Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
09-04-2019, 09:32   #16
pedroeibar1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
There were many, ya hot thing ya. But a life lived as publicly as that of the King of England could not be closeted. ......
Quite. Brings new meaning to the role of the 'trusty page of the backstairs'!
pedroeibar1 is offline  
Advertisement
09-04-2019, 10:07   #17
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 17,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedroeibar1 View Post
Quite. Brings new meaning to the role of the 'trusty page of the backstairs'!
Listen, this guy had a courtier whose job it was to go into the sh!tter with him, and hand him toilet paper as required.

The guy was literally never unwatched. There was nothing secret about his private life, because he had next to no private life.
Peregrinus is offline  
09-04-2019, 15:27   #18
pedroeibar1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,848
Poor old James - even in death he was not allowed rest. Treated as a relic he was dismembered and bits distributed to half a dozen churches/convents. I used to pass THIS on my morning commute / RER many years ago.
pedroeibar1 is offline  
10-04-2019, 01:51   #19
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 17,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedroeibar1 View Post
Poor old James - even in death he was not allowed rest. Treated as a relic he was dismembered and bits distributed to half a dozen churches/convents. I used to pass THIS on my morning commute / RER many years ago.
And to add to the indignity, most of him is now missing, because the tomb containing the bulk of his body parts was vandalised and robbed during the French Revolution. Apparently the tomb erected for him in 1824 contains only a length of intestine.
Peregrinus is offline  
Thanks from:
11-04-2019, 19:07   #20
Jellybaby1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,816
Crikey, who'd be a king, eh?
Jellybaby1 is offline  
Advertisement
16-04-2019, 12:55   #21
BalcombeSt4
Registered User
 
BalcombeSt4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,301
Ruth Dudely Edwards wrote that Patrick Pearce not might be gay, but was as a matter of fact gay. She also wrote that he sometimes had urges to fondle children & was a pedo who never acted on his urges (how she knew this was a mystery).

Now I hate Ruthe Duduley Edwrds with a passion and the last part is clear Loyalist propaganda, how the hell would she know he had these "urges". But the first part I think there's a good chance it was true, if you listen to the interviews of women from the Rising you hear he had no interest in talking or being with women.

Last edited by BalcombeSt4; 16-04-2019 at 17:03.
BalcombeSt4 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
16-04-2019, 22:00   #22
Ascendant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by BalcombeSt4 View Post
Ruth Dudely Edwards wrote that Patrick Pearce not might be gay, but was as a matter of fact gay. She also wrote that he sometimes had urges to fondle children & was a pedo who never acted on his urges (how she knew this was a mystery).

Now I hate Ruthe Duduley Edwrds with a passion and the last part is clear Loyalist propaganda, how the hell would she know he had these "urges". But the first part I think there's a good chance it was true, if you listen to the interviews of women from the Rising you hear he had no interest in talking or being with women.

Well, there is that poem of his, Little Lad of the Tricks:

Quote:
I forgive you, child
Of the soft red mouth:
I will not condemn anyone
For a sin not understood.
Raise your comely head
Till I kiss your mouth
I'd be hesitant in judging a man on the basis of a single poem, but it's still not something I'd want my name attached to.
Ascendant is offline  
Thanks from:
17-04-2019, 09:15   #23
ChrisJ84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Rumours circulated in his own time that he had homosexual favourites; these rumours were assiduously propagated by his Jacobite opponents, but were taken seriously by his supporters as well - seriously enough to warn him about the unusual degree of favour which he showed to a number of young, handsome men, some of whom he brought with him from the Netherlands, and to whom he granted English titles and court positions. (Their descendants still enjoy English titles today.)

William had no children with his wife, whom he married for dynastic reasons when she was just 15 years old (and he was 27). He only had one known mistress, which by monarchical standards of the time meant he was regarded as practically celibate. His intense friendships with younger men are not in dispute, but historians disagree about how much veracity there might be in allegations that these relationships were actively sexual.
An equally plausible interpretation is that Williams relationship with these younger men was paternal - he and Mary were childless after all. Jacobite propaganda and court jealousy / gossip would have been enough to fuel rumours of homosexuality.

It seems strange to me that we see same sex friendships, even intense ones, and immediately jump to the conclusion that they must have been lovers.
ChrisJ84 is offline  
20-06-2019, 23:53   #24
fryup
Registered User
 
fryup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 11,912
so all this time the orange order should have been the pink order
fryup is offline  
Advertisement
21-06-2019, 02:19   #25
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 17,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by BalcombeSt4 View Post
. . . Now I hate Ruthe Duduley Edwrds with a passion and the last part is clear Loyalist propaganda, how the hell would she know he had these "urges". But the first part I think there's a good chance it was true, if you listen to the interviews of women from the Rising you hear he had no interest in talking or being with women.
Doesn't mean he was gay, though. We have a view of marriage in which spouses should also be good, close friends, but this is quite modern. In Pearse's time it wasn't at all unusual to find heterosexual men who sought and found sexual connection with women and who made successful and happy marriages, but who sought and found social and emotional connection with other men - you could call this being heterosexual and homosocial, and this combination sustained a huge network of largely male-male social life and socialising. We might regard it as odd or even disfunctional, but that doesn't mean the men concerned were homosexual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisJ84 View Post
An equally plausible interpretation is that Williams relationship with these younger men was paternal - he and Mary were childless after all. Jacobite propaganda and court jealousy / gossip would have been enough to fuel rumours of homosexuality.

It seems strange to me that we see same sex friendships, even intense ones, and immediately jump to the conclusion that they must have been lovers.
Yeah, though it should be pointed out that there was scads of poetry of this type written around that time, and in the literary criticism of the period there is no suggestion that it was regarded as offensive or suspicious; it was just a particular genre of poetry. We are perhaps hypersensitised to these issues, and so we read this stuff in a different light.

Not saying whether Pearse was or was not homosexual, or whether he did or did not have an attraction to boys - I have no idea. I haven't read RDE's book.
But judging his behaviour and his writing by our contemporary standards and preoccupations, ignoring the context, convention and customs of Pearse's culture and society, is not necessarily the best way to try and arrive at an answer to those questions.
Peregrinus is offline  
25-06-2019, 23:50   #26
BalcombeSt4
Registered User
 
BalcombeSt4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascendant View Post
Well, there is that poem of his, Little Lad of the Tricks:



I'd be hesitant in judging a man on the basis of a single poem, but it's still not something I'd want my name attached to.
Yeah, but that's a poem, I don't think it's suppose to be taken literal, it could be a metahpor for Pearce kissing a newly born free Ireland or something like that.

And if you were a pedo, you wouldn't want to telegraph it all over the place either.
BalcombeSt4 is offline  
26-06-2019, 09:36   #27
ChrisJ84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Yeah, though it should be pointed out that there was scads of poetry of this type written around that time, and in the literary criticism of the period there is no suggestion that it was regarded as offensive or suspicious; it was just a particular genre of poetry. We are perhaps hypersensitised to these issues, and so we read this stuff in a different light.
Totally agree, and as Balcombe says below, it's poetry and we should interpret it as such - symbolic language that's meant to make us feel something, rather than taking it literally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Not saying whether Pearse was or was not homosexual, or whether he did or did not have an attraction to boys - I have no idea. I haven't read RDE's book.
But judging his behaviour and his writing by our contemporary standards and preoccupations, ignoring the context, convention and customs of Pearse's culture and society, is not necessarily the best way to try and arrive at an answer to those questions.
To my mind, the question of Pearse's (or William III's) sexuality is pretty irrelevant (unless or course you want to weaponise it for one reason or another). An even more interesting question than "Was he?" is "Why does it matter so much to us whether he was or not?" I imagine that historians of the future will look back and wonder why we were so obsessed by these questions.
ChrisJ84 is offline  
26-06-2019, 10:43   #28
Del.Monte
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,149
In fairness, it's only the lunatic fringe with an agenda that have any interest (?) in topics like this.
Del.Monte is offline  
26-06-2019, 10:54   #29
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 17,033
In relation to William, the question of his sexual orientation is of genuine historical relevance, since allegations were made about it in his own time, and what effect those allegations might have had, how they played out, how he addressed them or failed to, etc, might all be affected by whether the allegations had any truth.

As regards Pearce, nobody in his own time seems to have had the least interest in his sexual orientation, so that issue doesn't arise. But in terms of his own psychological and social development, you could argue that his sexual orientation, in the context of his time and culture, might have influenced his personal development, his life choices, and perhaps even his views on matters such as education, the role of women in society (or in the Republican movement), etc, etc. This would all have to be speculative, of course, since we can't actually know what his sexual orientation was, but that doesn't mean that it's irrelevant or worthless. Just that any conclusions we might draw would have to be pretty tentative and provisional.

But, yeah, it's undoubtedly true that we are preoccupied by questions of sexuality and sexual orientation in ways that earlier, supposedly less progressive, generations were not. One element of this, particularly in relation to homosexuality, is that the gay community was until recently fairly marginalised and alienated, and there is advantage to them in identifying well-regarded figures from the past and claiming them for the community. (It's ironic that in the past questions of Roger Casement's sexuality were raised in an attempt to denigrate him, whereas nowadays such questions are more likely to be raised in an attempt to elevate the gay community.)
Peregrinus is offline  
26-06-2019, 10:58   #30
pedroeibar1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisJ84 View Post
To my mind, the question of Pearse's (or William III's) sexuality is pretty irrelevant (unless or course you want to weaponise it for one reason or another). .........historians of the future will look back and wonder why we were so obsessed by these questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del.Monte View Post
In fairness, it's only the lunatic fringe with an agenda that have any interest (?) in topics like this.
Agreed. Where does it stop? For e.g. there was that guy who permanently wandered around with 12 mates and never married (and he died believing his mother was a virgin!)
pedroeibar1 is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet