William Wallace and Edward III
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
David Webb
William Wallace and Edward III
Hello. I watched the film Braveheart tonight. Is there any truth to the
story that William Wallace, not Edward II, was the real father of Edward
III?
story that William Wallace, not Edward II, was the real father of Edward
III?
-
Gjest
Re: William Wallace and Edward III
Dear David,
A short answer - no.
A slightly longer answer:
Absolutely not. William Wallace was executed in August 1305.
Edward III was born on 13 Nov 1312.
That being said, the movie itself, with all its historical (and
obvious genealogical) flaws, is quite entertaining. A shame that the
'follow-up' movie ('Robert the Bruce') some years later suffered from
some of the same inability to put interesting historical facts into the
script on a regular basis.
Cheers,
John
David Webb wrote:
A short answer - no.
A slightly longer answer:
Absolutely not. William Wallace was executed in August 1305.
Edward III was born on 13 Nov 1312.
That being said, the movie itself, with all its historical (and
obvious genealogical) flaws, is quite entertaining. A shame that the
'follow-up' movie ('Robert the Bruce') some years later suffered from
some of the same inability to put interesting historical facts into the
script on a regular basis.
Cheers,
John
David Webb wrote:
Hello. I watched the film Braveheart tonight. Is there any truth to
the
story that William Wallace, not Edward II, was the real father of
Edward
III?
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
Not a GRAIN of truth.
GREAT FILM BRAVEHEART -- The Scottish National Myth -- But Lots Of
Poetic License taken.
Edward II probably did prefer boys -- but probably "did his duty" and
fathered several children too.
Edward III certainly thought Edward II was his father and did a good job
of avenging him.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:H_eNd.24981$B8.24309@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Hello. I watched the film Braveheart tonight. Is there any truth to
| the story that William Wallace, not Edward II, was the real father
| of Edward III?
GREAT FILM BRAVEHEART -- The Scottish National Myth -- But Lots Of
Poetic License taken.
Edward II probably did prefer boys -- but probably "did his duty" and
fathered several children too.
Edward III certainly thought Edward II was his father and did a good job
of avenging him.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:H_eNd.24981$B8.24309@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Hello. I watched the film Braveheart tonight. Is there any truth to
| the story that William Wallace, not Edward II, was the real father
| of Edward III?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smfNd.36$Df3.1156@eagle.america.net...
What is the evidence for this? Writing of a "probability" that he fathered
several children is a peculiar way to desribe his recorded family. Edward II
also had one illegitimate son that we know of, which tends to counter the
popular notion about his sexual proclivities.
Peter Stewart
news:smfNd.36$Df3.1156@eagle.america.net...
Not a GRAIN of truth.
GREAT FILM BRAVEHEART -- The Scottish National Myth -- But Lots Of
Poetic License taken.
Edward II probably did prefer boys -- but probably "did his duty" and
fathered several children too.
What is the evidence for this? Writing of a "probability" that he fathered
several children is a peculiar way to desribe his recorded family. Edward II
also had one illegitimate son that we know of, which tends to counter the
popular notion about his sexual proclivities.
Peter Stewart
-
David Webb
Re: William Wallace and Edward III
I am sorry! I should have checked the dates before posting!
<therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107656822.282904.123040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107656822.282904.123040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dear David,
A short answer - no.
A slightly longer answer:
Absolutely not. William Wallace was executed in August 1305.
Edward III was born on 13 Nov 1312.
That being said, the movie itself, with all its historical (and
obvious genealogical) flaws, is quite entertaining. A shame that the
'follow-up' movie ('Robert the Bruce') some years later suffered from
some of the same inability to put interesting historical facts into the
script on a regular basis.
Cheers,
John
David Webb wrote:
Hello. I watched the film Braveheart tonight. Is there any truth to
the
story that William Wallace, not Edward II, was the real father of
Edward
III?
-
David Webb
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
Who was Edward II's illegitimate son?
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:RAfNd.149186$K7.18835@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:RAfNd.149186$K7.18835@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smfNd.36$Df3.1156@eagle.america.net...
Not a GRAIN of truth.
GREAT FILM BRAVEHEART -- The Scottish National Myth -- But Lots Of
Poetic License taken.
Edward II probably did prefer boys -- but probably "did his duty" and
fathered several children too.
What is the evidence for this? Writing of a "probability" that he fathered
several children is a peculiar way to desribe his recorded family. Edward
II
also had one illegitimate son that we know of, which tends to counter the
popular notion about his sexual proclivities.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
"Adam" -- whose mother is unknown.
Adam presumably died as a youth -- some say during the Bannockburn
Campaign in 1314.
Edward II may well have been a switch hitter -- but the preponderance of
evidence is that he was decidedly light in the loafers and limp-wristed.
So were James VI/I and perhaps William Rufus and Richard II as well.
NOT Richard I.
So Mel Gibson probably got that part right.
The "Right of the First Night" in 13th Century Scotland, _au contraire_,
is pure cinematic fantasy -- a device used to drive the plot and pull on
the viewers' emotions. It worked.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kjuNd.38491$K7.15089@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Who was Edward II's illegitimate son?
|
|
| "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
| news:RAfNd.149186$K7.18835@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| >
| > "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:smfNd.36$Df3.1156@eagle.america.net...
| > > Not a GRAIN of truth.
| > >
| > > GREAT FILM BRAVEHEART -- The Scottish National Myth -- But Lots Of
| > > Poetic License taken.
| > >
| > > Edward II probably did prefer boys -- but probably "did his duty"
| > > and fathered several children too.
Adam presumably died as a youth -- some say during the Bannockburn
Campaign in 1314.
Edward II may well have been a switch hitter -- but the preponderance of
evidence is that he was decidedly light in the loafers and limp-wristed.
So were James VI/I and perhaps William Rufus and Richard II as well.
NOT Richard I.
So Mel Gibson probably got that part right.
The "Right of the First Night" in 13th Century Scotland, _au contraire_,
is pure cinematic fantasy -- a device used to drive the plot and pull on
the viewers' emotions. It worked.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kjuNd.38491$K7.15089@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Who was Edward II's illegitimate son?
|
|
| "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
| news:RAfNd.149186$K7.18835@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| >
| > "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:smfNd.36$Df3.1156@eagle.america.net...
| > > Not a GRAIN of truth.
| > >
| > > GREAT FILM BRAVEHEART -- The Scottish National Myth -- But Lots Of
| > > Poetic License taken.
| > >
| > > Edward II probably did prefer boys -- but probably "did his duty"
| > > and fathered several children too.
-
Gjest
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
"but the preponderance of evidence is that he was decidedly light in
the loafers and limp-wristed."
Could you be more insulting? Why can't you say same-sex oriented or
something akin thereto? Why pick feminine traits to describe him? Why
not choose the Band of Thebes all of whom were same-sex lovers and
"he-men" in the modern sense of the phrase.
the loafers and limp-wristed."
Could you be more insulting? Why can't you say same-sex oriented or
something akin thereto? Why pick feminine traits to describe him? Why
not choose the Band of Thebes all of whom were same-sex lovers and
"he-men" in the modern sense of the phrase.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kjuNd.38491$K7.15089@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Very little is known about him - FD Blackley discussed the evidence in
'Adam, the Bastard Son of Edward II', _Bulletin of the Institute of
Historical Research_ 37 (1964).
His existence is revealed in the accounts of Roger de Waltham, keeper of the
king's wardrobe, for the period from 1 May 1322 to 19 Oct 1323, itemising a
few expenses for his needs ("Ade filio domini Regis bastardo"). He was
travelling on campaign against the Scots in 1322, under the tutelage of Hugo
Chastilloun so presumably born ca 1305/10. Nothing is known about him beyond
this time. The final item regarding him showed that he was at
Newcastle-on-Tyne on 18 September 1322, and it is assumed from the absence
of further expense records that he died shortly afterwards.
Peter Stewart
news:kjuNd.38491$K7.15089@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Who was Edward II's illegitimate son?
Very little is known about him - FD Blackley discussed the evidence in
'Adam, the Bastard Son of Edward II', _Bulletin of the Institute of
Historical Research_ 37 (1964).
His existence is revealed in the accounts of Roger de Waltham, keeper of the
king's wardrobe, for the period from 1 May 1322 to 19 Oct 1323, itemising a
few expenses for his needs ("Ade filio domini Regis bastardo"). He was
travelling on campaign against the Scots in 1322, under the tutelage of Hugo
Chastilloun so presumably born ca 1305/10. Nothing is known about him beyond
this time. The final item regarding him showed that he was at
Newcastle-on-Tyne on 18 September 1322, and it is assumed from the absence
of further expense records that he died shortly afterwards.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
<mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1107722593.087133.216630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps Spencer could tell us - for a change - exactly where he finds this
alleged "preponderance of evidence".
Peter Stewart
news:1107722593.087133.216630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"but the preponderance of evidence is that he was decidedly light in
the loafers and limp-wristed."
Could you be more insulting? Why can't you say same-sex oriented or
something akin thereto? Why pick feminine traits to describe him? Why
not choose the Band of Thebes all of whom were same-sex lovers and
"he-men" in the modern sense of the phrase.
Perhaps Spencer could tell us - for a change - exactly where he finds this
alleged "preponderance of evidence".
Peter Stewart
-
David Webb
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
What is your reason for not including Richard I in that little list?
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fIuNd.76$Df3.1398@eagle.america.net...
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fIuNd.76$Df3.1398@eagle.america.net...
"Adam" -- whose mother is unknown.
Adam presumably died as a youth -- some say during the Bannockburn
Campaign in 1314.
Edward II may well have been a switch hitter -- but the preponderance of
evidence is that he was decidedly light in the loafers and limp-wristed.
So were James VI/I and perhaps William Rufus and Richard II as well.
NOT Richard I.
So Mel Gibson probably got that part right.
The "Right of the First Night" in 13th Century Scotland, _au contraire_,
is pure cinematic fantasy -- a device used to drive the plot and pull on
the viewers' emotions. It worked.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kjuNd.38491$K7.15089@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Who was Edward II's illegitimate son?
|
|
| "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
| news:RAfNd.149186$K7.18835@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| > "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:smfNd.36$Df3.1156@eagle.america.net...
| > > Not a GRAIN of truth.
|
| > > GREAT FILM BRAVEHEART -- The Scottish National Myth -- But Lots Of
| > > Poetic License taken.
|
| > > Edward II probably did prefer boys -- but probably "did his duty"
| > > and fathered several children too.
-
David Webb
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
Why should he pander to you?
<mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1107722593.087133.216630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1107722593.087133.216630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"but the preponderance of evidence is that he was decidedly light in
the loafers and limp-wristed."
Could you be more insulting? Why can't you say same-sex oriented or
something akin thereto? Why pick feminine traits to describe him? Why
not choose the Band of Thebes all of whom were same-sex lovers and
"he-men" in the modern sense of the phrase.
-
Gjest
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
There are two contemporary things for Edward II: Chronicle of Mesla
and Geoffrey le Baker, "Chronicon Angliae temporibus Edwardi II et
Edwardi III." From Mesla we have "ipse quidem Edwardus in vitio
sodomitico nimium delectabat, et fortuna ac gratia omni suo tempore
carere videbatur" (Thomas of Burton from Chronica monasterii de Melsa,
ed. Edward Bond, London, 1867, 2:355). Translation from Boswell:
"Edward in fact delighted inordinately in the vice of sodomy and seemed
to lack fortune and grace throughout his life." There are many other
things that can be quoted as well. You can debate some historical
figures' sexuality, but Edward II's is a slam dunk.
and Geoffrey le Baker, "Chronicon Angliae temporibus Edwardi II et
Edwardi III." From Mesla we have "ipse quidem Edwardus in vitio
sodomitico nimium delectabat, et fortuna ac gratia omni suo tempore
carere videbatur" (Thomas of Burton from Chronica monasterii de Melsa,
ed. Edward Bond, London, 1867, 2:355). Translation from Boswell:
"Edward in fact delighted inordinately in the vice of sodomy and seemed
to lack fortune and grace throughout his life." There are many other
things that can be quoted as well. You can debate some historical
figures' sexuality, but Edward II's is a slam dunk.
-
Gjest
Re: William Wallace and Edward III
Dear Newsgroup,
Even if Edward II didn`t father Edward III, William
Wallace who was executed in August of 1305 couldn`t have fathered him ( Edward
III) as He wasn`t born until November of 1312. As for Mel Gibson`s fantasy `
Braveheart` ... It commences with Alwxander III`s death cited as 1280 rather
than 1286, rapidly followed by the rapacious Edward I occupying Scotland all
the Scots being disarmed by the English army and forbade to use any sort of
weapons while the Scots lords meekly played toadie and licked Longshanks` boots.
there is no way the toadiest toad would ever have countenanced that even from
the mighty Longshanks. Their Clansmen would have killed them all and
appointed new leaders. Wallace`s stint as Guardian was relatively short and the result
of adroit political manuvering while John the Red Comyn ( not even mentioned
in this movie) was away serving with Edward I in France, as were most of the
other Comyns. Gibson also failed to mention that Wallace was representing King
John Baliol, who also got no mention. I watched it once, and once was
sufficient for me.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Even if Edward II didn`t father Edward III, William
Wallace who was executed in August of 1305 couldn`t have fathered him ( Edward
III) as He wasn`t born until November of 1312. As for Mel Gibson`s fantasy `
Braveheart` ... It commences with Alwxander III`s death cited as 1280 rather
than 1286, rapidly followed by the rapacious Edward I occupying Scotland all
the Scots being disarmed by the English army and forbade to use any sort of
weapons while the Scots lords meekly played toadie and licked Longshanks` boots.
there is no way the toadiest toad would ever have countenanced that even from
the mighty Longshanks. Their Clansmen would have killed them all and
appointed new leaders. Wallace`s stint as Guardian was relatively short and the result
of adroit political manuvering while John the Red Comyn ( not even mentioned
in this movie) was away serving with Edward I in France, as were most of the
other Comyns. Gibson also failed to mention that Wallace was representing King
John Baliol, who also got no mention. I watched it once, and once was
sufficient for me.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Peter Stewart
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
<mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1107808878.260286.320010@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
That's a very odd translation of "nimium" in this context - what I wonder
would Edward Bond have supposed might be "ordinate" delight in the vice?
Plenty of kings & others have become subject to this kind of rumour: it was
even said about Howard Hughes by several of his lovers, who were all female
as far as seems to be known. You may be convinced, but unless you can find a
reliable chronicler claiming to have had personal experience, it can hardly
be called a "slam dunk".
Peter Stewart
news:1107808878.260286.320010@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There are two contemporary things for Edward II: Chronicle of Mesla
and Geoffrey le Baker, "Chronicon Angliae temporibus Edwardi II et
Edwardi III." From Mesla we have "ipse quidem Edwardus in vitio
sodomitico nimium delectabat, et fortuna ac gratia omni suo tempore
carere videbatur" (Thomas of Burton from Chronica monasterii de Melsa,
ed. Edward Bond, London, 1867, 2:355). Translation from Boswell:
"Edward in fact delighted inordinately in the vice of sodomy and seemed
to lack fortune and grace throughout his life." There are many other
things that can be quoted as well. You can debate some historical
figures' sexuality, but Edward II's is a slam dunk.
That's a very odd translation of "nimium" in this context - what I wonder
would Edward Bond have supposed might be "ordinate" delight in the vice?
Plenty of kings & others have become subject to this kind of rumour: it was
even said about Howard Hughes by several of his lovers, who were all female
as far as seems to be known. You may be convinced, but unless you can find a
reliable chronicler claiming to have had personal experience, it can hardly
be called a "slam dunk".
Peter Stewart
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: William Wallace and Edward III
At 05:50 PM 07/02/2005, you wrote:
I hate to find fault with a Cummings (whose blood runs in my veins).
However, you have a romantic view of things. I would like you to point
out which ones who signed the Ragman Roll did not lick Longshanks'
boots.
Best wishes!
Peter
Dear Newsgroup,
Even if Edward II didn`t father Edward III, William
Wallace who was executed in August of 1305 couldn`t have fathered him (
Edward
III) as He wasn`t born until November of 1312. As for Mel Gibson`s fantasy `
Braveheart` ... It commences with Alwxander III`s death cited as 1280 rather
than 1286, rapidly followed by the rapacious Edward I occupying Scotland all
the Scots being disarmed by the English army and forbade to use any sort of
weapons while the Scots lords meekly played toadie and licked Longshanks`
boots.
there is no way the toadiest toad would ever have countenanced that even from
the mighty Longshanks. Their Clansmen would have killed them all and
appointed new leaders.
I hate to find fault with a Cummings (whose blood runs in my veins).
However, you have a romantic view of things. I would like you to point
out which ones who signed the Ragman Roll did not lick Longshanks'
boots.
Best wishes!
Peter
-
Gjest
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
Good catch on the Latin. I didn't go into it, but yes the rest of the
footnote for the translation states "the use of nimium here was
probably not intended to suggest that moderation was possible in the
case of sodomy. It should be taken to imply that Edward's interest in
such activities was, in the writer's eyes, inherently inordinate--a
common use of nimium and a charactertistic objection to homosexuality
at the time."
footnote for the translation states "the use of nimium here was
probably not intended to suggest that moderation was possible in the
case of sodomy. It should be taken to imply that Edward's interest in
such activities was, in the writer's eyes, inherently inordinate--a
common use of nimium and a charactertistic objection to homosexuality
at the time."
-
Gjest
Re: William Wallace and Edward III
Dear Peter,
I don`t deny that the Comyns and others didn`t toadie up
to Edward I to the extent that They were willing to let him decide who their
King should be or give him feudal service for their english estates; merely
that the Clans would not have tolerated their lords allowing Edward I`s English
soldiers to force them to give up their arms and to kill and burn the homes of
those failing to comply. Hardly a romantic view.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I don`t deny that the Comyns and others didn`t toadie up
to Edward I to the extent that They were willing to let him decide who their
King should be or give him feudal service for their english estates; merely
that the Clans would not have tolerated their lords allowing Edward I`s English
soldiers to force them to give up their arms and to kill and burn the homes of
those failing to comply. Hardly a romantic view.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: William Wallace and Edward III
That may apply to the earlier one but not the 1296 one which
was submission.
Best wishes!
Peter
P.S. I say romantic as you seem to think that Scotland was
mostly about Clans. This was just one segment of the population.
Not all of Scotland felt the grip of Edward. The area where William
Wallace hailed had a different experience from that of the Highlands
of the north west.
At 08:03 PM 07/02/2005, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
was submission.
Best wishes!
Peter
P.S. I say romantic as you seem to think that Scotland was
mostly about Clans. This was just one segment of the population.
Not all of Scotland felt the grip of Edward. The area where William
Wallace hailed had a different experience from that of the Highlands
of the north west.
At 08:03 PM 07/02/2005, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Peter,
I don`t deny that the Comyns and others didn`t toadie up
to Edward I to the extent that They were willing to let him decide who their
King should be or give him feudal service for their english estates; merely
that the Clans would not have tolerated their lords allowing Edward I`s
English
soldiers to force them to give up their arms and to kill and burn the
homes of
those failing to comply. Hardly a romantic view.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Peter Stewart
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
"norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:42084E6C.C16BC049@san.rr.com...
That's why I said "it tends to counter...", not that it does so absolutely.
Illegitimate chilfdren are usually held to be a degree more optional for
kings than family life.
Peter Stewart
news:42084E6C.C16BC049@san.rr.com...
What is the evidence for this? Writing of a "probability" that he
fathered
several children is a peculiar way to desribe his recorded family. Edward
II
also had one illegitimate son that we know of, which tends to counter the
popular notion about his sexual proclivities.
Peter Stewart
actually, it does not as gays throughout history have had relationships
with
women to hide their preference as a matter of servival in a homophobic
society.
this includes marriage and children
That's why I said "it tends to counter...", not that it does so absolutely.
Illegitimate chilfdren are usually held to be a degree more optional for
kings than family life.
Peter Stewart
-
norenxaq
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
What is the evidence for this? Writing of a "probability" that he fathered
several children is a peculiar way to desribe his recorded family. Edward II
also had one illegitimate son that we know of, which tends to counter the
popular notion about his sexual proclivities.
Peter Stewart
actually, it does not as gays throughout history have had relationships with
women to hide their preference as a matter of servival in a homophobic society.
this includes marriage and children
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
Point Taken....
We know of HUNDREDS of such cases of "marriages of convenience" as
cover.
How about Cole Porter for starters....
Pogue Stewart does seem to carry some SPECIAL brief for homosexuals.
I wonder why?
Live and let live, I say.
But no special privileges or designated "victim" status.
Edward II was probably as queer as a three-dollar bill -- and he was a
BAD KING -- a failure -- indeed a DISASTER.
But then so was James VI/I who also seems to have been queer as a
three-dollar bill.
There is a lesson here....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:42084E6C.C16BC049@san.rr.com...
| > What is the evidence for this? Writing of a "probability" that he
fathered
| > several children is a peculiar way to desribe his recorded family.
Edward II
| > also had one illegitimate son that we know of, which tends to
counter the
| > popular notion about his sexual proclivities.
| >
| > Peter Stewart
|
| actually, it does not as gays throughout history have had
| relationships with women to hide their preference as a matter
| of survival in a homophobic society. this includes marriage
| and children.
We know of HUNDREDS of such cases of "marriages of convenience" as
cover.
How about Cole Porter for starters....
Pogue Stewart does seem to carry some SPECIAL brief for homosexuals.
I wonder why?
Live and let live, I say.
But no special privileges or designated "victim" status.
Edward II was probably as queer as a three-dollar bill -- and he was a
BAD KING -- a failure -- indeed a DISASTER.
But then so was James VI/I who also seems to have been queer as a
three-dollar bill.
There is a lesson here....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:42084E6C.C16BC049@san.rr.com...
| > What is the evidence for this? Writing of a "probability" that he
fathered
| > several children is a peculiar way to desribe his recorded family.
Edward II
| > also had one illegitimate son that we know of, which tends to
counter the
| > popular notion about his sexual proclivities.
| >
| > Peter Stewart
|
| actually, it does not as gays throughout history have had
| relationships with women to hide their preference as a matter
| of survival in a homophobic society. this includes marriage
| and children.
-
John Steele Gordon
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ga_Nd.174$Df3.2847@eagle.america.net...
Actually, Cole Porter never tried to hide the fact that he was
homosexual--at least among the café society crowd he ran with. And,
curiously, despite his endless and unconcealed dalliances with members of
the jeunesse dorée, his marriage to Linda Lee was a very successful one,
with deep affection on both sides. To be sure, it was not without the ups
and downs of any marriage (he loved Hollywood--she hated it). Perhaps it was
Cole Porter himself who expressed his relationship with his wife best: "I am
always true to you, darling in my fashion./ I am always true to you,
darling, in my way."
JSG
news:ga_Nd.174$Df3.2847@eagle.america.net...
Point Taken....
We know of HUNDREDS of such cases of "marriages of convenience" as cover.
How about Cole Porter for starters....
Actually, Cole Porter never tried to hide the fact that he was
homosexual--at least among the café society crowd he ran with. And,
curiously, despite his endless and unconcealed dalliances with members of
the jeunesse dorée, his marriage to Linda Lee was a very successful one,
with deep affection on both sides. To be sure, it was not without the ups
and downs of any marriage (he loved Hollywood--she hated it). Perhaps it was
Cole Porter himself who expressed his relationship with his wife best: "I am
always true to you, darling in my fashion./ I am always true to you,
darling, in my way."
JSG
-
Gjest
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
In a message dated 2/8/2005 12:10:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
Edward II
also had one illegitimate son that we know of, which tends to counter the
popular notion about his sexual proclivities.
Wrong Stewart, many homosexuals have children, legitimate and otherwise.
Many homosexuals used to marry in a deliberate effort to hide their malady.
Homosexuality does not make one sterile. Homosexuality is a sexual preference,
not a genetic sexing.
By the way, I have attempted to reply to several of your more inaccurate
messages on off topic subjects to the email addy you show on this site but they
are returned. In as much as it is improper to contaminate the site with Off
Topic subjects I would think that you wanted to use your personal addy as
much as possible for responses to them. Or is that you require the attention of
the entire GEN-MED members for such subjects?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
Edward II
also had one illegitimate son that we know of, which tends to counter the
popular notion about his sexual proclivities.
Wrong Stewart, many homosexuals have children, legitimate and otherwise.
Many homosexuals used to marry in a deliberate effort to hide their malady.
Homosexuality does not make one sterile. Homosexuality is a sexual preference,
not a genetic sexing.
By the way, I have attempted to reply to several of your more inaccurate
messages on off topic subjects to the email addy you show on this site but they
are returned. In as much as it is improper to contaminate the site with Off
Topic subjects I would think that you wanted to use your personal addy as
much as possible for responses to them. Or is that you require the attention of
the entire GEN-MED members for such subjects?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
True Enough.
But the GENERAL PUBLIC was fooled. That's my point.
See the white-washed Cary Grant film, now on DVD, _Night And Day_ -- and
compare it with the recent _De-Lovely_, also on DVD.
Cole Porter and Monty Woolley also had assignations with
African-American men, Monty in particular -- and they were known to have
gone on the prowl together in Harlem.
They later seem to have had a falling out over that. Cole was always a
bit of a racist and preferred buff young WASPs, particularly members of
the Armed Forces.
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:vA3Od.2628$D45.2155@fe10.lga...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:ga_Nd.174$Df3.2847@eagle.america.net...
| > Point Taken....
| >
| > We know of HUNDREDS of such cases of "marriages of convenience" as
| >cover.
| >
| > How about Cole Porter for starters....
|
| Actually, Cole Porter never tried to hide the fact that he was
| homosexual--at least among the caf$B!&(Bsociety crowd he ran with. And,
| curiously, despite his endless and unconcealed dalliances with members
of
| the jeunesse dor$BqF(B, his marriage to Linda Lee was a very successful
one,
| with deep affection on both sides. To be sure, it was not without the
ups
| and downs of any marriage (he loved Hollywood--she hated it). Perhaps
it was
| Cole Porter himself who expressed his relationship with his wife best:
"I am
| always true to you, darling in my fashion./ I am always true to you,
| darling, in my way."
|
| JSG
But the GENERAL PUBLIC was fooled. That's my point.
See the white-washed Cary Grant film, now on DVD, _Night And Day_ -- and
compare it with the recent _De-Lovely_, also on DVD.
Cole Porter and Monty Woolley also had assignations with
African-American men, Monty in particular -- and they were known to have
gone on the prowl together in Harlem.
They later seem to have had a falling out over that. Cole was always a
bit of a racist and preferred buff young WASPs, particularly members of
the Armed Forces.
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:vA3Od.2628$D45.2155@fe10.lga...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:ga_Nd.174$Df3.2847@eagle.america.net...
| > Point Taken....
| >
| > We know of HUNDREDS of such cases of "marriages of convenience" as
| >cover.
| >
| > How about Cole Porter for starters....
|
| Actually, Cole Porter never tried to hide the fact that he was
| homosexual--at least among the caf$B!&(Bsociety crowd he ran with. And,
| curiously, despite his endless and unconcealed dalliances with members
of
| the jeunesse dor$BqF(B, his marriage to Linda Lee was a very successful
one,
| with deep affection on both sides. To be sure, it was not without the
ups
| and downs of any marriage (he loved Hollywood--she hated it). Perhaps
it was
| Cole Porter himself who expressed his relationship with his wife best:
"I am
| always true to you, darling in my fashion./ I am always true to you,
| darling, in my way."
|
| JSG
-
Peter Stewart
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
<GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message news:12d.55a2bad9.2f3a4cc1@aol.com...
I have already answered this - whatever you read, I wrote "tends to ...",
which is NOT "wrong", mindful of the same point that you laboriously & quite
needlessly make.
I have made it clear before now that the e-mail address shown on my posts is
a dummy, used to avoid spam that came in a blizzard via GEN-MED at one
stage.
I don't subscribe to GEN-MED, by the way, and don't require attention from
you or anyone else. You are free to ignore my posts. You may be following
the misguided notion that these are driven by ego - perhaps you haven't
noticed that I draw attention to & admit my mistakes (not usually a sign of
uncontrolled vanity), and that I am busy defending two other people (Andrew
Lewis and John Carmi Parsons) whose interests are not bound up with mine;
the principle of capital punishment is in my view more important than
anything else discussed here, and your lack of a response to straightforward
but difficult questions on you views about it suggests that you ran out of
puff on the subject - so why resort to insults?
Peter Stewart
In a message dated 2/8/2005 12:10:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
Edward II
also had one illegitimate son that we know of, which tends to counter the
popular notion about his sexual proclivities.
Wrong Stewart, many homosexuals have children, legitimate and otherwise.
Many homosexuals used to marry in a deliberate effort to hide their
malady.
Homosexuality does not make one sterile. Homosexuality is a sexual
preference,
not a genetic sexing.
I have already answered this - whatever you read, I wrote "tends to ...",
which is NOT "wrong", mindful of the same point that you laboriously & quite
needlessly make.
By the way, I have attempted to reply to several of your more inaccurate
messages on off topic subjects to the email addy you show on this site but
they
are returned. In as much as it is improper to contaminate the site with
Off
Topic subjects I would think that you wanted to use your personal addy as
much as possible for responses to them. Or is that you require the
attention of
the entire GEN-MED members for such subjects?
I have made it clear before now that the e-mail address shown on my posts is
a dummy, used to avoid spam that came in a blizzard via GEN-MED at one
stage.
I don't subscribe to GEN-MED, by the way, and don't require attention from
you or anyone else. You are free to ignore my posts. You may be following
the misguided notion that these are driven by ego - perhaps you haven't
noticed that I draw attention to & admit my mistakes (not usually a sign of
uncontrolled vanity), and that I am busy defending two other people (Andrew
Lewis and John Carmi Parsons) whose interests are not bound up with mine;
the principle of capital punishment is in my view more important than
anything else discussed here, and your lack of a response to straightforward
but difficult questions on you views about it suggests that you ran out of
puff on the subject - so why resort to insults?
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
In a message dated 2/8/2005 4:41:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
the principle of capital punishment is in my view more important than
anything else discussed here, and your lack of a response to straightforward
but difficult questions on you views about it suggests that you ran out of
puff on the subject - so why resort to insults?
Peter Stewart
I consider that the subject of capital punishment is far off topic for this
list. I have responded to your messages at your (what I thought was)
personal email address. I will not continue to persistently force my off topic
messages to members who are not interested in such.
I have personally experienced executions of human beings and am aware of the
horror of the deed. It is necessary though because there are people in this
world at present who do not deserve to live among normal people. They are
dangerous, too dangerous to rely upon their permanent incarceration. They can
ALWAYS escape. Even the penal colonies of the past have not been able to
prevent the escape of criminals and their consequent re-entry into society. As
a tax paying, law abiding (excusing some traffic regulations) citizen who
has served his country when called upon to do so, I am entitled to protection
for myself and my family from the actions of the violent criminally inclined
people. If it requires their death to accomplish this, then that is how it
must be.
Capital punishment must NEVER be used in a sense of revenge. Revenge is a
useless aim. Execution cannot bring a murdered loved one back to life.
Thinking that it will help the survivors of the murdered person is a false premise.
All murders do not deserve capital punishment. If a person slays a person
because of the violation of a trust by the deceased then it is unlikely that
the slayer will commit the same crime again. If, however, a person slays a
person with whom he/she has no personal involvement, either monetarily or in a
personal manner, such a slayer is apt to commit the same crime if turned
loose on society. Such a criminal needs to be executed to protect the innocent
public.
I am of the opinion that the contention between you and Hines is mostly ego
and personality. I do not claim that Hines s a hale fellow well met. He is
anything but and I dropped off this list some years back because of him. He
simply loves to aggravate someone. Whether he is right or not on the subject
you two are so steamed about I have no way of knowing. I do know that it is
boring to read all of the duplicate messages and the accusatory statements
from both of you.
As I have told you before Peter, I have a lot of respect for you as a
genealogist. You are thorough and complete in your efforts to achieve truth. When
you place your personal opinions concerning capital punishment on a site
dedicated to the study of Medieval genealogy, you are far off base and should
restrain yourself.
I will not continue the discussion of capital punishment on this site and I
will not respond to any of your remarks in the future on the subject unless
you supply me with an email address whereby we can continue this off-site
without imposing our thoughts on other members.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
the principle of capital punishment is in my view more important than
anything else discussed here, and your lack of a response to straightforward
but difficult questions on you views about it suggests that you ran out of
puff on the subject - so why resort to insults?
Peter Stewart
I consider that the subject of capital punishment is far off topic for this
list. I have responded to your messages at your (what I thought was)
personal email address. I will not continue to persistently force my off topic
messages to members who are not interested in such.
I have personally experienced executions of human beings and am aware of the
horror of the deed. It is necessary though because there are people in this
world at present who do not deserve to live among normal people. They are
dangerous, too dangerous to rely upon their permanent incarceration. They can
ALWAYS escape. Even the penal colonies of the past have not been able to
prevent the escape of criminals and their consequent re-entry into society. As
a tax paying, law abiding (excusing some traffic regulations) citizen who
has served his country when called upon to do so, I am entitled to protection
for myself and my family from the actions of the violent criminally inclined
people. If it requires their death to accomplish this, then that is how it
must be.
Capital punishment must NEVER be used in a sense of revenge. Revenge is a
useless aim. Execution cannot bring a murdered loved one back to life.
Thinking that it will help the survivors of the murdered person is a false premise.
All murders do not deserve capital punishment. If a person slays a person
because of the violation of a trust by the deceased then it is unlikely that
the slayer will commit the same crime again. If, however, a person slays a
person with whom he/she has no personal involvement, either monetarily or in a
personal manner, such a slayer is apt to commit the same crime if turned
loose on society. Such a criminal needs to be executed to protect the innocent
public.
I am of the opinion that the contention between you and Hines is mostly ego
and personality. I do not claim that Hines s a hale fellow well met. He is
anything but and I dropped off this list some years back because of him. He
simply loves to aggravate someone. Whether he is right or not on the subject
you two are so steamed about I have no way of knowing. I do know that it is
boring to read all of the duplicate messages and the accusatory statements
from both of you.
As I have told you before Peter, I have a lot of respect for you as a
genealogist. You are thorough and complete in your efforts to achieve truth. When
you place your personal opinions concerning capital punishment on a site
dedicated to the study of Medieval genealogy, you are far off base and should
restrain yourself.
I will not continue the discussion of capital punishment on this site and I
will not respond to any of your remarks in the future on the subject unless
you supply me with an email address whereby we can continue this off-site
without imposing our thoughts on other members.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
Peter Stewart
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
Gordon Hale wrote:
<chomp>
I suspect you also fell at one stage for the absurd line of Douglas
Richardson, that Hines and I are the same person....
Yes you do - if you wanted to, you could discern this easily enough:
Spencer hasn't got a leg to stand on, he simply posted without knowing
the latest published research on the subject (which is not a crime) &
refuses to acknowledge this when pointed out to him (which is an
offense against rationality, honesty & commonsense) because this
doesn't fit with his self-image as an expert.
And it is boring to write them - I do so on the excellent precept of
one Gordon Hale, stated here not long ago, of not letting Hines get
away with his insults & nonsense.
You can change your tune or try to keep this as your exclusive preserve
if you must. As I said, I don't crave your attention & the simple
solution is not to read my posts at all, or not to read any more on a
topic where you feel I have crossed the line into what you regard as
your own territory.
Actually, there isn't all that much duplication in the exchanges with
Hines from my side - recently I have ignored his slanders & falsehoods
about my past and my mental health, for instance, to spare the
newsgroup (would you do this, Gordon?); his excessively silly jeerings
of "KAWHOMP!!!" & "KERSPLAT!!!" etc are repetitive and very
short-sighted as naturally like all of us he makes slips of his own.
Peter Stewart
<chomp>
I am of the opinion that the contention between you and Hines is
mostly ego and personality. I do not claim that Hines s a hale
fellow well met. He is anything but and I dropped off this list
some years back because of him.
I suspect you also fell at one stage for the absurd line of Douglas
Richardson, that Hines and I are the same person....
He simply loves to aggravate someone. Whether he is right or not
on the subject you two are so steamed about I have no way of
knowing.
Yes you do - if you wanted to, you could discern this easily enough:
Spencer hasn't got a leg to stand on, he simply posted without knowing
the latest published research on the subject (which is not a crime) &
refuses to acknowledge this when pointed out to him (which is an
offense against rationality, honesty & commonsense) because this
doesn't fit with his self-image as an expert.
I do know that it is boring to read all of the duplicate messages
and the accusatory statements from both of you.
And it is boring to write them - I do so on the excellent precept of
one Gordon Hale, stated here not long ago, of not letting Hines get
away with his insults & nonsense.
You can change your tune or try to keep this as your exclusive preserve
if you must. As I said, I don't crave your attention & the simple
solution is not to read my posts at all, or not to read any more on a
topic where you feel I have crossed the line into what you regard as
your own territory.
Actually, there isn't all that much duplication in the exchanges with
Hines from my side - recently I have ignored his slanders & falsehoods
about my past and my mental health, for instance, to spare the
newsgroup (would you do this, Gordon?); his excessively silly jeerings
of "KAWHOMP!!!" & "KERSPLAT!!!" etc are repetitive and very
short-sighted as naturally like all of us he makes slips of his own.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
Gordon Hale wrote:
<chomp>
I suspect you also fell at one stage for the absurd line of Douglas
Richardson, that Hines and I are the same person....
Yes you do - if you wanted to, you could discern this easily enough:
Spencer hasn't got a leg to stand on, he simply posted without knowing
the latest published research on the subject (which is not a crime) &
refuses to acknowledge this when pointed out to him (which is an
offense against rationality, honesty & commonsense) because this
doesn't fit with his self-image as an expert.
And it is boring to write them - I do so on the excellent precept of
one Gordon Hale, stated here not long ago, of not letting Hines get
away with his insults & nonsense.
You can change your tune or try to keep this as your exclusive preserve
if you must. As I said, I don't crave your attention & the simple
solution is not to read my posts at all, or not to read any more on a
topic where you feel I have crossed the line into what you regard as
your own territory.
Actually, there isn't all that much duplication in the exchanges with
Hines from my side - recently I have ignored his slanders & falsehoods
about my past and my mental health, for instance, to spare the
newsgroup (would you do this, Gordon?); his excessively silly jeerings
of "KAWHOMP!!!" & "KERSPLAT!!!" etc are repetitive and very
short-sighted as naturally like all of us he makes slips of his own.
Peter Stewart
<chomp>
I am of the opinion that the contention between you and Hines is
mostly ego and personality. I do not claim that Hines s a hale
fellow well met. He is anything but and I dropped off this list
some years back because of him.
I suspect you also fell at one stage for the absurd line of Douglas
Richardson, that Hines and I are the same person....
He simply loves to aggravate someone. Whether he is right or not
on the subject you two are so steamed about I have no way of
knowing.
Yes you do - if you wanted to, you could discern this easily enough:
Spencer hasn't got a leg to stand on, he simply posted without knowing
the latest published research on the subject (which is not a crime) &
refuses to acknowledge this when pointed out to him (which is an
offense against rationality, honesty & commonsense) because this
doesn't fit with his self-image as an expert.
I do know that it is boring to read all of the duplicate messages
and the accusatory statements from both of you.
And it is boring to write them - I do so on the excellent precept of
one Gordon Hale, stated here not long ago, of not letting Hines get
away with his insults & nonsense.
You can change your tune or try to keep this as your exclusive preserve
if you must. As I said, I don't crave your attention & the simple
solution is not to read my posts at all, or not to read any more on a
topic where you feel I have crossed the line into what you regard as
your own territory.
Actually, there isn't all that much duplication in the exchanges with
Hines from my side - recently I have ignored his slanders & falsehoods
about my past and my mental health, for instance, to spare the
newsgroup (would you do this, Gordon?); his excessively silly jeerings
of "KAWHOMP!!!" & "KERSPLAT!!!" etc are repetitive and very
short-sighted as naturally like all of us he makes slips of his own.
Peter Stewart
-
joy mceldowney
Re: William Wallace And Edward III
----- Original Message -----
From: John Steele Gordon
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: William Wallace And Edward III
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ga_Nd.174$Df3.2847@eagle.america.net...
Actually, Cole Porter never tried to hide the fact that he was
homosexual--at least among the café society crowd he ran with. And,
curiously, despite his endless and unconcealed dalliances with members of
the jeunesse dorée, his marriage to Linda Lee was a very successful one,
with deep affection on both sides. To be sure, it was not without the ups
and downs of any marriage (he loved Hollywood--she hated it). Perhaps it was
Cole Porter himself who expressed his relationship with his wife best: "I am
always true to you, darling in my fashion./ I am always true to you,
darling, in my way."
JSG
_What about the King of Denmark for 'finishers?' Doesn't care who knows. He has children. Lives in France. It's an open book. The whole story came out when his eldest son recently got married to that beautiful Tasmanian-Scot! (Her dad, looking magnificent in his kilt, made up for anything the king may have lacked!)
JEMcE
Tasmania, Australia!
_____________________________
From: John Steele Gordon
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: William Wallace And Edward III
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ga_Nd.174$Df3.2847@eagle.america.net...
Point Taken....
We know of HUNDREDS of such cases of "marriages of convenience" as cover.
How about Cole Porter for starters....
Actually, Cole Porter never tried to hide the fact that he was
homosexual--at least among the café society crowd he ran with. And,
curiously, despite his endless and unconcealed dalliances with members of
the jeunesse dorée, his marriage to Linda Lee was a very successful one,
with deep affection on both sides. To be sure, it was not without the ups
and downs of any marriage (he loved Hollywood--she hated it). Perhaps it was
Cole Porter himself who expressed his relationship with his wife best: "I am
always true to you, darling in my fashion./ I am always true to you,
darling, in my way."
JSG
_What about the King of Denmark for 'finishers?' Doesn't care who knows. He has children. Lives in France. It's an open book. The whole story came out when his eldest son recently got married to that beautiful Tasmanian-Scot! (Her dad, looking magnificent in his kilt, made up for anything the king may have lacked!)
JEMcE
Tasmania, Australia!
_____________________________