Why do we see Richard the First as such a great monarch? He spent barely any time in England and it is very likely that he was a homosexual. It is true that he was a great battle leader, but he used his talent in the Holy Land.
We see him as a great British monarch - his statue is outside the House of Commons and in most Robin Hood movies he comes and saves the day from John.
So why, out of all the British monarch's do we love him so much? Is it just the era in which he lived, the fact that he fought for a Christian cause, or the fact that he was such a great battle leader?
I'd like to hear your thoughts.
My cellmates are killers, they make me do push-ups in drag...
Personally i've never been a big fan of Richard. Ten year reign, spent ten months in the country. Population taxed to death to fund a crusdade that was always likly to fail, and then again to free him from captivity. That said he was what the medieval populace expected a king to be i.e. a war leader, and the only English monarch to crusade in the holy land its not surprising that future generations hailed him as a great King.
Like all great leaders he was an excellent speaker and knew which buttons to press to gain support true he may have taxed the population heavily for the crusades but at the time people were deeply religious and if the pope orders the re-taking of the holy lands they are not exactly going to ignore him. Just think back to the call to arms during the first world war - It was an adventure for people who had most likely never been to another country and the same goes for Richard and his call to arms
To be honest, in our modern view Richard wasn't a great leader, for the points stated in earlier posts. But, we are not living when he did, for the Europe of the time was a far more divided region, culturally and politically.
To lead a military expedition through many hostile nations, with no secure supply route, over thousands of miles, and then go to win some major battles was an achievement in itself. And, to secure a important agreement over pilgrim movements with a foreign, fairly hostile leader, was even better. And, to deal with a rebellion by his brother John and Phillip Augustus, on his return, must have taken a lot of guts.
And, I concurr with the statement that Europe at the time was a lot more religious-giving him an popular excuse for long periods of abscence.
However, the taxation issue, and his incarceration, do show that he was not a perfect king, even reckless at times.
Therefore, I would suggest that we give more credit to those kings like Alfred, who achieved more for our country and with longer-lasting effects (if I'm not mistaken, the agreement was cancelled with the invasion of another Islamic power-please correct me on this one).
I think he is so popular in this country as he is often represented as the ideal Christian monarch, a fair point if his short temper and suspected homosexuality are conviently not quoted (nothing wrong with homosexuals, I've got some great mates who are gay-just for the PC brigade )
Yes, I know he was a great leader at the time, but why we do we STILL see him as a great leader? Is it because our ancestors thought so> Or have we picked up on this feeling and used him as the pinnacle of our romantic image of Medieval times.
Whenever people think of the Medievil period, they think of him - why? Why not Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine, or John and the Magna Carta?
Is it just that despite his flaws we still see the great military leader who goes into the Holy Land to fight for the Christians?
My cellmates are killers, they make me do push-ups in drag...
Richard the First has retained in our memories due to his popularity of the time, his father was highly disliked for his policies, and so was his brother john. Richard has maintained this stance because at the time he embodied every thing a good King should, he went on crusade something his father backed out of. His rival saldin, the Islamic Sultan repected Richard as a good commander, and the Pope lavished popular paise on him.
However our notion of Richard does not come from his contemparies but from the Victorians, during the reign of Queen Victoria the Historians re-wrote history effectivly and due to the many battles and wars that Britian was involved in Richard was held up as a good Christian King because of his Military succsess. and so that is why i believe that Richard is considered more popular, because of the Victorian manipulation of the facts, and there romatisisation of all that is medevil.
Yes Richard is considered Homosexual it comes from various sources all non confirmed but the greatest being that when traveling to the holy land he went to chuch i belive either in sciliy or Cyprus and confesed to his homosexual acts, however non of these are confirmed and he did have a wife.
As a matter of fact, the only reference to his supposed homosexuality was that he once shared a bed with Phillip Augustus. At the time, however, this was a sign of peace and friendship, not a sexual act. Along with the kisses of peace to cement an alliance between kings, this seems to be misinterpreted nowadays.
On the matter of why Richard is so highly regarded even today, I think that as the public only remembers the most stated deeds (and his nickname), they construct an almost perfect opinion of him without due knowledge of the time. I agree with Nathan-the Victorians, in their quest to create a magical, Christian, generally spellbinding period in time to contrast to, and give a history of their own, exaggerate the deeds that fit their ideas, and thrust those aside that don't.
Originally posted by AElfstan Egbertsson: As a matter of fact, the only reference to his supposed homosexuality was that he once shared a bed with Phillip Augustus.
Well, and his 'minstrel' Blondel
My cellmates are killers, they make me do push-ups in drag...
[/QUOTE]Do you see his possible homosexuality as a problem then?[/QUOTE]
No, I have no problem with homosexuality, but in the past it has been very much frowned upon, so I was just speculating at how his great image remained intact during these periods.
My cellmates are killers, they make me do push-ups in drag...
well i find it intresting that the homosexuality of Riuchard has been frowned upon in particular as at the time with in most Christian Kingdoms homosexuality was not illigal however it could be tried by the church but by very dubiuos means, and the process meant that witness who took part in the act came forth. as far as i think homosexuality in England was not made illigal until Henry VIII.
ANd Kate i think that Richard's reputation was not in tatters due to this but however historians most probably left this delicate piece of information out, the same happened with James I and it was not until the hanivian line took power that people really started to write about his homosexuality, although i think some contemparies to bring like to him sharing his bed with some men. so it is not until now that we really can look at Richard with clear eyes.
Surely you mean adulate, not emulate? In my dictionary to emulate means to imitate or take after. Surely we don't all want to sleep with members of our own sex, go to the Middle East, kill a lot of Muslims, get arrested and thrown into prison on the way back, wait until our boyfriend comes to find us and finish up with a crossbow bolt in the chest, or am I wrong?
well allen some of us do want to sleep with the same sex!
and you do have a hostile tone to your conversation, but well may have just taken that the wrong way. AND THAT IS A SLIGHTLY WARPED VIEW OF THIS TIME, HOWEVER HAS NOT OUR GOVT AND U.S JUST GONE AND KILLED LOADS OF MUSLIMS. but weather it was the wrong word or not look no one has written about emulating Richard. and take into account learning disabilities as i read when looking through i saw it as praise not to copy, so come on give Kate a break she has come up with a great topic.
I'm sure you're right but I was merely trying to inject a little irony into the discussion and obviously failing miserably. Whilst you may attempt to draw an analogy betwen President Bush & Mr Blair and Richard I & Phillip Augustus I think it would be rather far-fetched as I have not come across a single commentator, even the most unfavourable one, who has suggested that the Coalition's objective is the restoration of Jerusalem to Christian control which was the goal of the Third Crusade but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, have a good holiday!
If I'm right, the purpose of the Third Crusade was to attempt the recovery of the Crusader states, and the reinstation of certain rights for pilgrims that had been denied by a takeover of the Holy Land by Nureddin (I'm really an Anglo-Saxon guy, please correct me if I'm wrong), not specifically the recovery of Jerusalem (although this would be the traditional eventual destination ,in accordance with the crusade=pilgrimage idea).
Originally posted by AElfstan Egbertsson: If I'm right, the purpose of the Third Crusade was to attempt the recovery of the Crusader states, and the reinstation of certain rights for pilgrims that had been denied by a takeover of the Holy Land by Nureddin (I'm really an Anglo-Saxon guy, please correct me if I'm wrong), not specifically the recovery of Jerusalem (although this would be the traditional eventual destination ,in accordance with the crusade=pilgrimage idea).
Saladin had captured Jerusalem, dethroning the Christian king, after the Batlle of Hattin in 1187. Pope Gregory VIII called for a new Crusade to recover the Holy Land & Jerusalem in Mainz Cathedral in 1188. The Crusader Kingdoms (mainly modern-day Syria & Lebanon) were certainly threatened by Saladin but the chief objective was the recovery of Jerusalem:
so come on give Kate a break she has come up with a great topic.
am off for Easter be back in two weeks.
Thanks! Yeah, sorry I´ve been so long in replying, I´m in Spain on an exchange (always trying to further my academic skills, not that it´s really worked!) and there hasn´t been internet.
Thanks Nathan, for defending "my corner" while I was away. Well, I´ll post a bit more seriously on Thursaday, when i´m back in rainy England and able to actually think.
My cellmates are killers, they make me do push-ups in drag...
)
