Mary Rose Museum's Queer Lense

Let's face it, even if I had written it myself, brain power wouldn't have been needed.

It is the sort of stuff that people keen to queer Stonehenge would come out with, be honest. AKA Random Generated Gobbledegook.

Ooof, that really is embarrassingly bad.

Cringey.

I hope that was ChatGPT and you didn’t waste actual brain power writing that!

I wouldn't mind seeing Stonehenge queered for example

British Museum had a Stonehenge exhibition a couple of years posit the idea that shamans and religious figures might have been gender fluid; which they might have been, but gender of its priests is not what makes Stonehenge so fascinating. For me, anyway.

Stonehenge, the iconic prehistoric monument located on the Salisbury Plain in England, holds a unique place in the annals of queer history, not because of its original purpose or construction, but rather due to its symbolic resonance and its role in contemporary celebrations of diversity and inclusion.

Stonehenge itself was built by Neolithic and Bronze Age communities over a span of centuries, with the most significant construction occurring around 2500 BCE. Its original purpose is still a subject of debate among archaeologists, but it is widely believed to have had ceremonial and astronomical significance, possibly serving as a site for religious rituals and observance of celestial events.

In the context of queer history, Stonehenge's enduring presence has lent itself to various interpretations and connections. Its timeless and enigmatic nature has attracted LGBTQ+ individuals and communities seeking spaces of belonging and connection. The site's mysterious history, marked by the efforts of ancient societies to gather and celebrate, can be seen as a metaphor for the contemporary queer experience – a shared pursuit of identity and unity in the face of adversity.

In more recent years, Stonehenge has become a venue for LGBTQ+ gatherings and celebrations. The Summer Solstice, a significant event at Stonehenge, has drawn LGBTQ+ individuals from around the world to partake in the festivities. This convergence of ancient and modern, historical and contemporary, serves as a powerful reminder of the resilience and strength of the LGBTQ+ community.
Moreover, Stonehenge's enduring symbolism as a monument that transcends time and societal boundaries can be seen as a metaphor for the fluidity and diversity of sexual orientations and gender identities. Just as the stones of Stonehenge have stood through the ages, enduring change and upheaval, so too have LGBTQ+ individuals forged a path of acceptance and understanding in a world that has not always been accommodating.

In conclusion, Stonehenge's significance in queer history lies not in its construction or original purpose, but in the powerful ways it has been embraced as a symbol of unity, identity, and inclusion by LGBTQ+ communities. Its magnetic pull, both as an ancient monument and as a modern gathering place, reminds us of the importance of connecting with our past while also forging a path towards a more inclusive and accepting future.

😂

Oh I'm not saying that Henry thought he was a bad husband. He seemed to have taken the view that when he had to remove anyone from his life (wives or advisers or friends) it was because someone else was at fault. He'd barely had Cromwell executed before he was bemoaning that his councillors had lost him the best advisor he'd ever had. He had this ability to completely cut people off and then blame everyone else around him.

He was, apparently, an absolute joke among his fellow monarchs for his marital history. Who can blame them?

Looking forward to more history queering actually.

I wouldn't mind seeing Stonehenge queered for example.

I'd disagree with that @MrsDanversGlidesAgain. I don't think Henry thought he was anything other than good to his wives. If God indicated they shouldn't have married, or if they committed adultery, there were consequences of those things. But look how he treated Anne of Cleves.

BTW I'm not saying I agree... but I think H would be genuinely shocked that anyone would equate him with a wife torturer.

You'd have thought that if they had wanted to get to Lord Hungerford himself, they could have done something with the fact he imprisoned his wife, starved her, reduced her to drinking urine, and (according to her) tried to poison her. Horrible man, even compared with some of his equally horrible contemporaries

Including the Duke of Norfolk, rumoured to have allowed his mistress and her friends to beat up his wife. Hungerford's behaviour to his wife was probably seen as man keeping recalcitrant wife under control. Let's face it, Henry VIII wasn't exactly in a good position to start moralising about how people should treat their wives.

You'd have thought that if they had wanted to get to Lord Hungerford himself, they could have done something with the fact he imprisoned his wife, starved her, reduced her to drinking urine, and (according to her) tried to poison her. Horrible man, even compared with some of his equally horrible contemporaries.

I visited the Mary Rose last month and didn't come notice any of this interpretation in the museum. The exhibits are those that have been there a few years with the addition of the 4D dive experience and a video about earlier attempts to recover the ship. It is usually a very good museum.

I mean here is well know gender fluid icon Oliver Cromwell sporting longer hair than I have had in years.

Well indeed or the Mediveal/Tudor convention that women, once married, should wear their hair tied back and/or covered.

Or the fuss that came about when women in the Twenties cut their hair short after WW1 but by the time of WW2 women wearing their hair short and permed was common place (see how the Queen wore her hair for pretty much her whole life)

What about the Stuart and Georgian custom of both sexes of shaving their hair and wearing elaborate wigs in its place?

What came to my mind was how shaving women's hair has been used as a form of public shaming in the past. I don't know if this was done during the Tudor era, but certainly after WWII in France to women who were suspected of having cooperated with the Germans. And I am pretty certain that women in the Tudor era had very little choice about how long their hair was etc.

I am much more interested in what happened in the recent past to remove the 'queering' that was done in the 1970s-1990s where men could have long hair and wear lace and velvet and makeup and still remain men, while women could wear ties (gulp!) and shave their heads and still remain women. When did this all change? When did this implicit assumption of rigid gender roles and rules return?

And why?

As an aside, my family has an old nit comb as a historical memento from past ancestors.

It's quite short, made out of bone, two-sided, with a dense side and a more comb-like side, and has lovely patterning on the spine. I remember using it on my teddy bear when I was tiny.

queering nits

My first thought on reading this was, “Do nits have a gender identity?”!

@Richelieu I may adopt 'queering nits' as my exclamation when confronted with this kind of stuff in future.

Someone on Twitter pointed out that they missed an opportunity to point out the intense heteronormativity of enormous cannons being rammed into holes on Tudor warships.

Thing is - I wouldn't mind if the blog wasn't so banal. I love hearing more about unrecorded lives. However "here is a nit comb, it was used by sailors to keep their hair clean of nits, hair and how it is styled is important to the identities of Queer people" is actually pretty offensive in how stupid and banal an observation it is.

Hair and hair styles were and are very very important to the identities (religious, social, sexual, cultural) to many many people in the past and now - it is not something that is unique to queer people.

Thanks everybody for being so witty (as ever) and helping to obscure the utter bloody insanity of all this.

Joking apart, though - ‘queering’ museums and galleries is very much a Thing. There’s a massive, massive push to do this, driven by some very determined people. There’s a UK-wide ‘Queer Heritage and Collections Network’ which trains, networks and generally enables the kind of thing we see at the Mary Rose (‘queering nits’ etc). The University of Leicester and in particular Professor Richard Sandell are big cheerleaders of all this.

It is baffling how many people don't seem to understand the concept that whilst many people in the past would have had fulfilling emotional and sexual lives with their husband or wife, for many - particularly those from aristocratic cricles - heterosexual marriage was seen as a religious and family duty - regardless of their own sexuality.

People did not rely on one long term relationship for emotional and sexual fulfillment. There was probably more acceptance of deep emotional, long term same sex bonds and youthful homosexual relationships than we give the past credit for. However the legal marriage was that the relationships that mattered in law so was the one that was recorded and recognised.

There's a glimmer of something more professional interesting in the Paternoster paragraph, I agree. Though the sentence 'many of the crew would have been practising Christians' in a Tudor context just seems... tin-eared. The trouble is it leads me to think about whether there was a chaplain on board (and whether he was called a chaplain), evidence of what areas of the country the sailors came from and how they and their families navigated the religious conflicts of the era, whether the Paternosters were designed for less literate people and what evidence there would be for the crew's literacy, whether they made the Paternosters themselves and what from. Rather than whether they considered themselves part of a sexual minority despite the fact the concept of sexual minorities is entirely modern.

Chat GPT is relatively sensible on the question of queer sailors on the Mary Rose:

During the time of the Mary Rose (16th century), the concept of sexual orientation and the modern understanding of terms like "queer" were not recognized or discussed in the same way as they are today. People in that era did not have the same understanding of diverse sexual orientations and identities as we do now. As a result, it's important to approach the topic with historical context in mind.

However, it is known that relationships and behaviors that might be considered non-normative by today's standards did exist among individuals in history. This includes same-sex relationships, although they were often not discussed openly or documented extensively.

On the Mary Rose, as on other ships of the time, sailors lived in close quarters and formed strong bonds due to the challenging and communal nature of their work. Men spent long periods away from home and their families, and these close relationships might have taken on emotional and supportive roles that went beyond just professional camaraderie.

While it is possible that same-sex relationships or experiences occurred among the crew of the Mary Rose, historical records from that time are often sparse and vague on such matters. Any insights we have into the personal lives of sailors on the Mary Rose or other ships of that era are limited.

It's also important to note that cultural and social norms surrounding relationships, gender roles, and identity were significantly different from contemporary times. The concept of sexual orientation as we understand it today did not exist, and historical sources do not provide a comprehensive view of how individuals may have personally identified or expressed their attractions.

In summary, while we cannot definitively state how queer sailors specifically lived on the Mary Rose, we can acknowledge that relationships and experiences among sailors were influenced by the social and cultural context of the time. It's important to approach historical discussions with sensitivity to the limitations of our understanding and the lack of direct documentation regarding non-normative sexual orientations or identities during the 16th century.

It’s such a basic tenet of the study of history: do not superimpose modern ideas &/or mores onto the past.

Quite. This nonsense is everywhere. I went to the Hogarth exhibition a couple of years ago at the Tate which was excellent, barring some information panels that I can only assume were shoe-horned in by the EDI co-ordinator and/or the work experience kid. There was reference to some of the items in the painting and where they'd come from, and that their production could potentially have been linked to slavery.

Honestly, I fully recognise that that the era in which Hogarth painted was the one in which the second phase of the transatlantic slave trade was at its height and I'm all for highlighting the impact of slavery where appropriate but this clunked so much it drowned out conversation.

Other panels were modern artists' views on the subject matter and so on JUST TELL ME ABOUT THE BLOODY PAINTING.

Ah right, that confirms it. Museums are using ChatGPT to write captions. OR, AI has infiltrated some people's brains to the point they can't write normal straightforward English.

Who knew about the bananas, though....😦