/2006, 11:18 pm Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
Gyrth Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 02-2006
Posts: 123
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
WTF...


Why does it bother you that he may have been bisexual?

Pretty sad that, if as others have said, he was "a nasty piece of work," that you'd be more concerned with his sexuality than with the ugliness of his soul.

Whatever.



Last edited by Gyrth, Apr/14/2006, 5:15 am
Apr/14/2006, 5:08 am Link to this post Send Email to Gyrth   Send PM to Gyrth
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red


Gyrth:

Also sad to say, but whether it's contemporary or historical behavior, some people seem to be more concerned with the 'sexual" side of life than anything else. This goes for William "the Red", too.
anne G
Apr/14/2006, 6:57 am Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
Gyrth Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 02-2006
Posts: 123
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
right, Anne...


...they bear a frightful resemblance to those in our own country who seem to have the same skewed value system, and the same inability to discern fact from fiction, if you know what I mean.
Apr/15/2006, 1:10 am Link to this post Send Email to Gyrth   Send PM to Gyrth
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red


Gyrth:

Yeah. I've met folks like that. Unfortunately.
Anne G
Apr/15/2006, 3:16 am Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red


<< The incident of the gift of arrows to Walter Tirel, on the other hand, may have happened as described. If the king was really pleased with the batch he could well have given two to Tirel, who was an honoured guest, invited to court because he was needed to play a key role in the king’s forthcoming campaign. Yet Orderic’s story about these arrows and the apparently cryptic exchange of words between the king and Tirel combines Classical and Biblical elements. The theme of a gift of a weapon to a trusted companion, who then used it to kill the donor, is found in the myth of Cephalus and Procris. The king’s words to Tirel are presented as the echo of Christ’s words to his betrayer Judas Iscariot at the Last Supper (John 13:27). If there was such an exchange of words between William and Tirel, as Orderic Vitalis reported, it may be that someone overheard the end of a quiet talk they had been having about Tirel’s role in plans to seize the French Vexin. The use of this snatch of overheard conversation to allude to the betrayal of Christ seems to hint that Orderic had heard rumours that the king’s death was not accidental>>
(p221-22)

One of our favourite passages from William 11 Rufus , the Red King by Emma Mason.
 Apart from the laudable reference to the non-accidental nature of the Red’s death,what this shows, in our opinion, is how analysis is something that requires templates of varying kinds which sometimes overlap for incisive conclusion/s. This can also be a source of constant change. For example, the view that Iscariot’s betrayal was actually a tactical ploy that he agreed with Christ in order to expose to the populace of Jerusalem the connivance of their leaders with the Roman Empire in Christ’s approaching martyrdom,and the implicit urge for them to do something progressive about that, opens the intellectually tenable opinion, with which we would fundamentally disagree, that the Red knew there was a huge plot against him which he could not combat with any hope of victory, and so sought a means of ‘departing heroically as a martyr’ and objectively/subjectively making a Revolutionary Cluniacist mark on History that would never be erased.

Drogo, Hugo (both in personal capacity)
Apr/15/2006, 11:38 am Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 7  8  9 





You are not logged in (login)