Why it Matters that Richard Lionheart was Queer

Abstract

The scholarly treatment of Richard Lionheart's sexuality, and the medieval chroniclers' accounts of Richard's sins, penance, repentance, and reputation continue to elicit strongly contradictory evaluation on the part of contemporary historians. Since having written about this topic in a short subsection of my 2004 book, Sodomy, Masculinity, and Law in the Middle Ages (CUP), I have felt compelled to weigh in on some of these evaluations and to review them in light of the texts produced by chroniclers writing during Richard's lifetime.  My conclusion is that heteronormative bias continues to mar historical readings in ways that invalidate much of the historical scholarship and its reception since the 1970s and I call for a renewed commitment to ethical historical examination of medieval sexuality and sexuality in general. I end with a reading of the 13th-century Ménestral de Reims, whose tale on Blondel's discovery of Richard in captivity provides a near-contemporary interpretation of Richard's reputation in the form of a simple and inspiring same-sex love story that serves as a riposte to the work of some of our most respected medieval historians and theorists.