Mary Rose Museum's Queer Lense

[1stWorldProblems]

I bloody love this musuem & it's one of the few to use tech to enhance its exhibits with the "ghosts" it projects on the hull (as opposed to unnecessary "interactive" displays that 50-somethings are cool and break after a few months but which kids have seen better done on their tablets but that's another thread). This came up on my timeline today - viewing a number of their objects through a queer lens - or going on about 21st century concerns that can only be linked to the said object by tying yourself in knots.

https://maryrose.org/blog/collections/the-collections-team/queering-the-mary-rose-s-collection/

SO tedious - the wreck and the objects found are fascinating without layering on 21st century superfluous info. It's not even interesting or original thoughts - just the usual guff.

This sort of nonsense reminds me of the people who always have to find a connection to eeeeverything someone says. As in “oh yes, my sister’s neighbour’s boyfriend’s cat had that”

Or: in the 16th Century, almost everybody had nits so they all used nit combs to remove them.

Yep and were too busy trying to relieve the itching to think “oooh how can I let everyone know how special my identity is”

You're right! I'm going to open my house to the public. They can pay to come and see my things in an exhibition called "How 21st century people live. Through a fat persons lens"

I'll be loaded in no time.

Jeez and here was I thinking the reason I've had short hair most of my life was because it's practical and suits me. Turns out I'm subverting norms. I might even be queer without knowing it.

I hope this is a temporary blip as the Mary Rose Museum is fantastic or used to be

Highly educational - who'd have thought it that Queer people comb their hair?

😂

The author must have dislodged a rib or two with this absurd reach.

😂😂😂

If you throw in a cuppa and cake I will come visit your exhibition.

It's all very me, me, me, isn't it. And so very self - indulgent.

I sometimes wonder if this queering stuff is all one big pisstake. People get paid to write this nonsense?
For the most part, no, it will be student volunteers and interns.

Countess, is it not seen by someone senior before it’s printed and displayed?

Deal.

But in all honesty, isn't it a bit disrespectful to the people who died on the Mary Rose to make their artefacts about queer people instead. Although of course some of them may have been 'queer'.

By all means make an exhibition about how looking in the mirror can be hard for some queer people. Although it can be hard for some non queers too. But yes, educate Joe Public about how it feels to feel like the body you're in is wrong or whatever. Or how it felt for your marriage to only be allowed in recent history.

But leave the MR and her artefacts to educate people about the Tudors and the lives that were lost on the ship.

It’s probably more trouble to say ‘this is crap, it will reflect badly on the museum’ than just stick it there and hope nobody notices.

The word queering is an interesting choice. It’s not even trying to hide the fact that they’re pushing whatever it is (I’ve seen it in so many contexts now including “queering children’s literature) into queer topics.

Surely with this kind of rubbish, they’d want to call it something like “uncovering the true queerness of XYZ”

You're all laughing away, but without this blog I would never have known that sometimes queer people look in a mirror and don't like what they see, and sometimes they do. This is of course totally different from c*sheteronormative people who muddle through life with their gendered haircuts, completely oblivious to their appearance at all.

Absolutely.
Or else the person who wrote this bilge could have done some actual research about what we do and don’t know about homosexuality in Tudor England and written a necessarily speculative but nonetheless informed piece about how it might have been to be ‘LGBT’ on the Mary Rose.
There are plenty of creative and imaginative approaches that could be used to come up with something both thought provoking and educational.

I can’t see anywhere on there online site if this is actually part of the Physical Mary Rose exhibition or if it’s just online drivel

I have waited years until both my kids were interested enough in history to visit the dockyard and we plan to go later this month - they are so excited but I won’t pay the entry price if this sort of shite is spewing forth

Please write to them and ask. I am agog to hear how they phrase their answer. For instance they might bend over backwards to avoid admitting that they think it’s crap too, or they might let the new intern do it and tell you you are a bigot and they don’t want your custom.

That is the biggest pile of guff I’ve read in a long while.

Agreed. The last bit (assuming it's true which, based on the quality of the rest of the scholarship, I can't rely on) about the Buggery Act is really interesting. Both the change from church to civil law, but also that it was only used once, to execute someone who was also accused of treason and witchcraft.

That suggests a fair amount of societal tolerance/turning a blind eye, at least up to 1806, when it appears that things changed. Why is that? What happened? Potentially an interesting bit of social history which is almost entirely lost in tosh about mirrors and gendered hairstyles.

Looks like somebody let the intern loose on the website.

That really was the most pointless exercise, and it’s a shame because the Mary Rose Museum is excellent.

Was lucky enough to meet one of the original team who pinpointed where to search in the Solent from contemporary paintings - absolutely fascinating. You can see a copy of the painting in the museum.

It won’t be like that at all in the museum!

It’s fabulous - as is all of the Historic Dockyard. Take the boat trip round the harbour because the guides are very good (we had a season ticket and they vary the commentary every time).

Definitely go to the submarine museum part at Gosport (I think they run a water taxi across?). You’ll be amazed at the size of the submarine, the guides are ex submariners and have lots of stories to tell.

I find it genuinely sad that we have regressed so far that some peopel genuinely believe long hair on men and short hair on women s a queer statement. Perfectly normal in 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s...

It’s such a basic tenet of the study of history: do not superimpose modern ideas &/or mores onto the past. Somehow, though, this stuff is being waved through as acceptable - queering the field, never mind anything else.

@Motorina
Well, those who ID as trans-age might feel age euphoria over nits & nit combs?

(In case anyone reports to MNHQ claiming ⬆️ do not exist; some examples of TW who also ID as trans-age to demonstrate comment is fact-based: middle aged cricketer playing 12yo girls Telegraph, available at archive.ph]; Stefonknee Wolscht who IDs as 6yo girl Daily Star]; Sophie Eastwood who IDs as a baby Daily Record, NB discusses murder they committed] & Janiel Verainer who IDs as a dummy-sucking 5yo girl Kent Online, NB discussion paedophilia].)

Here they are using nit combs to talk about hair.

"Today, hairstyles are often heavily gendered, following the gender norm that men have short hair, and women have long hair. By ‘subverting’ and playing with gender norms, Queer people can find hairstyles that they feel comfortable wearing. "

From the horses mouth, being 'queer' simply means having a haircut.

I think this exhibition is brilliant. Shows the inanity, shallowness and self obsession of the TQ+