Talk:Richard I of England/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 What incident? 2 Homosexuality 3 Duplicates 4 Who shot King Richard? 5 Another rewrite? 6 Legacy 7 Constant moving? 8 Arab viewpoints of Richard 9 Treasure Trove 10 Edits, Section headings 11 Arms of Richard I illustration 12 Regarding fiction 13 Cleanup 14 Richard the Lionheart? 15 The page needs serious cleanup 16 Richard's sexuality 17 Illegitimate child(ren) 18 Disney? 19 Richard's nickname 20 Richard's royal title 21 Revolt against Henry II - Too Many "Henry ?s"

What incident?

The article says:

As a result of an incident during Richard's coronation celebrations, great persecution of the Jews took place throughout the county.

Presumably this should say country, but what incident is this? Details! Don't leave us in suspense! --Phil | Talk 08:53, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Sorry to overrule a point, but there is no creditable way to suggest that Richard was not homosexual, despite the fact that the category 'homosexual' did not exist in the middle ages. He had sex with men, many times, and showed almost no interest in women. Any respectable biography will say the same. I felt it was important to make this point, and have changed a sentence or two to reflect this, but not made a large deal out of it (for instance, not created a separate section). -Ft Louie

This is, IMO, a good point. There were a couple of lines devoted to this, as well as King Rick's inclusion in the GLBTQ article category, which were reverted by an anon as 'anon vandalism' (bizarre, no?). This should be restored, as there is at least excellent anecdotal evidence that Richard did indeed have a predominating interest in men. Wally 16:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, Richard being a bisexual or gay, met a person in denial (or person in some other way disturbed by the fact that there have been non-heterosexuals also in history as well as there are today), who on 29.5.2005 vandalized this article by removals. This time, the vandal used the username Alphax. As above indicated, previous similar vandal attempts occurred in March 2005 and December 2004. Hopefully the vandal or vandals are enjoined from such future activity. 62.78.104.34 07:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Alphax wasn't vandalizing, don't be ridiculous. He was removing what appears to be extreme speculation, written in poor English. You make a number of claims that would benefit from a source - where does Richard confess to being homosexual? Note also that the IP you were using to add the material the first time also added similar nonsense to Humphrey and Isabella's articles, including "Category:Faghags" to Isabella. Adam Bishop 14:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you Adam should not be ridiculous. If you look carefully at the edit history of this article, you see that most of those texts were added by other editors months ago. And you have the basic reference: the biographer mentioned by that editor and listed in the references, obviously has answered your question. Please read it (I haven't - I trust on the previous editor - and I have not time to seek all books).

As to Alphax, since that person clearly did not read this talk page, nor offered here the reasons for removal, before removals, it is regarded as act of vandalism. 62.78.106.213 16:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the stuff because it was badly written, lacked references,, and was there was a link to a website that attempted to "prove" the claims, also without references. Alphax ^τεχ 08:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Richard's alleged homosexuality is that no one, not a single primary or secondary source, from Richard's time unti WWII, ever mentioned that Richard liked men; in fact, he was often cited for his abnormal lust for women. The contrary view first appeared in "The Plantagenets" by J.H. Harvey in 1949. The theory remains highly controversial and, to be honest, viewed with some skepticism by the mainstream academic world. It is a theory worth stating in the article, but it should be noted that there remains serious discussion on whether or not it's true. --Mhare40 14:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well to be honest, you can simply remove that part entirely if you want. 62.78 seems to have moved on to other articles, and I know I've removed his nonsense from a number of other articles with no further reaction from him. Adam Bishop 15:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think one of the arguments for it is his lack of offspring, legitimate or otherwise: one illegitimate child, if I recall correctly. But a bout of mumps or other infection could have curtailed his fertility. Or perhaps he was the ungenerous sort who didn't acknowledge his illegitimate kids. Silverwhistle 21:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The book Warriors of God is an excellent portrayal of King Richard's life, including his homosexual relationship with the King of France. 68.8.40.218

That's exactly why I am a descendent of Philip II Augustus? When was the book written? IP Address 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

2001. The Amazon reviews suggest that the book does not, shall we say, adhere to NPOV. Choess 23:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a translation of the Roger of Howden passage that seems to have been used to back up these claims. From the context, it seems pretty clear that what upset Henry was that they were (as we still use the phrase) "getting into bed with each other" politically, against him. It's also a sign of trust (that someone won't try to kill you in your sleep). People forget, too, that their household officers would have been sleeping on the floor around them: hardly conducive to an illicit gay relationship! Gillingham's essay in Janet Nelson's Richard Coeur de Lion in History and Myth is very good on this. As he says, the original agenda for claiming Richard was gay was homophobic - the idea that this was why he was irresponsible, short-termist, & c! Silverwhistle 23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - Warriors of God is a sensationalist 'pop' work by a journalist (not a historian), who at one point even claims that Baldwin V was the son of Baldwin IV, and thinks The Lion in Winter is a credible reference for the psychology of Richard and Philippe... Silverwhistle 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am writing this in response to Adam Bishop's message, and would gladly like to discuss the topic of Richard's homosexuality. Out of all the primary and secondary sources I have read about Richard, they all seem to point to the same conclusion. Although I do not believe there is such a thing as 'homosexuality' or 'heterosexuality', I believe that he was incredibly intimate with men and engaged in what we would today call homosexual sex. I think the existence of Philip of Cognac, supposedly RIchard's bastard son, is debatable, and his relationships with women, already few and far between, do not seem to have any intimacy or affection - just pleasure (Cognac is best known from Shakespeare's 'King John' but that has no more historical credibility than 'Braveheart'). Richard was clearly attached emotionally to Philip Augustus, even if it didn't go both ways. I refuse to believe that they could just be really really good friends, judging by Philip's personality. And yes, I have read Gillingham's ridiculous and often amusing attempts to de-gay Richard. Also, the King's numerous nervous breakdowns convieniently happened when Philip Augustus screwed him over in some way, shape, or form. Although 'Warriors of God' is not incredibly reliable, it would be ridiculous and incredibly bigoted to take all medieval passages at face value (ie Roger of Hoveden). And silverwhistle, the King of France is never alone or ignored, so how else could he have expressed his love with Richard? (he could, however, tell them to shut up and get out of his sight, and then seal the door). On a final note, I think that anyone who thinks that a 'gay' or bisexual man is not capable of having children (Philip Augustus's kids) is tragically misinformed about things in general. I also think that Richard's relationship with Humphrey of Toron should be analysed, but not necessarily mentioned in the article. All I ask is to express all the facts and lay them out for the reader, then let them decide for themselves. -Augustulus ps. Oh, and the theory has been around far longer than people think. In his own time, Richard was suspected of 'that sin' and Victorian historians compared him to gay King William Rufus. I also read that historians have been arguing about it since the 17th century. Edit: Silverwhistle, were you talking to yourself up there?

Please cite the 19C historians to whom you are referring. It isn't Stubbs or Stevenson, who edited the main primary source collections. I see no evidence of nervous breakdowns; physical illnesses, yes. He was frequently ill with feverish ailments which may well have affected his fertility.

Re: Humphrey IV of Toron, I've read the primary sources extensively, and see no references to him being unusually close to Richard. Humphrey supported Guy, he spoke Arabic, and was used as a translator. While it's fairly likely he was gay or bisexual, from the comments made even by sympathetic writers at the time, there's no evidence that he was in a relationship with Richard.

If you've read Gillingham, perhaps you ignored his point that it was the attempts to 'gay' Richard which were homophobic, based as they were on the idea that being gay somehow "explained" allegations of irresponsibility, short-term thinking, & c. In fact, most gay kings took their job seriously enough to get on with producing an heir, regardless of personal feelings. Richard's failure to produce a legitimate heir, and his low bastard-count is more suggestive of low fertility. Philip's existence is attested in contemporary sources; he was old enough to be married by 1201. There is also a Henry, born in the 1190s, d. 1245, who was raised by John, who wrote that he "says he is my son but who is truly my nephew": it's unclear from this whether he is Richard's or one of their illegitimate half-brothers' child.

It seems to me that your arguments are based entirely on secondary and tertiary sources. Contrary to your claim, we don't "know" the personalities of most 12C people (unless they're prolific writers of personal letters, such as Abelard and Heloise) well enough to speculate in this way. The evidence is not strong enough to assert Richard's homosexuality as anything stronger than a 20C theory. Silverwhistle 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points, and I will investigate further. However, I don't think that we should steer away from 'homophobic' claims. Humphrey, for example, was a very bad nobleman and an even worse leader, but you admit that he preferred men's company. And Richard, to me, does not strike me as taking anything, let alone his job, seriously, unlike, say, Philip. Again, there was no concept of sexuality at that time, and I do not deny that Richard had sex with women, it just seems extreme to discard ALL the evidence. In the end, people believe what they want to believe, including you, and I think that it is equally plausible that Richard suffered from a fertility disorder (but I have to say I believe the gay argument more, just due to the extreme phoniness of the straight one). Therefore, I hope we can all agree on these changes in the article:

There is even a theory that Richard and Philip were lovers, largely based on Roger of Hoveden’s account of their relationship:

“’’Philip so honoured him that every day they ate at the same table, shared the same dish and at night they slept in the same bed. And the King of France loved him as his own soul; and they loved each other so much that the King of England was astonished at the passionate love between them and marvelled at it.’’”

Although sharing a bed in the Middle Ages was not considered to necessarily have sexual implications, the Latin word ‘’vehementum,’’ which Hoveden used in the untranslated passage implies more than mere friendship. The issue remains a subject of controversy.

Richard had to be ordered to reunite with and show fidelity to Berengaria in the future, being told to “‘’remember the destruction of Sodom and abstain from illicit acts.’’” Often this has been construed as more evidence that Richard was engaged in homosexual activities, despite the fact that “sodomy” can refer not only to anal intercourse but to any sordid sexual practises. Some later writers, elaborating on the “sodomite” theory, have alleged that Berengaria’s own brother, the future Sancho VII, was one of Richard’s early lovers. Nevertheless, when Richard died in 1199, Berengaria was greatly distressed, apparently having loved her husband very much. The picture is further muddied by the fact that she had to sue the Church to be recognised as his widow. Although historians still remain divided on the issue, many fictional works and modern histories see Richard’s homosexuality as a given.

It's neutral, it presents all points of view, and I think it is acceptable. Agreed? It is time to end this debate, because clearly we will not change our minds. -Augustulus

What "untranslated" passage? The passage is translated and included. Hoveden was a churchman. If he'd meant that they were openly lovers, he'd have been fulminating against their 'sins', not their joint political machinations against Henry. (And if they were lovers, surely they'd have sneaked off somewhere and not made a great show of affection in public, given religious and social attitudes of the time.) Re: Humphrey, the evidence isn't so much that he "preferred men's company" (no names are linked with him), but he was certainly described as effeminate in manner and appearance by the Itinerarium compiler, who was on his side politically. Personally, stepping out of NPOV, I don't have much regard or affection for Richard; however, I think it very dubious that Harvey & co. tried to claim cause and effect re: irresponsibility and sexuality. People can be irresponsible, whatever their sexual orientation. Silverwhistle 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I should take this to Humphrey's article instead, but the evidence that Humphrey was homosexual is about as scanty as the evidence for Richard... Adam Bishop 16:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. Settle down. I'm here to settle a dispute, not to intensify it. In my experience churchmen of that era simply write what they believe. And besides, the King of France can't just 'nip off to a private place.' He's a fucking King! He would never be alone! And aren't you forgetting the fucking 12th century renaissance? Sins of the flesh were frowned upon, but nobody cared, mostly due to Abelard's influence and the rest of those guys. Lay off, will you? Clergy wrote chronicles in Latin! Scholars translate them!And the fact that Richard and Philip held hands and groped each other, to me, isn't the result of "political friendship" even in those days (Bush and Blair don't boot Laura out of the White House and snuggle when they meet for a summit). Come on! I'm not asking much. Delete the 'untranslated' part if you guys are going to get all huffy, but people were up there on the Kinsey scale in the Middle Ages, just like today. It wouldn't be possible for it to be otherwise. Richard may have been straight, but he clearly was attached to Philip, and, at least I believe, because he was homosexual. And, speaking from experience, I know that homosexuals can be irresponsible, brave, religious, and weird, just like Richard was. Please. There is evidience, it cannot be denied, and I've said my piece in the article change. Besides, I threw a few things in there that support your 'heterosexuality' thing that you failed to mention in our debate. Now, let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you did agree with me. Don't you think that it's a bit odd for two straight, probably homophobic guys to hold hands and sleep together? -Augustulus

However crudely you may present your points augustulus, you are right. One other thing, deleting the last two sentences on the david and jonathan point make the rest look nonsensical, as i believe was already mentioned somewhere. And...speaking from experience?? 24.91.22.63 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd still like to see sourcing on the claim that "most" Biblical scholars believe, etc., but I don't intend to argue it here, because it's a complete red herring. Roger of Hoveden didn't have access to "modern scholarship", so it has no evidentiary value as to the point at hand, and doesn't belong in the article. As regards sharing beds, three hundred years or so later, that notorious skirt-chaser Edward IV of England shared a bed with Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset, for roughly the same political reasons Philip might have shared a bed with Richard: as a token of trust and intimacy with a hereditary enemy whose allegiance he was trying to win. Choess 03:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Who changed the quote from Roger of Hoveden? I had translated it word for word from Latin. The version currently in place is more highly coloured. Silverwhistle 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Arrrg. All we seem to do is argue about sex. I think the Hoveden passage is fine, and as with David and Jonathan and I personally think it's the icing on the cake. I am not implying that I think Hoveden could have nipped into a time machine and had access to modern stuff, I'm just saying it's very similar to the wording in a well known homosexual context. And Choess, I think that 'most' is better than 'some' because it's closer to the truth, so I suggest we comprimise to 'many'. Silverwhistle, your translation will probably be the 'esteem' stuff, which I think is stupid and I know is not neutral. Or is it the one currently in place that you were referring to? Augustulus 15:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This was my translation:

And after that peace, the Count of Poitou remained with the King of France against his father's will. The King of France so honoured him that every day they dined at one table and from the one pot, and at night a bed did not separate them. And because he saw the strong love that was between them, the King of England, seized with great bewilderment, wondered what was going on, and being wary for himself in the future, frequently sent messengers to France to recall his son Richard. (Roger of Hoveden, vol. 2, p. 318)

I read Latin, I have a degree in mediæval history, and I have a copy of Hoveden. What's your knowledge of Latin? Do you want me to post you the original text? Silverwhistle 20:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You most likely have a greater knowledge of Latin than I, but here is my translation:

Richard, Duke of Aquitaine, son of the King of England, continued to remain with King Philip of France, who honoured him so much in such a long period of time that every day they ate together at one table from one dish, and at night their beds did not separate them. And the King of France loved him as he did his own soul; and in that time, because of this passionate love between them, the King of England was struck with astonishment, and marvelled at it.

I could be wrong, but 'cantinum' strikes me as sort of a soup dish ... I settled with plain old 'dish' though. And 'as his own soul' works, as does, 'as he did himself', I guess. Modernised, 'slept in the same bed' works the same as 'their beds did not seperate them', although I wanted to be as literal as possible. However, we agree they shared a bed, right? If we do modernise it, just because people might be too ignorant to know what that means, then I would push for 'slept.' Augustulus 00:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a serving dish. And it's such a simple passage, it doesn't need modernising. But you have depoliticised why Henry wasn't happy. He's "stunned" because it means they're likely to be plotting against him:

Et post pacem illam Ricardus comes Pictaviae remansit cum rege Franciae contra voluntatem patris sui; quem rex Franciae in tantum honorabat, quod singulis diebus in una mensa ad unum cantinum manducabant, ed in noctibus non separabat eos lectus. Et propter illum vehementum amorem qui inter illos esse videbatur, rex Angliae nimio stuporo arreptus, mirabatur quid hoc esset, et praecavens sibi in futurum, frequenter misit nuncios suos in Franciam ad revocandum Ricardum filium suum...

As the passage goes on, the political issues become more apparent, with Richard feigning to go willingly and peacefully to his father, but making off with most of his father's treasure from Chinon, and going to fortify his own castle in Poitou. What with reference to "tiffs", too, your edits have been depoliticising and trivialising the action. Silverwhistle 08:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Henry was enraged because he knew they were lovers, I'm arguing that they were unusually close, too close for even the best of friends. You're absolutely right, I think it was the politics that Henry was mad at because he didn't yet know they were lovers. And your point about making off with the treasure and going to fortify Poitou proves nothing, let alone says nothing, about your heterosexuality theory. And I disagree with the neutrality of your changes, I'm afraid. I will alter them slightly and clean up some stuff that is awkward or doesn't make sense. And I shortened the Hoveden quote because 1) it's too long and 2) the politics are irrelevant, and we both agree on that point. Augustulus 14:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Silverwhistle, PLEASE be resonable! Your edit needs serious cleanup!! And your translation is filled with irrelevance!!! Stop reversing my edits! Augustulus 19:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, we're getting there! I still think the politics bit will confuse people ... and it doesn't make him any more heterosexual. Actually, it makes him seem more attached to Philip! In any event, it's irrelevant. Also, the paragraph below is fine the way it is now. Please, please, PLEASE comprimise so I don't have to go back and constantly change everything!! Augustulus 19:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It is you who are being unreasonable; your use of capitals proclaims it loud and clear. Please leave my edits alone. Silverwhistle 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What? My use of CAPITALS? That has nothing to do with reason! I am emphasising my point and certain words. Your edits are a grammatical travesty, do not adhere to wikipedia's neutrality policy, and are terribly written. Not to mention that they do not make sense. I would expect better from you. Augustulus 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are merely trolling. Silverwhistle 10:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that's my intention. Please correct your mistakes and your Latin. I have never seen that before. Augustulus 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the translation with the one published by Riley in 1853. Sure, it's quaint and apparently mistranslated on purpose, but this is not the place to come up with your own translations. Adam Bishop 20:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Silverwhistle's translation is more accurate, I prefer it. I also still don't like all the political stuff. That can be mentioned below. Augustulus 23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And please use user-names. Silverwhistle 00:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well pardon me, but who cares what you like? The passage doesn't make any sense outside of the political context. Adam Bishop 00:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are pardoned, but I was under the impression that the subject was the sexuality debate. Augustulus 00:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The quotation is in the section on Revolt against Henry II. That's politics. Silverwhistle 00:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is taking place in Homosexuality. That is what I was referring to. Again, please help me create a 'Sexual Orientation' section in the article to sort all the illusions out. Augustulus 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, because you have shown a disdain for evidence-based discussion, professional scholarship, and NPOV, and this article doesn't need to be longer. Silverwhistle 08:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is this other translation published? Adam Bishop 04:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where Augustulus got his translation. That phrase "loved as his own soul" doesn't appear in the Latin of the Rolls ed. of the text (ed. Stubbs), which I have (via Gallica). I do my own Latin translations. Silverwhistle 08:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Silverwhistle, take back your remarks. Your arrogance takes away your reason and morals (if you have any in the first place), and I resent your brushing me aside because I 'show disdain' for things that I actually respect in this context and think are vital to encyclopedias.

In any event, I have tried to make my comprimises in the face of this as best I can. Edit wars are just a waste of my time. Augustulus 03:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Augustulus, it would be helpful to know where your more recent translation was published. Adam Bishop 16:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have identified the Latin source now: it's Roger's Gesta Henrici II (the Benedict of Peterborough MS), not the Chronica, as Augustulus had claimed. It's very similar, but includes the Samuel-inspired line, "Et dilexit eum rex Franciæ quasi animam suam". The verb used, "diligere", primarily means to esteem, prize highly. Silverwhistle 16:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

All my Latin dictionaries, and many online, translate diligere as 'to love'.

Adam, I know Reston doesn't carry much weight with you, but it's there, and also in Gillingham (I think. I'll need to borrow that one and check) in the 1999 one, but of course he doesn't agree with me. More recently I saw it in selective translations of Boswell on the web, and also David Boyle's The Troubadour's Song. Basically it's cropped up everywhere in my secondary source research, and I have only seen the Henry II version twice.Augustulus 20:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

With diligere, "to love" generally appears down the list as a third meaning. The Chronica uses amare. David Boyle's is another rather shoddy and unreliable piece of 'popular' history, which has been taken to pieces in reviews; it's of no more value than Reston. The author's an economist, not a historian. Silverwhistle 09:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Boyle's a faker? Really?

In my experience, it's always been first. And besides, he's writing this, and he hasn't a clue about Richard and Philip. He's just saying, 'Yes, yes, alright. So they're close. Weird, but okay.' and he'll put a generic term. The fact is, the homosexual undertones are still there with love or esteem. However, it's always been love in my dictionaries (and believe me, I have a lot of Latin dictionaries), and esteem is usually on there, but not first. Augustulus 16:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Augustulus, coming up with your own interpretations of primary sources is one of the main varieties of Original Research, which we are not allowed to present on wikipedia. You are, as far as I can tell, not on expert on Medieval Sexuality, nor an expert on the ways that sexuality is discussed in Medieval Latin. As such, your speculation about what some chronicler may have meant in some passage is completely irrelevant. What we should be trying to do here is find out what the consensus of modern-day scholars is on the subject. john k 17:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Then what's the point of this debate? The fact is that scholars are pretty much split between gay/straight/don't care. If my bias is in the article, please tell me. If not, do not chastise me. This is merely the talk page and I am merely trying to defend my point of view. Augustulus 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Your bias does show. Why else do you persist in changing the text re: the fact Philip of Cognac was acknowledged by Richard as his son? His existence is documented in the Archives of Poitou, the Pipe Rolls and Roger of Howden. And yet you have claimed previously that "a bad feeling" was enough to make you cast doubt on his existence. An inability to differentiate between questionable 'popular' histories and serious scholarship as sources also gives grounds for concern. Silverwhistle 07:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So does yours. And the question is that why should Richard have illegitemate children when he has a wife he can make an heir with? Philip is so obscure I think that it is arguable whether he was genuinely Richard's. Homosexuality or infertility point to the same conclusion. Augustulus 23:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The lack of children by Richard does not necessarily point either to his homosexuality or to his infertility. However, there was a point above somewhere that other gay kings were able to lay their personal feelings aside and produce an heir to succeed to the throne. At this point, I think it would be a good idea to introduce the Kinsey scale. Alfred Kinsey, a notable psychologist, proposed that all people fall somewhere between gay and straight (bisexual being the absolute middle) and that very few people lie in an absolute. While convention compels us to label those who primarily prefer the sexual intimacy of a same-sex partner "gay" and those who primarily prefer the sexual intimacy of an opposite-sex partner "straight," those become too black and white when debating nearly 1,000 year old homosexuals. Since there are enough shades of gay/straight, so to speak, a person we may label as gay may actually still be (on some level) attracted to the opposite sex, if only enough to perform sexually with them. Given that, it could easily be argued that Richard was more gay than other gay/bisexual kings, making his ability to perform with women more of a touch-and-go thing. I respect the other articles out there, and while I cannot offer a decent Latin translation of Hovedon (not myself being a Latin scholar), Riley's version seems far more dauphinized and made to fit within acceptable standards than others I have read. I would also like to point out that many writers have surpressed homosexual references for hundreds of years because of the standards of their times. Since homosexuality was such a taboo subject (and the concept of homosexuality as we know it did not exist until the late 1800s anyway, so I would modify that to same-sex relations), most writers dauphinized and played down the role same-sex relations played. While this again diverges from Richard I, writers from across the times have neglected to mention the strong role same-sex (especially between men) relations played in Ancient Greece. However, we have definitive proof (through their art, their writing, etc) of that. The fact that Richard I's homosexuality was not mentioned until the mid-1900s does not mean that he was not gay and that modern historians like to read too deep, but rather that same-sex relations were so taboo that no writer prior to those times would have thought of mentioning it. And while the sins of Sodom are all sordid (defined as not penile-vaginal) sexual acts, the primary one was anal sex between two men, from which we derive the word sodomy. 24.91.156.101 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Anna

A good point. Richard may well have been a 3 or 4 or even 5 on the Kinsey scale and that would make me and Silverwhistle both correct. Augustulus 22:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, Richard wasn't a 3 or 4. He was through and through a womanizer. Perhaps, if he was in a sexual relationship with Phillip, it would mean that he was a 1 or even a 2. At most. However, if you look at the vast majority of publications on him, you'll see that he had more than one instance of fornication with women. Tell me, if he was homosexual, or mostly homosexual, then why would he randomly choose to sleep with a bunch of random women?

Why not? 24.91.121.27 00:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys, it's REALLY unlikely that Richard was OPENLY gay if he was gay at all, which I doubt. After all, in 1307, when the Templar were crushed, one of the things they CLAIMED was they they were engaged in homosexual activity. This was a form of character assassination. That's a hundred and eight years after Richard died. Things can change alot in that time, but I really doubt the veiw of gayness did. If you can prove it did, do it. But for the record, it's possible that he stuck it in anything he could catch, like Mick Jagger. 71.204.17.114 06:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplicates

The 'Early life' and 'Reign' sections have been duplicated for some reason so obviously this needs correcting (i tried removing them but there was an error and i am not really experienced enough, it might be something to do with the contents box which lists the duplicated sections).

Who shot King Richard?

In the "Death" section, the crossbowman who killed King Richard was named Bertram de Gurdun; but in the "Overall assessment," his name is Pierre Basile. Anybody know which one is right? The text should at least be consistent. If there are sources for both names, it would be better to acknowlege both versions at once. Reuben 02:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The name Bertram de Gurdun is given by Roger of Hoveden. I don't know the source for the Pierre Basile name. Missi

That was irritating me too during the rewrite but the 1911 Britannica indicates that it was Basile. I could find no other online reference to Bertram de Gurdun except Wikipedia. --Wgfinley 20:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, according to Maurice Hewlett Bertram de Gurdun was commanding the defense but was not the one who fired the shot. Hewlett doesn't name who it was. [1] --Wgfinley 20:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Roger of Hoveden states: "When the king [Richard] was in despair of surviving, he order Bertram de Gurdun, who wounded him, to come into his presence..." What source does Hewlett and the 1911 Britannica give for this Basile? Missi

Maurice Hewlett was a novelist: The Life and Death of Richard Yea-and-Nay is a work of fiction which plays fast and loose with a good deal of documented information. Silverwhistle 15:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is another wrinkle worth noting. The early chroniclers made a big deal of the fact that the man who shot Richard I was not a noble. It was considered a crime in itself that a commoner should kill a noble, much less a king. There is a uncredited story that Richard I ennobled his killer to remove the stigma but he was killed anyway. --Mhare40 15:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame I don't remember the exact sources, but the version I got (from French writer Martin Monestier, himself drawing from unknown sources) named the killer Bertrand de Gourdon, and qualified him as a simple man at arms. I tend to credit this over the Knight Pierre Basile version on two counts :

• The Crossbow was a lowly, unchivalric weapon, whose use against other christians was forbidden by the Church, making it highly unlikely a full knight would have used one to snipe at an enemy.
• The punishment inflicted seems unusually gruesome and ignoble to be used on a nobleman. I know that the traditional "hanged, drawn and quartered" sentence for high treason and regicide was introduced by Edward I, so Mercadier did not have this to rely on, but this punishment is extremely unusual, and somehow, I doubt there was a complete lack of precedent of rebellious nobles plotting against the king. Hence my conclusion that such savagery was likely applied to a commoner.

My sources confirm that Richard ordered his killer's pardon and release (and had his orders ignored), but say nothing at all upon granting any noble status to relieve the stigma... which would remain anyway, as regicide would be a deadly offence as well from a knight as from a commoner. Pardon need not be given to a knight, and would actually show greater mansuetude if granted to a baseborn man.

There's also this mention that Richard might have avoided the wound had he been properly armored. It seems somewhat fishy to me, unless the shot was delivered at truly extreme range, as bowshot is chainmail's greatest vulnerability. --Svartalf 14:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Another rewrite?

I found this article hard to read. The language did not flow, there were too many (slightly irrelevant) names mentioned, chronological order does not seem to hold all the time, abrupt changes from paragraph to paragraph without leads, ...

Since I am not a historian I don't feel comfortable doing changes on the actual page, so I'll try to point out some confusing pieces that will hopefully be fixed:

"This was his consolation prize for the fact that his eldest surviving brother, Henry the Young King, was simultaneously crowned as his father's successor." What do you mean consolation prize? Nothing so far has explained why it would be a consolation prize.

"Richard and his other brother, Geoffrey, duke of Brittany, thus learned how to defend their property while still teenagers." What do you mean learned to defend their properties? There have been no conflicts mentioned.

"They were planning to dethrone their father and leave the Young King as the only king of England." What? Wasn't Henry the Young Kind crowned 3 years earlier? So their father could not have remained king? Or did the father retake the crown?

"Henry II invaded Aquitaine twice." Uh, now we are jumping to the father? What does this piece of information do here?

"At the age of seventeen, Richard was the last of the brothers to hold out against Henry". Henry who?

"The Young King's death on June 11, 1183, ended the revolt, and Richard remained on his throne." Which throne, I thought Richard was not yet king?

"Young Henry's death left Richard as the eldest surviving son and the natural heir when the old King died." Again it's confusing that a king died, but the kings father king... You see my point?

"On July 6, 1189 Henry II died in Chinon," Uh, you mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph that Henry II died.

Is "holocaustum" somehow linked to WW II holocoust? Why mention the word when it's not linked to any explanation about the rousing word. Makes one lose concentration of this article and start thinking about other things.

• • If I'm not mistaken, Richard's use of "holocaustum" was the first recorded usage of the term. It's historically interesting, if nothing else. The massacre of the Jews after his coronation is certainly a notable event. Missi
  • "Holocaust", according to the Holocaust article, referred to burnt offering. It wasn't until the mid 19th century that it was used to refer to a catastrophe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Etymology_and_usage_of_the_term

"Richard has been criticised for doing little for England, siphoning the kingdom's resources by appointing Jewish moneylenders to support his journeys away on Crusade in the Holy Land," Hey, you did not explain he had been crusading yet!

"Richard had one major reason for discontent with his father." The father has been killed twice already! Give it up!

"Princess Alys (not the same Alix as Richard's half-sister)" Huh, Alys is not Alix, I can see that, why mention it at all?

People are easily confused, and no one wants to go away thinking that Richard was engaged to his own half-sister. Missi

And maybe because Louis VII of France had two daughters of nearly the same name, if by two different wives. --Svartalf 14:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The 2 girls had the same name - it just depends how you translate it. Silverwhistle 15:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could say that Alys was Louis' daughter by his second wife? Candle-ends 00:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC).

"Soon after his accession to the throne, he decided to join the Third Crusade, inspired by the loss of Jerusalem to the "infidels" under the command of Saladin." Was Richard inspired by the infidels or did the loss of Jerusalem make him angry?

"Richard tried to persuade Philip to join the Crusade as well. Philip agreed and both gave" Easier on the tongue would be something like: "Richard successfully persuaded Philip to join the Crusade"

I don't get any feeling of how much is 10,000 marks or 100,000 marks from the article, so a brief qualifier would be in order.

...skipping a big hunk of text...

"On his return to Europe, shortly before Christmas 1192, Richard was captured only a few miles from the Moravian border by Leopold V of Austria. Richard and his retainers had been traveling disguised as pilgrims, complete with flowing beards and tattered clothes." Why were they captured? Why were they traveling in disguise? Where was the army?

Richard and his retainers were traveling incognito because Richard had offended Leopold V during the Crusade. He knew Leopold would imprison him given the chance -- which of course he did. Missi

More than just offended - Leopold suspected Richard of having his cousin, Conrad of Montferrat (King of Jerusalem), murdered. Silverwhistle 15:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would make it easier to read the article if, after having introduced the father as Henry II, you would stick with the term "father" from there on. Also might be easier if, after having introduced his brother Henry the Young King, talk just about his "brother Henry", or "Henry brother".

PS. I find it really hard to believe Richard was so tall. All castles, museums etc. have really small doors and beds, and I seem to recall that the average height of people has grown a lot since then. Would be good to be able to point to some reference where Richard's measures are verified (or at least backed up more than here).

I believe Richard's skeleton was exhumed during the Victorian period and measured. I know that King Edward I certainly was, and he measured 6 feet 2 inches, if I'm not mistaken. The Plantagenets were a tall, powerfully-built lot as a rule. It's a myth, by the way, that medieval people were tiny compared to the modern day. The average height may have been a few inches shorter, but they were hardly midgets. Doors and ceilings were built low to conserve heat and building materials. Missi

Richard has been lost since 17-18C. Silverwhistle 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Sorry to disagree there, but in the 50's, a fantasy writer (I believe Fletcher Pratt, but don't remember rightly and don't have the account at hand), who was barely of middle size by contemporary standards, got along famously with a curator at the Louvre museum, and got to try on a suit of armor made for king Francis I of France, who, in his own time, was regarded as a tall and stout man. The outcome is that he found the suit quite too small, hence the conclusion that ancient folk were indeed noticeably smaller than we are, though indeed not midgets. --Svartalf 14:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Missi's right. A large number of surviving armours are ones made for tournaments or for men in boyhood - which survived because not used in real action. I suspect the Francis I one mentioned may be a boyhood one. Mediaeval people, especially of high status, were well nourished and led active lives. The Industrial Revolution brought down average heights because people were living in squalid conditions in overcrowded cities, on poor diets. there are stats available on this from analyses of burial sites. Silverwhistle 15:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

I don't see how a list of Richard's supposed qualities is a legacy. His successor and the photo of the statue are applicable. How else did Richard's reign continue to influence England after its end? Also what's with the "duality of man" approach to his qualities anyway? By whose standard to we rate admirable and bad qualities? "Unwilling to give way to public opinion" is probably an admirable quality in a monarch. Humility might be a bad trait, and confidence is often mistaken for arrogance. Loving your family is swell, but behaving ruthlessly to your enemies can be an admirable quality, the teachings of Jesus notwithstanding.

There is no doubt that Richard had many admirable qualities, as well as many bad ones. He was a military mastermind, and politically astute in many ways; yet incredibly foolish in others, and unwilling to give way to public opinion. He was capable of great humility as well as great arrogance. He loved his family, but behaved ruthlessly to his enemies. He was revered by his most worthy rival, Saladin, and respected by the Emperor Henry, but hated by many who had been his friends, especially King Philip. He was often careless of his own safety: the wound which killed him need not have been inflicted at all if he had been properly armoured. Almost the same thing had happened, ten years earlier when, while feuding with his father, he had encountered William Marshal while unarmed and had to beg for his life.

As Richard produced no heirs, he was succeeded by his brother John as king of England. However, his French territories initially rejected John as a successor, preferring his nephew Arthur of Brittany, the son of their late brother Geoffrey, whose claim was technically better than John's.

I hope someone can write a workable legacy. I don't know anything suitable. I just know the current section is weak. --131.137.245.197 16:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You should read the article Angevin Empire. TheUnforgiven 21:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone should choose to quote Winston Churchill on the Legacy bit: he is not regarded as an authoritative mediæval historian, his historical writings have dated badly, and it seems entirely superfluous to the article. Silverwhistle 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So? He's recognisable. Augustulus 00:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Constant moving?

What's with the constant moving of this article between Richard I of England and Richard Lionheart? Is there a talk page somewhere discussing this? —Josiah Rowe 01:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Partly here, partly on Talk:William I of England, I think. Adam Bishop 01:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks— I was wondering what was up. —Josiah Rowe 01:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Arab viewpoints of Richard

I've copied this from a much earlier contribution I made on someone's talk page. They asked me for proof about the sentence I added in at the beginning of this article regarding Richard and Arabs.

Opinions of Richard "The Lionhearted" in the Middle East are generally unanimous. Citing the general Middle Eastern view of Richard is similar to citing opinions of Hitler. It is common knowledge that Adolf Hitler is not considered to be a positive, integrity-filled leader.

Historically, what Richard did was in no way glorious. The crusades were executed for political reasons under a religious pretense that would later be proven false, and the Richard's knights were known to be very vicious and violent. To the Arabs, the crusaders were simply barbarians coming from the west with no reason to their knowledge. Prior to his death, Pope John Paul II made a public apology in 2000 for the Crusades (among other things), calling them "sins" and "atrocities".

Literarily... For a very good source on Middle Eastern viewpoints on the crusades, I highly reccomend "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf. This book is packed with many stories that are the opposite of the common Western fairy tale containing chivalrous knights and glorious kings, as well as several first-hand accounts of the crusades by people who were in fact present to witness the brutality with their own eyes. Maalouf is a Christian and did not write any of these stories himself, this book is a work of nonfiction.

Amazon page on The Crusades Through Arab Eyes

--S.M. 16:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The Crusades in general are different from Richard specifically. The Third Crusade was not an offensive operation. The Crusaders were attempting to restore a kingdom which had existed in the region for nearly a century. The fact that the Crusades in general are viewed as monstrous in the Arab world does not mean that Richard specifically was viewed as a monster, and you have provided no evidence that he was. I do know that he committed some notable atrocities during his time on Crusade - the prisoner massacre, most notably. But simply conflating the general Arab view of the Crusaders into a specific view of Richard is not very helpful, nor is it helpful to saying that the Arabs were "a people Richard tried to conquer," which doesn't even make any sense - all of Richard's campaigns on the Third Crusade were attempts to retake cities which had been under Christian control for decades, which had only very recently been reconquered by Saladin, and which were still largely inhabited by Christians, so far as I am aware. If you want to include something about Arab views of Richard, you need provide some specifics about their of Richard specifically (and not just ridiculous comparisons of him with Adolf Hitler), rather than the crusades as a whole, and you need to support that. You can't just make some absurdly general statements, throw in Adolf Hitler, and then refer us to a book we can't necessarily access easily. Some quotes from Malouf would serve nicely, if he actually supports your case. john k 18:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the amazon reviews of Malouf's book suggest that he doesn't talk very much about the Third Crusade at all. john k 18:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Maalouf is more useful for translations of things that otherwise don't exist (or are harder to find) in English. He's not really a historian, and he's kind of over-the-top sometimes. He doesn't say much about Richard, although there is stuff like "The 33-year old red-headed giant who wore the English crown was the prototype of the belligerent and flightly knight whose noble ideals did little to conceal his baffling brutality and complete lack of scruples." The rest of it pretty fair though, mostly translations from primary sources. Adam Bishop 00:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The Third Crusade was indeed an offensive operation. The Europeans provoked it, the Europeans declared it to be a holy war (the Muslims would do the same later in response, under the clause "To fight those who attempt to throw you out of your home") the Europeans traveled to the desert to fight there, and the Europeans only did it because they wanted control of the cities. Christian settlements in the Middle East would not be destroyed, oppressed, or attacked until the Mameluke rule, hundreds of years later.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. The First Crusade resulted in the establishment of Christian states, run by western Europeans, in the Holy Land. These states lasted until the great defeat of 1187, when most of the Crusader states were reconquered by Saladin. The Third Crusade was an effort to regain the territories which Saladin had reconquered. It did not succeed even at this limited goal, and certainly made no effort towards attacking the main Ayyubid centers of Damascus or Egypt. john k 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

But, that's assuming that you weren't wrong in saying that "the Third Crusade were attempts to retake cities which had been under Christian control for decades". Some of the cities attacked included Alexandria (8% Christian today, hadn't been Christian-controlled since the Byzantines had been driven out by the Persians much, much earlier),

Alexandria was not attacked by the Third Crusade. Amalric I had campaigned in Egypt, but there is little evidence of a desire to actually found a Crusader state in Egypt - he seems to have mostly been trying to maintain a friendly Fatimid regime to counter Nur ed-Din's influence. The attempts of the Fifth Crusaders, and of Louis IX, to attack Egypt (in this case, Damietta), were also not primarily intended to conquer Egypt, but to gain a bargaining chip which might be used to recover the Holy Land. john k 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Jerusalem (welcomed all religions and was under Muslim rule many years before the First Crusade),

As I said, a city which had been under Christian control for decades. Before Hattin, it had been entirely Christian (because, of course, the Christians had murdered or expelled the non-Christian population after they took the city in 1099. But this was 88 years before Hattin. By this standard, Gdansk is a German city). john k 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Mecca (Raynald of Châtillon did this - as you should know, Mecca is 100% Muslim and has been under Muslim rule since Islam's birth),

Reynald attacked pilgrims. He never got anywhere near Mecca. And, at any rate, he was killed at Hattin, four years before Richard arrived in the Holy Land. john k 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Acre (Very small Christian minority - Almost entirely Muslims and Jews, was never ruled by Christians at any point other than the crusade period),

Huh? Acre was most certainly a Christian city during the Crusader period, which is when we are talking about. john k 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Antioch (always has been Arab), Tyre (same), and Konya (Turkish...Seljuks, specifically).

Antioch had not always been Arab. It was under Arab control from the 7th century to the 10th century, and had then been reconquered by the Byzantines. I don't believe there is any reason to think it was not a Christian majority city, even at the time it was under Arab control. It was certainly still a predominantly Christian city when it was conquered by the Turks in the 1080s, and remained Christian throughout the period of the Crusades, until Baybars destroyed it in 1268. Furthermore, Antioch and Tyre were cities which the Third Crusade had no need to attack, because they were never lost - they remained under Crusader control for the entire time. Konya was never particularly attacked by the Crusaders, except incidentally as they crossed Anatolia. And mentioning Konya as a Muslim city shows you wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Even though Jerusalem, Tyre, Acre, Antioch, and the rest, had been under Crusader control for almost a century at the time of the Third Crusade, and were throughout the period inhabited mostly by Christians, they are "Muslim cities," because they were under Muslim control before the Crusades. But Konya, which was a Byzantine city until the Seljuks conquered it in the late 11th century, is also a Muslim city. if Acre is a Muslim city, then Konya must be a Christian city. If Konya is a Muslim city at the time fo the Third Crusade, then Acre has to be seen as a Christian city - the period of Christian control of Acre is nearly as long as the Muslim control of Konya. john k 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Richard is even associated with the Crusades is enough to gain him hate in the Arab world. Simply ask any Arab - me, my family, or any of our neighbors, relatives, and friends whom we have discussed this exact subject with, for example. An opinion is hard to dismiss as nonsense, huh?

The reason I compare Richard to Hitler is not because they committed atrocities against mankind, but because of public opinion. Just as the world views Hitler as a bad man, the Middle East views Richard as a bad man. Not much proof needs to be provided when someone states that most people think Hitler was bad.

And I wouldn't call the Pope John Paul II's public apology for the Crusades in 2000 an "absurdly general statement".

The opinions of you, your friends, neighbors, and relatives is not encyclopedic. And, again, general Arab opinions of the Crusades are simply not the same thing as specific Arab opinions of Richard. As to proof that most people think Hitler was bad, that would be easy enough to provide, and is not disputed by anyone. You have yet to provide any evidence that Richard I is viewed as equivalent to Hitler in the Arab world. I suspect you could not do so. john k 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Maalouf's book is compiled from primary sources. These are the writings of people who were present during the Crusades. I suggest you read it rather than say it's a worthless source because you can't find it (considering that I bought a copy in Barnes & Noble). Adam Bishop up there pretty much covered everything else I could've said.

I didn't say it was a worthless source, just that the way you cite it is useless. The comments provided by Adam do not suggest much support for your gloss on Maalouf. john k 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded my edit as to fit to some of your reasonable demands and complaints, as well. It's no longer "attempted to conquer", for example, since, for some reason beyond me, it doesn't make sense...

And I do indeed find this information useful, as should others. In fact, I already have talked with people who were surprised to hear that Richard is not globally loved like he is in Europe.

Richard recieves much more glory than he deserves. He's not the sinless hero that Western fairy tales make him out to be.

--S.M. 01:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

How does our article make Richard out to be a sinless hero of western fairy tales? john k 01:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Gabrieli's edition of Arab Historians of the Crusades - translations of the actual primary sources - is far more useful than Maalouf, who is a journalist/'popular historian' I would rank alongside Wayne Bartlett and Jones and Ereira as not to be taken all that seriously. No academic Western historians have regarded Richard as a "sinless hero" for decades - SM is thinking more of his image in Hollywood films and badly-researched historical novels. Silverwhistle 15:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the reason why John was such a bad king is because Richard left him no money.

Treasure Trove

I suggest the author of this page take a look at the fine work by John Gillingham on Richard I. It is seen as the definitve modern interpretation. Take a look at the Yale English Monarch Series: ISBN 0300094043. In this Gillingham concludes both that there is no evidence for his Richard's alleged homosexuality and also that the 'treasure trove' story is also probably a myth created by biased sources. The fact this latter incident is stated as fact in the article should be reconsidered.

Gillingham was boring ... that's all I have to say. It's not a modern interpretation, it's laying everything out on the table and Johnny deciding what he thinks is true. Technically, that's what historians do, but Gillingham isn't the final word on the life of Richard I. He isn't God. The treasure trove part is fine as it is because it is the current belief. Besides, it's only a little bit. - Augustulus ps. Gillingham, Gillingham, Gillingham ...

If you're prepared to dismiss serious scholarship just because you find it "boring", you're the kind of contributor that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Silverwhistle`

Actually, the whole fact that it's an encyclopedia on the internet that anyone can edit (therefore has questionable reliability) gives Wikipedia a bad name. But enough. When I said 'boring' I was using it as a derogatory term in general. Although he is boring, I was attacking him because I don't buy his theories because I think he presents them in an unintelligent light. I didn't take it very seriously because I don't think it was written seriously (although he was thorough, I'll give him that). And the first person who posted here, please sign your name, not to mention read all the stuff I've written in the homosexuality section.

Anyway, I think the treasure trove part, unless it is proven to be false, works fine because that is the current theory. Any objections? Augustulus 00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't the current theory, and has been discredited by numerous scholars as a bit of fanciful story-telling of the kind that mediæval chroniclers (usually looking to point a moral) were fond of using. Don't know who the first person was - that's been there for ages. Silverwhistle 09:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll find him. Augustulus 21:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits, Section headings

I thought Missi had a point in that the article seems it could use a little attention. I started off by trying to seperate out some of the different themes and give them their own section headings to make it easier to access specific material from the table of contents. I focused on the first part of the article; I think the Crusade could use a similar job, but I need to read up a little before I tackle it. (I'd be thrilled if someone beat me to it.)

I also changed a couple of sentences; see discussion above about the Alys one. I also made a statement about Richard being Eleanor's favorite son a little less forceful - it seems generally accepted and quite likely that he was, but since it's an issue of what a person thought and felt it seems like it would be hard to prove it enough to make quite such a positive statement.

I'm intending to do more clean-up on the article in the near future - I'd like to get it more concise, I spotted a couple redundancies, etc. - and if anyone has any comments and advice, I'd be grateful. I'm completely new at this and doing my best to Be Bold. Candle-ends 05:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have done some tidying up and editing on this page. Hope that's OK. As you say, there were some repetitions and redundancies. Silverwhistle 10:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Arms of Richard I illustration

I am sceptical of this: what is the source? As far as I have been able to tell, he used a variety of permutations during his reign, including 2 lions facing each other. I don't know of the source for the motto. Silverwhistle 12:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding fiction

I am currently reading, and thoroughly enjoying, Jack Whyte's second book of the "Templar Trilogy," "Standard of Honor," in which Jack portrays Richard in all his strengths and flaws, including his powerful capacity to draw the loyalty of his subordinates, his homosexuality, and his antisemitism. I thought I might check some of Jack's claims about Richard and, when I found the Wikipedia article, I noticed the "Later Literature" section and decided that I might as well add the fact that Jack's book exists. I've never attempted to add to Wikepedia before. When I returned to the article today, I felt shocked that somebody had deleted my small contribution. I don't know why.24.207.38.181 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Julian Glover has actually played Richard twice. Someone forgot to mention his appearance in the TV-version of "Ivanhoe" (1982). Check Glover's filmography on imdb.com for more details.

Reference added. Yes, I saw that version of Ivanhoe when it was first on TV... I was just getting interested in the 12C in those days. Silverwhistle 23:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Should probably review WP:MOS, especially the relevant section on wikilinking. Isopropyl 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Adam Bishop 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why? -Augustulus

Richard the Lionheart?

Isn't it supposed to be Richard the Lionhearted? I've always seen it that way. Maybe there's just a mistake. → JARED ^(t)  18:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a translation from French: Coeur-de-Lion. Lionheart is a closer translation and certainly the one I've encountered most often. Silverwhistle 23:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

'Lionheart' sounds better. -Augustulus

The page needs serious cleanup

Who has made all of the changes that makes the page look like a piece of crap? Who removed the picture? Undo these changes immediately. Augustulus 14:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Augustulus 14:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard's sexuality

If you are going to state that many modern histories view Richard's sexuality as a given, it is only fair to also mention that many other histories view the interpretation that he was homosexual as unfounded, and many others are agnostic on the issue. Otherwise unfair emphasis is being given to one point of view: the current passage implies that only a few old-fashioned scholars are not of the view that Richard was homosexual, which is overstating the case.--Stonemad GB 08:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have edited this to make it clearer that this is not a cut-and-dried issue and that there is a difference between academic and popular historians on this. Silverwhistle 09:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but 'popular' and 'academic' makes our side seem like a lot of liberal hippies. Sorry, Stonemad GB, I didn't mean to be out of neutral point of view there. Augustulus 01:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC) ps. Since this is such a huge issue for some of us, should we discuss ALL the pros and cons of the theories in the article? It just seems to me that we're fighting on many fronts across the article. Could we funnel it into one section called 'sexual orientation'?

I could write the pro and Marianne can write the con. Is this not fair? Please answer because I am not the most patient person on the planet. Augustulus 00:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that if there is going to be any mention of 'some historians say...' there should at least be a citation. I see many allusions saying 'some historians' interpret various passages as implying Richard was homosexual or bisexual or whatnot. Yet I do not see any citations. At the very least, if these passages aren't culled due to a lack of a citation, there should be a 'citation needed' link added.Mrcooker (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Its like this because the sexuality row was such a pain because there has been so much comment that there were too many points of view in it. Saying that historians disagree is accurate and appropriate, considering the how important Richard's sexuality was in comparison with his Crusade, dynastic warfare and legacy as the most famous King of England, the gay row doesn't need to be huge.

regards --Tefalstar (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Illegitimate child(ren)

Please can we stop the edit wars over the mere existence Philip of Cognac? He's in contemporary records. Roger of Hoveden, vol. 4, p. 97, says for 1199:

Eodem anno Philippus filius Ricardi regis Angliæ nothus, cui prædictus rex pater suus dederat castellum et honorem de Cuinac, interfecit memoratum vicecomitum de Limoges in vindictam patris sui.

(That year Philip, illegitimate son of King Richard of England, to whom the aforesaid king his father had granted the castle and honour of Cognac, slew the previously mentioned Viscount of Limoges in vengeance for his father.)

He last appears 2 years later (in 1201), in the Pipe Rolls of John: "Et Philippo f. R. Ricardi 1 m. de dono R." ("King John gave one mark to Philip son of King Richard"). (Thanks to Mississippienne for finding that one.) He had been married to Amelia of Cognac. He now has his own page, anyway. Missi also mentions Henry, d. 1245, to whom John refers as "Henry, who says he is my son but who is truly my nephew". The evidence suggests he was born in the 1190s, after the deaths of Young Henry and Geoffrey, so his father is either Richard or one of Henry II's illegitimate sons. Silverwhistle 09:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned 'Henry' before, and I don't buy it. If indeed your evidence is wrong, might be Henry the Young King's, William Longsword's, or Henry II's.

As for Philip, I know even Reston admits to his existence, but the fact is that he was named 'Philip'. Why would Richard name his son 'Philip'? Philip Augustus, perhaps? An old lover long lost ... ? But if Cognac was slaying people in 1199 he was born before Richard and Philip were lovers (or really good friends) It doesn't add up. And besides, that is the only evidence that the Viscount of Limoges was murdered. Augustulus 00:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Henry was sent to be educated in 1207. This suggests an 1190s birthdate. Young Henry and Geoffrey died in the '80s. John calls him his nephew: if he were Henry II's, he'd be his brother. Whether or not Aimar of Limoges was actually murdered, Roger's mentioning of this story suggests he knew Philip was old enough to bear arms, otherwise it wouldn't be plausible. As to calling him Philip, if he were born in 1180, the year Philip II succeeded, he may have been called after him for that reason. Also, since we don't know who his mother was, it's also possible it may have been a name from her family. Silverwhistle 09:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Philip was crowned in September 1179, if I recall correctly. Or was that Louis's death? And it seems extreme that he would name his own son after a total stranger who he hadn't even allied with yet. Although your mother point is good, her lack of existence in the primary sources gives me doubts ... Augustulus 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly a total stranger, given Richard's betrothal to Alice, and the relations between Louis and Henry! Bastard children were often named by the mother. It's often luck as to whether references to their mothers by name survive; she may not have been of sufficiently high social status in her own right to be considered worth mentioning. Silverwhistle 00:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Philip was crowned in November 1179, and Louis finally died in September 1180. Adam Bishop 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my strange speech - stranger as in he didn't know him. I know I read too much of the Bible, but bear with me. I also think that if Richard truly went about reproducing with peasants out of wedlock, Cognac would have been kept under wraps because of the shame involved. And Robert of Normandy made William the Conqueror with a tanner's daughter very specifically ... we know almost everything about that. Didn't he see her in a pond or something and fall in love? Surely the mother would have been better known ... and nephew can refer to most lower and indirect kinsmen.

But I am fine with the edits now in place, so there really is no point arguing further. I still think, however, we should avoid pointless yammering by creating a short 'Sexual Orientation' section in the article. Augustulus 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of who their mothers were (and it's generally just luck as to whether any information about 12C women survives), bastards were useful in the marriage market, as Philip obviously was, in being married off to the heiress of Cognac. Limited though it is in some cases, we're lucky to have the amount of material we do have about 12C people. Silverwhistle 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Marraige market. I like that term.

Anyway, Richard seems flamboyant enough to be remembered for his love-life. Augustulus 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Disney?

Would Disney's Robin Hood w/ a lion as Richard be necessary to include?

Captivity and return

Disguised as a Knight Templar, Richard sailed from Corfu with four attendants.

There is not much writen evidence abouth Richard return, however i'd like to point out of one, namely letter of archbishop Adalbert of Salzburg to pope Coelestine III from the year 1194.

From that letter we know that was on 29. of july 1193 in Worms signed contract between Kaiser Heinrich VI. and Richard I. Of England.

To be released Richard must pay to Kaiser Heinrich 100.000 Mark of silver from which half goes to Duke Leopold.

The most interesting part is nexst Richard must namely also pay aditional 50.000 Mark of silver for releasing of hostages

He payed 30.000 mark of silver to kaiser Heimrich for releasing of 60 hostages (crew of the ship?) and 20. 000 Mark of silver to Duke leopold to relesase 7 hostages.(sourde genealogie mittelalter, Leopold.V.)

The only logical conclusion would be that we talk about two capturing and that was Richard and 66 men first captured on the territory og Hily german empire(probably by Duke Berthild of Andech-Meran who amnanged to arrive to Aka with wounded kaisers son and fourth of german army) and then obviously seven men escaped, probably Richard, Roger of Howden and five knights or nobles which was captured on the territory of Duke Leopold.(my guess woukd be on the border between Carniola and Styria).

It exsist namelx the second writen source - the EMM (exspositio pappe mundi) , map which author is probably Roeger of Howden and there is of course Hereford map. If you take closer look you will suprisingly find out that city of Viena is not on the map, which is quite sauprisingly.

Greg

Richard's nickname

I have read somewhere that he was called the Lionhearted for his cruelty in putting down a revolt. Is this true? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xanon (talk • contribs) 08:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

This is true, I don't know why this hasn't been changed. firemaker113

Richard's royal title

Is Richard's royal title "King of the English" or "King of England" ?

[[User:Siyac|Siyac

im not an expert but in lessons we use King of England but that might just be because we are english

• King of England is the standard yes. King of the English is more associated with Saxon Kings like Offa and Alfred. --Tefalstar (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Revolt against Henry II - Too Many "Henry ?s"

This section is very ambiguous and confusing. We have "Henry II" being King of England, while "Henry III", who is "Henry the Young King" ("to avoid confusion" with yet another Henry III - obviously, the English are also confused) being crowned King of England while their own king Henry II still is king, then opposed by his father Henry ?. This is confusing enough, but subsequent references to "Henry" fail to identify which Henry is being discussed, while Richard variously contends with or pledges fealty to Henry ?, without any clear indication of which Henry ? is being pledged or fought. The final result is an utter anarchy of Henrys. This section is totally unintelligible to a simple American who knows not the intricacies of royal families - and I thought our politicians were devious! Topnife 22:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)