Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
8:47 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Rant time – sorry!
Twice recently I’ve been accused of bigotry/homophobia because I argue that there is no evidence that George Boleyn was homosexual or bisexual. One person took offence because I wrote in an article that “It is rather sad that a gift between friends can be seen in this way” with regards to George lending Smeaton a book being used by Warnicke as evidence that they were involved sexually. The person said that they thought it was “rather sad” that I could see George’s homosexuality as a negative. I’m astounded by that reaction.
I’m angry because I don’t see how arguing that there is no evidence to support homosexuality means that I am against homosexuality. If it is then I’m completely bigoted because I also argue against Anne being a witch, committing incest, having an extra finger and a goitre… Oh dear!
What do you think?
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
9:18 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
You don’t need to ask how I feel, Claire. I’m with you 100%.
There is no evidence of homosexuality. It’s like arguing Anne was a lesbian. It makes no sense. Some people will believe what they want to believe irrespecive of logic. There are still people who argue that the world is flat. I know it’s frustrating. It drives me to the point of insanity when you say the same things over and over again, but most people are open to logic, thank God!
9:19 am
January 9, 2010
Offline
Wow. To be accused of homophobia for pointing out George lending Mark Smeaton a book is hardly evidence of a homosexual relationship would upset me too, so rant away. And you’re right, it is sad that such a simple act is seen that way. Poor George, I guess there’s just no reasoning with some people 
10:09 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Thank you, I just feel to take my arguments and to turn them into bigotry is one giant leap.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
11:12 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
That is appalling that people have accused you of being homophobic and and a bigot, because you have just drawn a different conclusion to them using the same evidence. I am one of those people who read The Other Boelyn Girl and then hopped online to see if PG’s theories were correct and that led me to this wonderful site. Where after reading up on the history involving the George Was Gay theory and sifting through all available evidence, I have come to my own conclusion that George was not gay or bisexual.And at no point have I ever read anything here that could even be interpreted as homophobic. It makes me wonder how those people accusing you of homophobia would feel if a relative or good friend of theirs had their sexuality changed due to one person’s opinion being picked up and being published in a best selling fiction book. I’m sure they would be outraged but that wouldn’t make them a bigot, they are just defending their friend from untruths. Just like how you and Louise are trying to set the record straight on your dear friend. Saying someone isn’t gay does not mean you are homophobic. And let’s look a little bit deeper, by stating that George isn’t gay you are also removing the idea that one of the reason that George was executed was because he was gay which is itself would be a very homophobic act. Sounds like these people have their own agenda to make George a matyr for historical gays and use him to announce the Tudor era as being one big homophobic society.
2:17 pm
June 7, 2010
Offline
I guess it takes all kinds! I am not sure where some people’s logic went (or if they ever had it at all). Some people have become so entrenched into a negative way of thinking, they cannot see the forest for the trees. There is not evidence that George Boleyn was a homosexual. By asserting that point does not make any one homophobic, but simply stating the facts as they appear. I guess I shall resume banging my head against the wall.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
2:20 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
This accusation Claire is bang out of order, some people really do take the cake and the biscuit too.
Homosexual behaviour did happen back way before the Tudors were a gleam in the mead makers eye. In fact if my memory serves it wasn’t uncommon for the Romans to have a male lover until they were married, after marriage it wasn’t considered as exceptable, but personally I think it still went on but was perhaps turned a blind eye to.
Just because you have given an opinion that you don’t believe George was Gay or Bi-sexual, does not make you a homophobe.
I’m with you on this one Claire. George was not Gay or Bi-sexual.
Just put down this accusation to pig ignorance and sheer bloody mindedness..
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
2:45 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Working on this logic(and I’m using the term loosely) does that mean that if a man says he’s hetrosexual, then he’s being homophobic? Just a thought.
Oh, and, George Boleyn…….sorry, wandered off there for a minute.
3:05 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
I guess I must be a lesbian then because I gave a box of Chocolates to my neighbour for her birthday..
Jee wizz there are some bloody idiots in the world.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
4:59 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Thank you, all, it’s made me go back over my work and re-read it to try and figure out how it can be taken as bigoted. I’m just not like that.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
6:53 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Claire,
“The person said that they thought it was “rather sad” that I could see George’s homosexuality as a negative.”
This person obviously wants to believe George was a homosexual, and they have an axe to grind with you because you point out that nothing in the historical records leads to that conclusion. There is no way any of your comments could be taken as being bigoted. That’s just a bunch of nonsense. I’m going to stop writing now because I am getting angrier by the second, and I’m not sure what will come out of my mouth if I continue.
9:47 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Sorry you’re angry, Sharon. I’ve been going from being angry to being worried then back to angry. This is the second time someone has said it, so it worried me. Someone else didn’t like my use of the words “sodomy” and “buggery” in my book but then the flippin’ act was called The Buggery Act and those were the words used in the 16th century, which is what I was referring to. I think the problem comes from looking at these people with modern eyes and with our modern values.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
11:12 pm
June 7, 2010
Offline
Claire said
Sorry you’re angry, Sharon. I’ve been going from being angry to being worried then back to angry. This is the second time someone has said it, so it worried me. Someone else didn’t like my use of the words “sodomy” and “buggery” in my book but then the flippin’ act was called The Buggery Act and those were the words used in the 16th century, which is what I was referring to. I think the problem comes from looking at these people with modern eyes and with our modern values.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, Claire. People seem in capable of contextualising. The words “sodomy” and “buggery” are culturally and historically important, and they are used within this construct. When I was a grad student, and a teaching assistant, I suffered through the same lack of insight. While the discipline was anthropology, many students were incapable of seeing different cultures through a alternative lens. All I know is Claire, you are an invaluable and trustworthy source for history. Ignore those internt trolls, and hope they go back under the bridge whence they came.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
11:16 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
lets ask the Doctor to go back and change the legalese to make them feel better….
It's always bunnies.
11:33 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
DuchessofBrittany said
Claire said
Sorry you’re angry, Sharon. I’ve been going from being angry to being worried then back to angry. This is the second time someone has said it, so it worried me. Someone else didn’t like my use of the words “sodomy” and “buggery” in my book but then the flippin’ act was called The Buggery Act and those were the words used in the 16th century, which is what I was referring to. I think the problem comes from looking at these people with modern eyes and with our modern values.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, Claire. People seem in capable of contextualising. The words “sodomy” and “buggery” are culturally and historically important, and they are used within this construct. When I was a grad student, and a teaching assistant, I suffered through the same lack of insight. While the discipline was anthropology, many students were incapable of seeing different cultures through a alternative lens. All I know is Claire, you are an invaluable and trustworthy source for history. Ignore those internt trolls, and hope they go back under the bridge whence they came.
c@#t is another word which was acceptable in medeaval times. Chaucer used it in one of the Canterbury Tales and Mannox used the term in his deposition regarding Kathryn Howard.
It's always bunnies.
1:55 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Ok I am going to preface the following statement by saying that I adore Claire, and in no way think she is homophobic, so please withhold the feather dusters for a moment. And I am very sorry you got horrible emails Claire, it is not on. But this is what I think on the matter.
The use of the words “very sad” can be construed as negative by someone who is sensitive to that sort of thing. Having a best friend who is a lesbian I have endured many tellings-off over the years when I say something “incorrect” (although it is a telling off in jest but I usually get the point after I get the tongue-lashing).
Claire is of course simply being passionate about a myth created by one historian that is now constantly being perpetuated in fiction, but the people in question think Claire is annoyed people think George is gay.
And yes she is annoyed people think George is gay, but not because they think he is gay and this is a bad thing, but simply because it’s not actually correct.
Yes it gets confusing and it is very easy to innocently say something that offends someone and have your words taken out of context.
If Claire had used “very sad” in the context of George being accused of incest, rape or wife beating (which she also hates) there would be no bone to pick because it’s not socially or morally acceptable to practise any of these things.
And on another note:
Of course the myths around George that have since evolved, like him beating his wife and raping her, have probably been created by someone who views homosexuality negatively, and anyone who is homosexual and married must also beat their wife and rape her, and other women. And let’s take it further and add besti*lity to it as has recently been mentioned.
If Warnicke had in fact never come up with the theory for her thesis then he may have just been stuck with the incest stigma, but she has opened a whole can of worms. As homosexuality was seen as immoral until very recently, anyone who was homosexual 500 years ago must have been all sorts of depraved, and done everything in life in a depraved manner. Because I am not sure it says anywhere in contemporary accounts that George was accused of anything other than adultery with his sister. No mention of rape, wife-beating or besti*lity. The rest has been made by modern historians and bigoted fiction writers.
So of you’re getting my point it is easy to create very negative stereotypes when it comes to homosexuality.
1:22 pm
April 17, 2012
Offline
Well all i can say is that whomever claimed you to be anything other than enlightened and greatly educated on Tudor times and all things Anne, and indeed much else, is probably ‘very sad’ themselves. They should find better use of their time, like researching George Boleyn and the lack of contemporary evidence in primary sources and just about anything since that George Boleyn was in fact Gay. My mum’s name is Gay, and it is surprising how many people are uncomfortable when they have to say her name, but i wouldnt say that that would make those people a homophobe! I have more Gay friends than not, i was beard to my first boyfriend for 7 years, so I think i am a bit of an expert on the subject. I now have the female version of gaydar, or so i have been told by my gay friends, and upon pointing my radar, i do not see George as gay, i see him as a man who died unfairly, and got a whole bunch of negative press after his death simply to make him look guilty. And when i say him being homosexual is negative, I mean in Tudor times, when it was considered a “crime against nature” and a “mortal sin” those are not my actual words, so I don’t want anyone to claim i am bigotted, or homophobic. Anyone who says this makes me a homophobe can kiss my arse! And whomever went to the trouble of sending poor Claire an email that claims she is, can kiss my arse too. Or would kissing someone’s arse being deemed as a negative by me make me a homophobe?….. keep your chin up Claire, you are a legend in your own lifetime, something not many people can truly claim xo
1:25 pm
April 17, 2012
Offline
BTW Olga stating that her lesbian friends gave her a “tongue lashing” after she said things in front of them that they considered to be innapporpriate or homophobic made me crack up! (i mean laugh) that is hilarious! does that make me a bigot too? or just a bit of a sicko….
1:34 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Tash Wakefield said
BTW Olga stating that her lesbian friends gave her a “tongue lashing” after she said things in front of them that they considered to be innapporpriate or homophobic made me crack up! (i mean laugh) that is hilarious! does that make me a bigot too? or just a bit of a sicko….
I am very thankful that I did not have a coffee or a pepsi max in my hand when I read that, or there would have been quite a disaster here 
I’m very talented at putting my foot in my mouth
1:56 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
I can see why me saying “really sad” could be taken as offensive, out of context, but it is clear what I mean if the article is read as a whole and it is definitely a case of someone wanting to read too much into it.
I still don’t get the whole George Boleyn rapist, wife beater who may also have made Jane do sexual acts she was not happy with. Warnicke never goes that far and I can see absolutely no evidence at all for any of those claims, and, yes, if an author/historian can go from believing to George is homosexual to then assuming that he also did those things to his wife then that shows bigotry, IMHO.
I too am glad that I wasn’t drinking my glass of coke when I read Tash’s post! 😉
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
