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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Looking forward to more history queering actually.

I wouldn't mind seeing Stonehenge queered for example.

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?

😂

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.

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.

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

Ooof, that really is embarrassingly bad.

Cringey.

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

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

TBF, you can’t beat the Spinal Tap interpretation of Stonehenge.

@NeverDropYourMooncup Genius

Is long hair for women and short hair for men a gender norm or just fashion? I was an early teen in the grunge/grebo years and pretty much all fashionable men in bands had long hair.

Then in the britpop years most of the cool women on bands I wanted to be like, had very short bobs.

The LGBTQ+ nit comb was spectacularly tenuous! 😂

Hold on, she wore her hair short subverting gender norms and called herself a Queen?

What are you SAYING?????

I think the root cause of this nonsense is probably the National Heritage Lottery Fund. Museums need a grant. Grant is awarded for projects which engage with diverse communities (eg LGBT+). Salaries are paid. Intern writes some unresearched drivel. Then off to apply for the next grant to keep the place afloat.

I'm late to the thread and so will admit that i haven't yet read anyone's posts (bite me) but I've got to say after reading the first one about mirrors I honestly expected the nit comb one to say

straight and LGBTQ+ people can all have nits.

The novelist Philip Hensher has got hold of this on Twitter and isn’t mincing his words. Very amusing if you can get onto the site and search for him.

Ah yes the delightful Thomas Howard (not be confused with his father Thomas, brother Thomas, or grandson Thomas none of whom were quite as abusive to their wives). I believe he also tried to persuade his wife's niece to return home after she ran away from her husband (16h earl of Oxford of Oxford who then allegedly bigamously married his mistress). Honestly, it's impressive how Henry VIII can end up not being the worst husband.

Not sure that it applies to this particular case but there may be something to this. Especially since they rejigged the criteria for getting a grant after COVID. It used to be enough to be generally widening access to history and preserving a heritage asset. Now you have to improve mental well being, widen access amongst marginalised or vulnerable groups, create jobs/improve people's skills or bring an economic benefit to the local area if you want to get a grant.

Is that the same Thomas Howard that pimped out his niece, Catherine?