ChatterBank0 min ago
Row As Museum For Henry Viii's Tudor Warship Mary Rose 'Queers' Its Collection
//A row has broken out after a museum adopted objects found in a sunken Tudor warship as being 'queer' in an attempt to interpret them as representing LGBTQ+ stories....Professor David Abulafia, of Cambridge University, said: 'With all due respect to its authors, the highly speculative comments about Queering the Mary Rose have as much connection to the shipwreck as a tin of Heinz baked beans.'//
https:/
So one question. Why?
https:/
So one question. Why?
Answers
Why? Because this agenda must be rammed down the throats of every British schoolchild at every opportunity. It's a sad day when kids can't even go round a history museum without having Pride flags waved in front of their faces.
18:00 Sat 12th Aug 2023
Why? Because it is seen as being “inclusive”, although it smacks to me as trying too hard. I could understand if some LGBTQ+ people felt patronised and offended at some of the text the museum has included. What utter tosh.
I am staggered. Unfortunately, I think they are making the mistake of seeing life at the time through the lens of the 21st century. Henry VIII persecuted homosexuality between men and passed the Buggerie Act. Although they claim a “long history” of queer people marrying or viewing themselves as married there is no evidence put forwards to support this claim. I’d say that if, this was the case, it really was in the minority because of a) the law at the time and b) I doubt that it would have even entered their heads that people of the same sex might marry. Although there would have been plenty of opportunity for homosexual relations since it was common for people to share beds with members of the same sex, openly being gay or bi-sexual was I would suggest quite rare as gay and bi-sexual men were persecuted, by the church, the law and society.
In my view, instead of trying to put forwards some utterly facile nonsense in an attempt to tick the LGBTQ+ box, they could have been a bit more candid and explained the reality of the situation. Educating people or making them *think* about how it was extremely difficult for the ordinary man in the street to be openly homosexual makes far more sense than pontificating on how people may have an emotional response when looking in a mirror. If I go to a museum, I generally want to learn things rather than become jaded at box-ticking amateur psycho-babble which has absolutely no relevance to artefacts found on a Tudor warship.
I am staggered. Unfortunately, I think they are making the mistake of seeing life at the time through the lens of the 21st century. Henry VIII persecuted homosexuality between men and passed the Buggerie Act. Although they claim a “long history” of queer people marrying or viewing themselves as married there is no evidence put forwards to support this claim. I’d say that if, this was the case, it really was in the minority because of a) the law at the time and b) I doubt that it would have even entered their heads that people of the same sex might marry. Although there would have been plenty of opportunity for homosexual relations since it was common for people to share beds with members of the same sex, openly being gay or bi-sexual was I would suggest quite rare as gay and bi-sexual men were persecuted, by the church, the law and society.
In my view, instead of trying to put forwards some utterly facile nonsense in an attempt to tick the LGBTQ+ box, they could have been a bit more candid and explained the reality of the situation. Educating people or making them *think* about how it was extremely difficult for the ordinary man in the street to be openly homosexual makes far more sense than pontificating on how people may have an emotional response when looking in a mirror. If I go to a museum, I generally want to learn things rather than become jaded at box-ticking amateur psycho-babble which has absolutely no relevance to artefacts found on a Tudor warship.
Why?
To encourage an open analysis of the collection. To interpret it through fresh eyes. The blog isn't making a definitive statement about the Mary Rose but proffering a view.
And it's not really a row. A couple of historians have countered the piece and there's some lazy journalism thrown in (pick and choose from Twitter).
To encourage an open analysis of the collection. To interpret it through fresh eyes. The blog isn't making a definitive statement about the Mary Rose but proffering a view.
And it's not really a row. A couple of historians have countered the piece and there's some lazy journalism thrown in (pick and choose from Twitter).
Yes, Atheist, this is what happens every day; if you weren't aware of it, it shows how out of touch you are. It's been happening for the last few years, but now beginning to be actively promoted even to primary school children. If growing up in 2023 wasn't challenging enough, our kids have this disturbed agenda to contend with, yes, o a daily basis. They should be able to lead an innocent childhood, not be worried about what gender they are, how to address a fellow pupil who identifies as a cat, or read about have drag queens reading them stories. Do you live under a rock?
Spungle. My daughter is a teacher at a junior school, and she has two daughters who are at school. Your view of the world is different from mine, and I wonder if yours comes from your direct experience or from what you read or view in your chosen news provider.
No, I don't live under a rock, and I am sad that someone uses a cheap insult instead of discussing things in an adult manner.
No, I don't live under a rock, and I am sad that someone uses a cheap insult instead of discussing things in an adult manner.
It wasn't a cheap insult, it was a question, Atheist, and one that carried no intention to make you 'sad'. You are very welcome to your perception. I believe in the protection of children, and don't believe this constant attempt to push this agenda is healthy. It genuinely startles me that some in society are so supine as to not to see the utter folly of promoting this stuff to young minds. My view. And you're very welcome to yours.
Spungle; do you live under a rock?
I thought not.
I haven't read the Daily Mail article, so I can't comment on what they said. From my own experience, I know that teachers do not thrust things down young children's throats; they care about what they do and they care about the welfare of young people. There is a rather nasty wave of anti-woke, anti-decency, anti-anything-other-than-right-wing-propaganda, which goes against all out British history of decency and fair play. That is what is sad.
I thought not.
I haven't read the Daily Mail article, so I can't comment on what they said. From my own experience, I know that teachers do not thrust things down young children's throats; they care about what they do and they care about the welfare of young people. There is a rather nasty wave of anti-woke, anti-decency, anti-anything-other-than-right-wing-propaganda, which goes against all out British history of decency and fair play. That is what is sad.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.