Entry taken from the book The Plantagenets
Although in general the comments I receive on the blog and on the page are positive and when they raise discrepancies about what I write they do so with respect and healthy criticism ( which I always appreciate) sometimes I find some opinion that is limited to disqualifying the specific entry simply because the subject (and sometimes even the country that the article is about) are not to the liking of the person who writes. Many times these types of comments are accompanied by opinions on the matter based on commonplaces or qualifications that are taken for granted without going deeper. Recently I have found several comments of this style related to Ricardo Corazón de León and his, for those who write about it, evident homosexuality.
It is not that the fact that the English king was or was not homosexual is of greater importance, nor do I want to assess that this circumstance stands out to try to discredit the character, but I believe that happily asserting the sexual preferences of a person who lived more than eight centuries ago without proof is, to say the least, daring. And this has led me to write this entry, to try to unravel the arguments for and against this theory.
In this sense, it is striking that until 1948 there is practically no reference to Ricardo's homosexuality, a theory that began to spread from then on. The first element that is cited to argue in this regard is the initial reluctance and the final refusal to marry Aelis, the sister of the king of France Philip Augustus, with whom he was engaged since they were both children. However, this rejection seems to have more to do with personal reasons against Aelis than with causes related to Ricardo's sexual preferences. Aelis, after being promised to Richard, was handed over to the custody of King Henry II of England, Richard's father. Although she was still a child, it was an open secret at court that Henry had had sexual relations with her, and there was also a widespread rumor that the couple had had a child. It was, therefore, understandable that Ricardo was reluctant to consummate their union and if it took him so long to officially communicate her decision, it was because of its political implications, since the bride's dowry included strategic territories such as the Vexin.
Ricardo's relationship with his wife Berenguela de Navarra offers more doubts. The delay in getting married can be explained by the time it took to break the engagement with Aelis without this implying a serious crisis with France. As for the theory according to which it was his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine who chose Berengaria as Richard's wife and who forced him to marry, it is a generally accepted thesis, but although there is only one source that speaks of the existence of a love story, that source is very authoritative; it is LÉstoire de la guerre sainte, written by a man named Ambroise who accompanied Richard on the crusades. What does seem more indicative is the fact that both on the way to and from the Holy Land and after their wedding in Limassol, the couple traveled on different ships and that after the crusades they did not usually live together either and she was not present at Richard's second coronation after his captivity. Less important seems to me the fact that Berengaria was the only queen of England who never set foot on English soil, because Richard himself only spent three months of his eight years of marriage in the British Isles. It seems clear that there was no affection between them, but it cannot be confirmed whether it was due to Ricardo's homosexuality or to a lack of attraction towards Berengaria.
There is also talk that at the party after Ricardo's coronation no access to women. However, some point out, it was not so much a prohibition but an ancient custom of the Breton court in which certain celebrations were carried out in separate ceremonies for men and women and that Ricardo recovered from the Arthurian era. In the same ceremony the presence of Jews was also prohibited and both one decision and another seem to have come directly from Ricardo. This does seem to be a symptom of misogyny, but not necessarily homosexuality.
The most used argument to speak of Richard's homosexuality is based on contemporary sources that speak of his meetings with Philip Augustus of France, according to which during the peace negotiations « both ate every day at the same table, on the same plate and at night the bed did not separate them. The King of France loved him as his soul; and they loved each other so much that, because of the intensity of this affection that existed between them, the Lord King of England, perplexed with astonishment, wondered what that meant. As a precaution about what might come, he postponed his decision to return to England until he could find out what such sudden love meant »,
To a modern reader this paragraph by Roger de Hoveden seems to clearly allude to a homosexual relationship. but Hoveden wrote in the twelfth century; at that time it was not possible to speak so openly about two kings committing an act as persecuted then as sodomy. Sharing the table or the bed did not have the same connotation then as it does today. Rather, it is possible that Hoveden's comment referred as poetic license to a proper camaraderie among warlords of the time. Thus, when there was talk of a reconciliation between Ricardo's father and older brother, both named Enrique, another chronicler of the time (Matthew Paris) pointed out that father and son "every day ate at the same table and enjoyed themselves in the same bed of the calm rest of the night».
Two public ceremonies are also cited in which Richard underwent atonement for his terrible sins upon realizing the "repulsive ugliness" of his existence and that "the bushes thorns of libido" had invaded his spirit. That the sin for which Ricardo underwent a penance that included flagellation was of a sexual nature seems evident. Being the son of Henry II, whose constant adulteries (and even pedophilia) had not merited excessive public reproaches, it is possible that the horrible sin committed by Ricardo was sodomy. This seems to be indicated by the second penance ceremony carried out by the king in 1195 in which a hermit reminds him of the destruction of Sodom and urges him to "refrain from illicit acts" and to reconcile with his wife, with whom he had not lain for a long time. .
Here the two fonts used for the writing of this entry differ. John Gullihgham argues that in most biblical passages that speak of the destruction of Sodom, there is no reference to homosexuality. Jean Flori does consider that the mention of Sodom is an express indication of homosexual practices, since there are other references in the Bible if Ricardo's sinful sexual practice was adultery. What both authors agree on is that there are many examples in which the English king caused a scandal due to his passion for married women or nuns (there is even the anecdote according to which on his deathbed he kept asking women to be brought to him) . Guillingham sees in this proof of Ricardo's non-homosexuality, while for Flori it would be proof of lasciviousness and even bisexuality.
As I said at the beginning, it is highly complicated to pronounce on the sexual preferences of a monarch who has died more than 800 years old and in any case, this would not make his historical figure less fascinating and terrible. What does not seem correct is to simply take for granted the legend of Ricardo's homosexuality, just as it is not correct to admit other commonplaces about him as the absolute truth, such as that he did not speak English... but that is another story.
Image| Author archive.