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.

I think that’s maybe a different Hannah McCann?

There’s -a Hannah McCann at the Mary Rose museum that’s the Collections Development and Curatorial Intern.

There’s a post on the Mary Rose Facebook page - the replies aren’t impressed with “queering” the Tudors either.

My apologies if I've got that wrong. It seemed to be too coincidental with the other one (Dr) writing about queerness and hair.

Looking forward to seeing Kew Gardens do an interpretative dance that covers all of the 36,000 fungi sexes.

Umm, the Mary Rose combs are double sided with a wider toothed and narrower toothed side. The wider side is going to be fuck all use for removing nits so I think we can say they did use it to style or at least tidy their hair. Hats were removed as part of making a courtesy and in the presence of a superior so the idea they didn’t care what their hair looked like because they wore hats is utter bobbins.

First rule of object based research: look at the actual object.

Now I’ve gone off down the rabbit hole of Tudor sailors’ clothing and discovered Monmouth caps and the thrum hat.

They could have used the comb as a jumping off point to explore the different norms of hair styles in Tudor England according to age, social status, marital status and sex. That would have been interesting.

The most common personal objects that we found on the Mary Rose were nit combs. There were 82 in total. These nit combs would have been mainly used by the men to remove nits from their hair, rather than using the comb to style their hair (which would have usually been covered up by a hat). However, for many Queer people today, how we wear our hair is a central pillar of our identity. 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.

That's just completely an utterly 'how do I shoehorn my favourite topic of conversation that obsesses me to the point of excluding everything else?' comment that's got zero relevance to Tudor hairstyles. It doesn't inform, explain or do anything apart from tell the onlooker that the person who wrote that will use any excuse to bring queer into the conversation, however irrelevant - and if I'd been visiting the above is the sort of feedback I'd be leaving.

Re the Buggery Act mentioned upthread - the only person I can recall being executed under it was Walter Lord Hungerford, who was beheaded at the same time as Thomas Cromwell for sodomy with his manservants, employing a traitor as chaplain and trying to determine the length of the king's life (which was treason). Interestingly very few men seemed to have been executed under the Act then or subsequently, and I've a suspicion it was the treason and being a friend and supporter of Cromwell that really did for him.

https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/lgbtq-history/walter-hungerford-and-the-buggery-act/

A charge of treason meant that Hungerford would be attainted, always a Brucey Bonus, and executed. It has been said that the charge of buggery was added for insult value.

There was a case a few years later when a master at Eton was accused of the same thing, and he was pardoned - probably because of his family connections. So yep, the accusation against Hungerford probably was for the humiliation value.

This is the sort of massive reach I might have made as a teenager in an exam I'd not revised for and didn't really know much about the subject. 😂

I suspect this has nailed it as the author was an intern who'd probably read a couple of books on gender theory and thought that you could take what is (when well used and understood) and interesting historical tool and apply it to random archaeological artefacts in an unthought out manner.

Really depressing as I volunteered for the Mary Rose for 3 years whilst at school and I had lots of interesting things to do that were actually constructive like helping to clean the nit combs and mounting the nits on slides for the archaeology team to look at down microscopes. I also got to take groups of the public to see the boat (in those days it was still on its side and being sprayed) and give them a talk that was full of facts rather than conjecture. Margaret Rule would have been unimpressed by this sort of nonsense.

I've always suspected that the charge of buggery against Hungerford was probably added to humiliate Cromwell (the were executed together) - ie look at this guy a known associate of Cromwell and look at what he got up to - an attempt to play with association fallacy. (Rather like the incest charges for Anne and George Boleyn.) After all they'd already done him for treason. That is of course pure conjecture on my part but rather better grounded than that in this article!

What really makes me cross about this is the amount of genuine gay history that is ignored. You will still see times when two same sex people are discovered having been buried together and historians still say that they must have been friends or such like.. Or the life of a famous person who spent their adult life living with a same sex ‘companion’ and there will be much question about why they never married.
There needs to be talk about how so many gay men and women would have been forced into relationships they didn’t want or who were imprisoned for being gay not that long ago. This bollocks is nothing to do with anything. Here is an item - sometimes a gay person used this item is just nothing.

Also I loved this picture in response to this on Twitter.

Chat GPT has this to say on the matter

The discovery of numerous nit combs on the Mary Rose can symbolize the hidden stories of LGBT individuals throughout history. Just as nit combs were tools for grooming and caring for one's physical appearance, LGBT history has often been obscured or overlooked due to societal norms and prejudices.

In the context of LGBT history, the Mary Rose and its nit combs can be seen as a representation of how personal stories and experiences have been preserved and uncovered over time. Just as the excavation of the Mary Rose revealed a wealth of historical artifacts, modern historians and researchers have been unearthing the hidden narratives of LGBT individuals who lived in different eras.
Throughout history, many LGBT individuals faced challenges related to their sexual orientation or gender identity. The nit combs on the Mary Rose can symbolize the grooming and appearance-related challenges that people within the LGBT community may have faced in expressing their true selves while conforming to societal expectations. These challenges, much like the nit combs, have been a significant part of the lived experiences of LGBT individuals, even if their stories were not always recorded in historical records.

As society has evolved and become more accepting of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, the stories of LGBT individuals have gained greater visibility. The analogy of uncovering nit combs on the Mary Rose can be seen as a reflection of how these hidden narratives are gradually being revealed, acknowledged, and integrated into the broader tapestry of history.

In conclusion, the connection between LGBT history and the nit combs found on the Mary Rose lies in the metaphorical exploration of hidden stories and experiences. Just as the nit combs were artifacts that symbolize personal grooming and appearance, LGBT history speaks to the personal and often hidden struggles faced by individuals within the community. The process of uncovering and acknowledging these stories mirrors the archaeological discovery of historical artifacts, allowing for a more complete understanding of the past.

However, asking for something combining bananas and Queer History is rather amusing;

The banana, often depicted as a straightforward and common fruit, can symbolize the diversity of queer experiences that have been historically overlooked or oversimplified. Just as a banana's exterior may seem simple, its richness and complexity lie within. Similarly, LGBTQ+ history is marked by a myriad of stories, identities, and struggles that extend beyond surface-level understanding.

In the history of LGBTQ+ rights, the concept of "coming out of the closet" is central. The banana's peel can be seen as a metaphor for the closet, representing the protective layer that queer individuals often felt compelled to hide behind due to societal stigma and discrimination. Just as a banana's peel conceals its sweetness, queer individuals' authentic selves were often concealed by societal pressures.

The idea of "going bananas" can also reflect the vibrancy and resilience of the LGBTQ+ community. Despite facing challenges, discrimination, and violence, this community has shown incredible strength and solidarity, embracing their unique identities and standing up for their rights. Just as bananas are often associated with energy and vitality, queer history is marked by the energy and vitality of individuals who have fought for acceptance and equality.

Bananas have been used in various LGBTQ+ contexts, from colorful banana stickers used as symbols of queer identity to the famous "banana skirt" worn by Josephine Baker, a queer performer who challenged gender and racial norms. These instances illustrate how seemingly ordinary objects can become powerful symbols of resistance and identity within queer history.

Furthermore, the banana can serve as a reminder of the ongoing work needed to combat stereotypes and discrimination. Just as bananas can be mischaracterized based on their appearance, LGBTQ+ individuals have faced misconceptions and prejudices rooted in ignorance. By challenging these assumptions, the LGBTQ+ community and its allies continue to educate and advocate for understanding and acceptance.

In conclusion, bananas can be an intriguing and thought-provoking lens through which to explore aspects of queer history. From the hidden complexities beneath their surface to the symbolism of peeling away societal expectations, bananas provide a unique perspective on the diverse experiences, challenges, and victories that make up LGBTQ+ history.

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....😦

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

queering nits

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

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.