#or having to deal with philip norman

[torchlitinthedesert]

“From hate figure to major artist: how the world learned to love Yoko Ono”, Daily Telegraph, 10 February 2024

A Yoko Ono retrospective opens at London’s Tate Modern this week, so there are features and reviews starting to come out. This one is very much about JohnandYoko, which is a shame when it’s promoting the exhibition, but interesting for how it frames Yoko’s reputation for a Boomer audience (it’s the Daily Telegraph, which skews old and right-wing). The through line is Yoko’s journey from hate figure to cuddly senior icon - with some nods to shifts in John’s reputation too, and more openness to conceptual art.

Anyway, it includes this amazing bit about Philip Norman, and the time Yoko withdrew cooperation for his John bio:

Norman struck up a relationship with Ono and she gave him a series of interviews for his Bible-length biog��raphy John Lennon: The Life (2008). Ono had given her co-operation on the condition that she read the man­u­script for accuracy. He agreed, but was surprised to be told later that she was upset by the book and would not endorse it, because Norman had been “mean to John”.

“I’d written about John in the way Yoko had always talked about him, with a sort of exasperated fondness,” Norman later told me, clearly taken aback.

“She’d read the unedited manuscript, and initially the ­message came back from her that someone else had read it and it was really great.

“And then she said, could I pop over to have a cup of tea before I caught my plane back to London, and she would show me a page from John’s diary that I could use in the book.

“As I walked across Central Park, it popped into my mind, maybe she’s waiting with a lawyer; in fact, she was waiting with two lawyers, and another woman who I didn’t know… Yoko started to upbraid me for things I’d said about John in the book, and she said, ‘How could you say John masturbated?’ And this woman suddenly went, ‘Eugh!’ And I realised Yoko had a personal shudderer, someone who shuddered for her. But Yoko herself had told me the story of how John and Paul would sit around in the twilight calling out the names of sex idols of the time like Brigitte Bardot, and John would spoil it by shouting out names like Winston Churchill.”

Yoko and her personal shudderer! 🤩 I don’t necessarily trust Norman on, well, anything, but I deeply want this to be true.

[menlove]

now i'm curious .. why do you think john was gay?

disclaimer: this is not bi erasure & if anyone tries to start discourse w me about that i do not careeeee sorry. i care deeply abt bi erasure but he never labeled his own sexuality & as a figure of the past it's more than fair to speculate that when he talked abt his attraction to women it was from the pov of a gay man dealing w comphet. if he were alive today and saying he was bisexual i'd leave it alone but he's not so i'm not. sexuality can absolutely be fluid! and he very well may have been bisexual! this is just my personal theory & interpretation of things he's said through the lens of viewing him as a gay man. MOVING ON.

i need you to imagine all of this to the benny hill theme. let's go

with the beatles by alistair taylor pg. 98 (at least in the pdf copy i have- there's no actual page numbers so it might not match up exactly if you have the print copy)

and from the same book like a paragraph down- this one is not AS crazy bc there's a million explanations but also not being able to get it up for the one woman you've fantasized about forever...... oh brother

in a description of an auctioned off audio tape:

this :|

this from JOOOOAN BAEZ. JOAN BAEZ.

(source)

"It’s a plus, it’s not a minus. The plus is that your best friend, also, can hold you without… I mean, I’m not a homosexual, or we could have had a homosexual relationship and maybe that would have satisfied it, with working with other male artists."

this infamous quote (source from the wonderful @amoralto who is a great resource for beatles archiving)

"He was completely open and uninhibited with her, as she learned to be with him, owning up to his deepest sexual fantasies—like one of making love to a woman in her eighties, or even older, whose veined and wrinkled hands would be covered in diamonds. Over time, she became accustomed to his particular style of backhanded compliment. 'Do you know why I like you?' he remarked on one occasion. 'It’s because you look like a bloke in drag. You’re like a mate.' Yoko laughingly replied that she thought he must be 'a closet fag.'"

john lennon: the life by philip norman (take him w a grain of salt. also the doc i have for this one is html so i truly would have 0 clue on what page number this would be) BUT this is also corroborated by a yoko quote herself in a 1981 new york magazine interview

no, no, no by yoko ono which. what do i even need to say.

"I remember it, vaguely. I was out of me mind with drink – when you get down to the point where you drink all the empty glasses, that drunk. And he was saying, 'Well, come on, John, tell us,' something like that, 'Tell me about you and Brian, we all know,' like that. And obviously, I must have been un– uh, f– frightened of the fag in me to get so angry at that. You know, when you’re twenty-one, you want to be a man, and all that. And for the first time I thought, 'I could kill this guy.' I just saw it, like on a screen, that if I hit him once more, I – that’s gonna be it."

this other infamous quote uploaded in an audio by @amoralto (source)

"John believed in my work as an artist wasn’t accepted in part because I am a woman. He got angry when people said about me, 'She’s not a woman, she’s a female impersonator.' John said to me, 'If I had been gay and gotten together with a guy who was talented like you, after ten years that guy would have become famous as an artist in his own right. Maybe we should come out and say, 'Actually, Yoko is a guy.' Maybe that will do it!' That made him laugh a lot. John learned about women’s oppression from me, but I learned a lot about men’s vulnerability from him. He expressed his vulnerability, unlike a lot of other men. I learned that it’s not just men oppressing women. Men also suffer, they feel fear and guilt. For example, I thought the fact that men buy prostitutes was terrible. It filled me with indignation. But John explained it differently. 'It’s humiliating for a guy to buy a whore,' he told me. 'It’s proof that he’s rejected, he’s just so desperate.' I had never thought of that: for me who go to prostitutes, sex is connected to being rejected and humiliated. I always hated people who committed sex crimes, but through John I tuned in to their pain. John told me that it was unfortunate for the poor guy whose sexual preference was a crime and something to be feared. John’s perspective was, 'I’m lucky I’m normal.'"

yoko interview with jon wiener in come together: john lennon in his time. just..... whatever the hell is going on here.

interview w lisa robinson in hit parader "a conversation with john lennon" 1975

"With his four months’ greater experience, Sheridan was an ideal guide to the Reeperbahn’s more exotic diversions, like the Schwülen laden. Stu Sutcliffe later wrote home in amazement that the transvestites were 'all harmless and very young' and it was actually possible to speak to one 'without shuddering.' Though raised amid the same homophobia as his companions, John seemed totally unshocked by St. Pauli’s abundant drag scene; indeed, he often seemed actively to seek it out. 'There was one particular club he used to like,' Tony Sheridan remembers, 'full of these big guys with hairy hands, deep voices—and breasts. But they used to make an effort to talk English. There was something about the place that seemed to make John feel at home.'"

another from john lennon: the life so take it w a grain of salt

so many excerpts from skywriting by word of mouth

and more!

and thats all i'm hunting down for now but he also like Continuously went on and on and and on and ON about how his relationship w yoko worked bc she was so much like a man/mate/what have you

[esperfruit]

Have some more diesels ^^

Philippe "Philip" Altoona

Age: 15

Height: 154 cm

A young boy with a big personality who recently moved to Sodor from Italy. When he became part of Thomas' class he immediately wanted to make a good impression on everyone, eagerly approaching everyone and offering his friendship, not realizing he was being overbearing. He tried the same with the adults later on, ending up annoying one half and getting the other half to be entertained by his enthusiasm.

Philip is very proud of himself and full of confidence but he can also be unattentive and oblivious to his own limitations, getting himself into trouble with the adults on numerous occasions. He was overjoyed when he became friends with Thomas, Percy and Rosie, making this group a quartett. Philip may not fully understand Thomas' goal with the Golden Whistle and all the mysteries surrounding it but he doesn't mind as long as he has a chance for adventure and making more friends.

Den Sentinel

Age: 34

Height: 191 cm

Dart Bagnall

Age: 34

Height: 167 cm

A dou that has known each other as long as they can think back. They have been the best of friends for their entire lives, attending the same schools and university, they are always seen together. Den and Dart know the other so well, they even know exactly what the other thinks, which is very helpful because Den often struggles finding the right words when he wants to say something and Dart can just tell it everyone in a clearer way.

Both have severe seperation anxiety, which showed when they had to split up during work once. Den gets very insecure and makes more mistakes while Dart gets unfocused and slows down at work. Things only started to improve when Toby took sympathy on Den and mentored him while Mavis calmed down Dart and told him the sooner he finishes his work the sooner he can see Den again. They were able to finish their respective jobs without issue but they know they still work the best as a team.

Sidney Horwich

Age: 21

Height: 182 cm

Sidney just recently finished secondary school and entered the work life alongside his closest friends Paxton Doncaster and Norman Bulleid. He is very helpful, kind and accomodating but just as naive and guillable as Paxton and he always had many problems with academics, shocking everyone, even his own parents, that he was even able to graduate. His academic struggles were so prominent for many reasons, one of them is his forgetfulness. He constanly forgot homework and assignments, taking a toll on his grades in process.

Sidney had always been forgetful but his memory loss did become much worse after he was trapped in a bulding that was lit on fire by Diesel 10. He survived the fire but suffered burns and smoke poisioning from it. When he woke up at the hospital, he couldn't remember any of the events, including the physical abuse D10 but him through when he was his hostage to make Paxton, Norman, Den and Dart follow his orders. However, the emotional damage caused by the events didn't vanish as he has been prone to panic attacks ever since then.

Despite everything that happened to him, Sidney goes through life with an optimistic view, tries to be the best person he can be and looks for ways to deal with his forgetfulness like making up little songs to keep himself reminded of his jobs or pinning his room full with notes.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

I wasn’t going to tell you, but I’m breaking the group up. It feels good. It feels like a divorce.

- John Lennon on quitting the Beatles, 20 Sept 1969.

Officially, the breakup of the Beatles never happened.

None of the Fab Four ever said they’d never work together again. In reality, though, the breakup took place on 10th April 1970, the day after Paul McCartney released a statement saying he didn’t miss the band and had no plans to record with John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr.

The long and winding road to that point began several years earlier. The Beatles were originally Lennon’s band, but McCartney took an increasingly dominant role as time went on. Retrospectively, the scene is often depicted as a man standing up for something he loved while his bandmates failed to act the same way, for a variety of personal reasons (in Lennon’s case, it was supposedly self-doubt). But at the time, McCartney was cast as the villain. Even though it was actually Lennon who left the group first, McCartney was the only member to ever officially quit.

But on 8th August 1969, the Beatles walked back and forth across a street they knew well: Abbey Road. John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr lined up and crossed a few times, while a cop held up traffic, right outside the studio where they were already booked to show up for work that day. The whole photo session took only 10 minutes.

Yet this became their most iconic image: sky of blue, trees of green. It sums up the sunny confidence of the most popular album the Beatles ever made - which also turned out to be the last. Abbey Road turned a zebra-stripe crosswalk on an ordinary London street into holy ground.

It would also be the last record they would ever record together.

With their last Abbey Road studio session having taken place two days earlier, and a successful performance in Canada with the Plastic Ono Band five days before that, Lennon appeared to have decided that it was time to act on a feeling he’d had for some time. He later said he started thinking about the end of the band when the Beatles stopped playing live: “That’s when the seed was planted that I had to somehow get out … without being thrown out by the others. But I could never step out of the palace because it was too frightening.”

Lennon delivered the news at a group meeting that also included Ono and Klein, right after McCartney tried, once again, to persuade his bandmates to consider playing live. Lennon was asked to keep his decision quiet, because business deals including a new record contract could be compromised. He agreed.

Ono later told writer Philip Norman of the journey home from the meeting: “He turned to me and said, ‘That’s it with the Beatles. From now on, it’s just you - okay?’ I thought, ‘My God, those three guys were the ones entertaining him for so long. Now I have to be the one to take the load.'”

Photo: The Beatles, John, Ringo, Paul and George about to cross Abbey Road for that famous photograph, 8th August 1969.

[wooodyguthrie]

Trial of the Chicago Seven - TESTIMONY OF PHILIP DAVID OCHS

The Chicago Seven were seven defendants—Rennie Davis, David Dellinger, John Froines, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Lee Weiner—charged by the United States federal government with conspiracy, crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot, and other charges related to anti-Vietnam War and 1960s counterculture protests in Chicago, Illinois, during the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

The trial lasted for months, with over 100 witnesses called by the defense, including singers Phil Ochs, Judy Collins, Arlo Guthrie, and Country Joe McDonald; comedian Dick Gregory; writers Norman Mailer and Allen Ginsberg; and activists Timothy Leary and Jesse Jackson.

Full testimony under the cut

MR. KUNSTLER: Will you state your full name, please?

THE WITNESS: Philip David Ochs.

MR. KUNSTLER: What is your occupation?

THE WITNESS: I am a singer, a folksinger.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, can you indicate what kind of songs you sing?

THE WITNESS: I write all my own songs and they are just simple melodies with a lot of lyrics. They usually have to do with current events and what is going on in the news. You can call them topical songs, songs about the news, and then developing into more philosophical songs later.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, did there ever come a time when you met any of the defendants at this table?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I met Jerry Rubin in 1964 when he was organizing one of the first teach-ins against the war in Vietnam in Berkeley. He called me up. He asked me to come and sing.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now did you have any occasion after that to receive another such call from Mr. Rubin?

THE WITNESS: I met him a few times later in regard to other political actions. I met him in Washington at the march they had at the Pentagon incident, at the big rally before the Pentagon

.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, have you ever been associated with what is called the Youth International Party, or, as we will say, the Yippies?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I helped design the party, formulate the idea of what Yippie was going to be, in the early part of 1968.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you indicate to the Court and jury what Yippie was going to be, what its purpose was for its formation?

THE WITNESS: The idea of Yippie was to be a form of theater politics, theatrically dealing with what seemed to be an increasingly absurd world and trying to deal with it in other than just on a straight moral level. They wanted to be able to act out fantasies in the street to communicate their feelings to the public.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, were any of the defendants at the table involved in the formation of the Yippies?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you just point to and identify which one is Jerry Rubin and which one is Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Jerry Rubin with the headband and Abbie Hoffman with the smile.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you indicate in general to the Court and jury what the plans were for the Yippies in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention?

THE WITNESS: The plans were essentially--

MR. FORAN: I object.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, one of the central roles in this case is the Yippie participation around the Democratic National Convention.

THE COURT: I don't see that allegation in the indictment.

MR. KUNSTLER: Well, the indictment charges these two men with certain acts in connection with the Democratic National Convention.

THE COURT: These two men and others, but not as Yippies, so-called, but-- as individuals.

MR. KUNSTLER: All right, your Honor, I will rephrase the question. Did there come a time when Jerry and Abbie discussed their plans?

THE WITNESS: Yes, they did, around the middle of January at Jerry's. Present there, besides Abbie and Jerry, I believe, was Paul Krassner and Ed Sanders. Tim Leary was there at one point.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you tell the conversation from Jerry and Abbie, as to their plans in coming to Chicago around the Democratic National Convention?

THE WITNESS: OK. Jerry Rubin planned to have a Festival of Life during the National Convention, basically representing an alternate culture. They would theoretically sort of spoof the Convention and show the public, the media, that the Convention was not to be taken seriously because it wasn't fair, and wasn't going to be honest, and wasn't going to be a democratic convention. They discussed getting permits. They discussed flying to Chicago to talk with Mayor Daley. They several times mentioned they wanted to avoid violence. They went out of their way on many different occasions to talk with the Mayor or anybody who could help them avoid violence--

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, do you know what guerrilla theater is?

THE WITNESS: Guerrilla theater creates theatrical metaphors for what is going on in the world outside.

For example, a guerrilla theater might do, let us say, a skit on the Viet Cong, it might act out a scene on a public street or in a public park where some actually play the Viet Cong, some actually play American soldiers, and they will dramatize an event, basically create a metaphor, an image, usually involving humor, usually involving a dramatic scene, and usually very short. This isn't a play with the theme built up. It's just short skits, essentially.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did Jerry Rubin or Abbie Hoffman ask you to do anything at any time?

MR. FORAN: I object to that.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. FORAN: I object to it as leading and suggestive.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you have any discussion with Abbie and Jerry about your role?

THE WITNESS: Yes. In early February at Abbie's apartment.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you state what Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin said to you and what you said to them?

THE WITNESS: They discussed my singing at the Festival of Life. They asked me to contact other performers to come and sing at the Festival. I talked to Paul Simon of Simon and Garfunkel. I believe I talked with Judy Collins.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did there come a time, Mr. Ochs, when you came to Chicago in 1968?

THE WITNESS: I came campaigning for Eugene McCarthy on M-Day, which I believe was August 15, at the Lindy Opera House, I believe.

MR. KUNSTLER: After you arrived in Chicago did you have any discussion with Jerry?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. We discussed the nomination of a pig for President.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what you said and what Jerry said.

THE WITNESS: We discussed the details. We discussed going out to the countryside around Chicago and buying a pig from a farmer and bringing him into the city for the purposes of his nominating speech.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you have any role yourself in that?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I helped select the pig, and I paid for him.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, did you find a pig at once when you went out?

THE WITNESS: No, it was very difficult. We stopped at several farms and asked where the pigs were.

MR. KUNSTLER: None of the farmers referred you to the police station, did they?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Ochs, can you describe the pig which was finally bought?

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT., I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what, if anything, happened to the pig?

THE WITNESS: The pig was arrested with seven people.

MR. KUNSTLER: When did that take place?

THE WITNESS: This took place on the morning of August 23, at the Civic Center underneath the Picasso sculpture.

MR. KUNSTLER: Who were those seven people?

THE WITNESS: Jerry Rubin. Stew Albert, Wolfe Lowenthal, myself is four; I am not sure of the names of the other three.

MR. KUNSTLER: What were you doing when you were arrested?

THE WITNESS: We were arrested announcing the pig's candidacy for President.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did Jerry Rubin speak?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Jerry Rubin was reading a prepared speech for the pig---the opening sentence was something like, "I, Pigasus, hereby announce my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States." He was interrupted in his talk by the police who arrested us.

MR. KUNSTLER: What was the pig doing during this announcement?

MR. FORAN: Objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you remember what you were charged with?

THE WITNESS: I believe the original charge mentioned was something about an old Chicago law about bringing livestock into the city, or disturbing the peace, or disorderly conduct, and when it came time for the trial, I believe the charge was disorderly conduct.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were you informed by an officer that the pig had squealed on you?

MR. FORAN: Objection. I ask it be stricken.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. When an objection is made do not answer until the Court has ruled. . .

* * * * * *

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, I call your attention to Sunday, August 25, 1968. Did you have any occasion to see Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Well, ultimately I saw him at his apartment in Old Town that night.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you remember approximately what time that was?

THE WITNESS: I guess it was around, maybe, 9:30 approximately 9:30, 10:00. He was laying in bed. He said he was very ill. He was very pale. We had agreed to go to Lincoln Park that night, and so I said, "I hope You are still going to Lincoln Park." He said, "I don't know if I can make it, I seem to he very ill." I cajoled him, and I said, I said, "Come on. you're one of the Yippies. You can't not go to Lincoln Park." He said, "OK," and he got up, and he went to Lincoln Park with me, and I believe Nancy, his girlfriend, and my girlfriend Karen, the four of us walked from his apartment to Lincoln Park.

MR. KUNSTLER: And did you enter the park?

THE WITNESS: Just the outskirts, I mean we basically stood in front of the Lincoln Hotel, and walked across the street from the Lincoln Hotel and stood in the outskirts of the park.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, did there come a time when people began to leave Lincoln Park?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I guess it was around eleven o'clock at night.

MR. KUNSTLER: What did you do at that time?

THE WITNESS: Continued standing there. We stood there and watched them run right at us, as a matter of fact.

MR. KUNSTLER: Who was with you at this time?

THE WITNESS: The same people I mentioned before.

MR. KUNSTLER: Had you been together continuously since You first left the apartment?

THE WITNESS: Continuously.

MR. KUNSTLER: And from the time you left the apartment to this time, did you see Jerry Rubin wearing a helmet at any time?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. KUNSTLER: By the way, how long have you known Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: I have known Jerry Rubin approximately four years.

MR. KUNSTLER: Have you ever seen him smoke a cigarette?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Ochs, you said there came a time when you left the area. Where did you go?

THE WITNESS: We walked through the streets following the crowd.

MR. KUNSTLER: And can you describe what you saw as you followed the crowd?

THE WITNESS: They were just chaotic and sort of unformed, and people just continued away from the park and just seemed to move, I think toward the commercial area of Old Town where the nightclubs are and then police Clubs were there too, and it was just a flurry of movement of people all kinds of ways.

MR. SCHULTZ: If the Court please, the witness was asked what he observed and that was not responsive to the question. If you would simply tell the witness to listen carefully to the question so he can answer the questions.

THE COURT: I did that this morning. You are a singer but you are a smart fellow, I am sure.

THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. You are a judge and you are a smart fellow.

THE COURT: I must ask you to listen carefully to the questions of the lawyer and answer the question. Answer the questions; do not go beyond them.

MR. KUNSTLER: At any time, did you see Jerry Rubin enter Lincoln Park?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, I call your attention to sometime in the vicinity of 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, August 27. Did you see Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, in Lincoln Park. He asked me to come and sing at a meeting.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you know what time approximately you sang after arriving there, how long after arriving there?

THE WITNESS: Approximately a half-hour.

MR. KUNSTLER: Was anything happening in that half-hour while you were there?

THE WITNESS: Bobby Seale was speaking.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did Jerry Rubin speak at all?

THE WITNESS: Yes, after I sang.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you sing a song that day?

THE WITNESS: Yes, "I Ain't Marching Anymore."

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you sing at anybody's request?

THE WITNESS: At Jerry Rubin's request. .

MR. KUNSTLER: I am showing you what has been marked at D-147 for identification and I ask you if you can identify that exhibit.

THE WITNESS: This is the guitar I played "I Ain't Marching Anymore" on.

THE COURT: How can you tell? You haven't even looked at it.

THE WITNESS: It is my case.

THE COURT: Are you sure the guitar is in there?

THE WITNESS: I am checking.

MR. KUNSTLER: Open it up, Mr. Ochs, and see whether that is your guitar,

THE WITNESS: That is it, that is it.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, would you stand and sing that song so the jury can hear the song that the audience heard that day?

MR. SCHULTZ: If the Court please, this is a trial in the Federal District Court. It is not a theater. We don't have to sit and listen to the witness sing a song. Let's get on with the trial. I object.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, this is definitely an issue in the case. Jerry Rubin has asked for a particular song to be sung. What the witness sang to the audience reflects both on Jerry Rubin's intent and on the mood of the crowd.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, he is prepared to sing it exactly as he sang it on that day,

THE COURT: I am not prepared to listen, Mr. Kunstler.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you recall how long after you sang in Lincoln Park that you were somewhere else?

THE WITNESS: I arrived at the next place around seven-thirty, quarter to eight at the Coliseum.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were any of the defendants present at that time?

THE WITNESS: Abbie Hoffman was there, and I do not remember if Jerry Rubin was there.

MR. KUNSTLER: Where did you see Abbie Hoffman first that night at the Coliseum?

THE WITNESS: When he raced in front of me on the stage when I was introduced to Ed Sanders. He said, "Here's Phil Ochs," and as I walked forward, Abbie Hoffman raced in front of me and took the microphone and proceeded to give a speech. I was upstaged by Abbie Hoffman.

MR. KUNSTLER: At the time when you first saw Abbie Hoffman there that night, can you approximate as best you can the time it was when you first saw him take the microphone?

THE WITNESS: Approximately 8:30.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I have no further questions.

* * * * * *

MR. SCHULTZ: You were at the Bandshell, were you not?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: What time did you arrive at the Bandshell?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember. I'd guess it was around three or after in the afternoon.

MR. FORAN: You seem to have a little trouble with time. Do you carry a watch with you?

THE WITNESS: Just lately.

MR. FORAN: As a matter of fact, when it comes to time during that week, it is pretty much of a guess, isn't it?

THE WITNESS: I guess so.

MR. FORAN: And the time you arrived at the Coliseum it was 9:00 or 9:30, isn't that right? Or at 6:00 or 6:30?

THE WITNESS: No, because the normal opening time of the shows was around 8:00 and I think the show was starting when I got there. That is a safer guess than the other time.

MR. FORAN: It is still a guess though, isn't it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is a guess.

MR. SCHULTZ: And now you say at the Coliseum, Abbie Hoffman upstaged you, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was walking toward the microphone and he raced in front of me.

MR. SCHULTZ: And he led the crowd in a chant of "Fuck LBJ" didn't he?

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, I think he did.

MR. SCHULTZ: You didn't remember that on direct examination very well, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: I guess not.

MR. SCHULTZ: Abbie Hoffman is a friend of yours, isn't he?

THE WITNESS: Yes and no.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now in your plans for Chicago, did you plan for public fornication in the park?

THE WITNESS: I didn't.

MR. SCHULTZ: In your discussions with either Rubin or Hoffman did you plan for public fornication in the park?

THE WITNESS: No, we did not seriously sit down and plan public fornication in the park.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did Rubin say at any of these meetings that you must cause disruptions during the Convention and on through Election Day, mass disruptions?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. SCHULTZ: Was there any discussion when you were planning your Yippie programs by either Rubin or Hoffman of going into the downtown area and taking over hotels for sleeping space?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did the defendant Rubin during your planning discussion tell you if he ever had the opportunity and at one of his earliest opportunities he would, when he found some policemen who were isolated in the park, draw a crowd around him and bring the crowd to the policemen and attack the policemen with rocks and stones and bottles, and shout profanities at the policemen, tell them to take off their guns and fight? Did he ever say he was going to do that?

THE WITNESS: No, he didn't, Mr. Schultz.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, Mr. Ochs, you say that on Sunday night you were with Mr. Rubin all night, is that right?

THE WITNESS: From 9:30 maybe, until after 12:00.

MR. SCHULTZ: And of course you have been told by somebody that there is evidence that Mr. Rubin was in Lincoln Park that night, isn't that right? Well, were you told, or not?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: Were you told that somebody saw him with a cigarette in his hand?

THE WITNESS: No, I was not told that.

MR. SCHULTZ: Well, what were you told, please?

THE WITNESS: I was told very little. I was told that Jerry was accused of something

MR. SCHULTZ: Who told you all these things?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Kunstler told me the one thing, not all these things, something that Jerry was accused of something in the park on Sunday night, and that's all I was told, nothing else.

MR. SCHULTZ: You don't want to get Mr. Kunstler into trouble, do you?

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, first of all--

MR. SCHULTZ: Suddenly he backs off--suddenly he backs off. It is all too patent, your Honor.

THE COURT: Will the record show that Mr. Kunstler--

MR. KUNSTLER: Yes, I did, your Honor, I think it is a disgraceful statement in front of a jury.

THE COURT: --threw a block of papers noisily to the floor.

MR. KUNSTLER: All right. I dropped papers noisily to the floor.

THE COURT: I shall not hear from you in that tone, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: I am sorry for putting the paper on the table, and it fell off onto the floor, but to say in front of a jury, "That is too patent" and "What are you backing off for?" I think, your Honor, any Court in the land would hold that is unconscionable conduct, and if I am angry, I think I am righteously so in this instance.

THE COURT: That will be all.

Continue with your cross-examination.

MR. SCHULTZ: In any event, Mr. Ochs, you are absolutely sure you never really went beyond the fringes of the park with Jerry Rubin that night, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: You just stood right along the fringes all that night, you never went in to see what was happening at the command post, did you?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. SCHULTZ: You never walked in to see what was happening at the fieldhouse, did you?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. SCHULTZ: That is all, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may step down.

(witness excused)

THE COURT: Don't forget your guitar.

THE WITNESS: I won't.

THE COURT: Call your next witness.

[histoireettralala]

Philippe Auguste

The Capetian monarchy was an institution, with traditions and restrictions. But the personal element in the medieval period always remained a significant factor. To what extent the government of any individual king was personal is not easy to determine. In general it is true that counsellors could advise, but could not normally decide policy. Others were there to obey the will of the monarch, perhaps to help form it, but not to take over from it. Philip's views were shaped by many influences: by observing his father's work, by his father's advice, by his own education, by the advice he received from counsellors, by the experience of governing, by the views of churchmen, theologians, popes and fellow rulers, but in the end they were his views and could be imposed to the extent of the power of the monarchy at the time. Philip's court and government reflected his own personality. Gerald of Wales pointed out its contrasts with the Plantagenet court, the French king's being more sober as we have seen, more quiet in tone, more proper, with swearing forbidden. Philip brought about significant changes: less reliance on the magnates, a lesser role for his family; a greater place for the selected dose counsellors and for relatively humble knights.

It has been suggested that Philip's intellectual gifts were 'modest', which, although direct evidence is not easily available, seems to conflict with what we know about the king's abilities. He was able to deal with the bright men around him, such as Peter the Chanter. He was able to supervise governmental development and the administration, which needed a considerable grasp of accounting as well as a degree of literacy. His ability to deal with the papacy reveals a clear understanding of legal argument and his rights, and a firm determination to protect them. He was rarely outmanoeuvred by even the cleverest of his opponents. Philip went to war as any leader of his period would, but he was more prepared than most to seek and make peace.

Rigord said that Philip's aim was 'to deliver the weak from the tyranny of the strong', and that 'his first triumph is to see peace re-established'. His tolerance and mild temper puzzled the aggressive Bertran de Born, who thought the French needed a leader and had not found one in Philip, who did not become angry. Bertran preferred the attitude of Richard the Lionheart, for whom 'peace and truce have never been noble'. For Bertran it was a sneer to suggest that Philip liked peace even more than the noted diplomat Archbishop Peter of Tarentais. Bertran had cause to regret his underestimation of Philip, when the king later used his authority to replace Bertran as lord of Hautefort. No doubt that act was executed on the advice of counsellors, and Bertran could further nurse his belief that Philip was 'badly advised and worse guided'.

Philip did in fact at times lose his temper, but usually with some point, as when he chopped down the elm on the Norman border, declaring by actions rather than words that he no longer accepted the Plantagenet stance on their rights to bring the king to the edge of their territories before they would hold discussions. Nor were his diplomatic activities always appreciated by his enemies. He could manoeuvre and manipulate with the best of them; he was the 'sower of discord' according to one English chronicler. To take just one example of his methods: in the conquest of Normandy he knew that Rouen was the key, which afterwards he would need to govern. Therefore he did not simply crush Rouen, and chose to discuss with the leading citizens what they would gain from surrender. If allowed in, he promised: 'I will prove a kind and just master to you.' In modern times he has been called 'a statesman of the first water', 'the first royal statesman in French history' ; it is a reputation which in this country we have somehow failed to recognize.

[..]

Philip was generally modest and unassuming, as we have seen in contrast to Richard the Lionheart both in Sicily and in the Holy Land. Bertran de Born thought the French king presented his deeds in tin-plate rather than in gilt. But Philip was aware of the need to present a regal figure, dignified if not flamboyant: a public face of modesty but a recognition of his own powers. The scene painted by Mouskes of Philip entering a church and praying: 'I am but a man, as you are, but I am king of France', has a deep truth to it. There is also a story of Peter the Chanter telling Philip what were the attributes of an ideal sovereign; Philip replied that he should be contented with the king that he had.

The efforts to show his connection back to Charlemagne demonstrate Philip's effort to bolster the Capetian position. His mother, Adela, and his first wife, Isabella of Hainault, both claimed descent from Charlemagne. His natural son was named Peter Charlot, after the great emperor. And the Carolingian claim seems to have become generally accepted. Innocent III declared: 'it is common knowledge that the king of France is descended from the lineage of Charlemagne'. No doubt there was some weakness in the argument, but William the Breton refers to him as 'the descendant of Charlemagne', and the Welshman Gerald believed that Philip aimed to restore the monarchy to 'the greatness which it had in the time of Charlemagne'.

Philip wished to present an imperial image of French monarchy, hence the use of an eagle on his seal, the label 'Augustus' applied by Rigord, his sister's marriage to two Byzantine emperors, and the raising to the Latin imperial throne of two of his brothers-in-law. The same point was being emphasized when the sword of Charlemagne had been brandished at Philip' s coronation ceremony. As one of the Parisian masters wrote in 1210: 'the king is emperor in his realm'. The royal family was being distanced from other families, however noble; royal power was being set above noble power. It was not just a question of wealth and lands, but of the nature of monarchy, its prestige, its religious and mystical significance. The claimed association with Charlemagne, by the twelfth century a powerful figure in legend as well as a great historical emperor, was an important part of this process.

Philip was a tough-minded individual, he would not otherwise have been such a great king. Those who had experience of dealings with Louis VII found Philip a much harder opponent with more steel in his character. He had tremendous determination, and strong views on basic policies. Before his father's death, while still a teenager, Philip was prepared to rule, issuing charters without his father's consent, reacting against some of his father's policies. Before long he threw off the shackles of his mother and her powerful family, and soon afterwards of the count of Flanders. The English chronicler Howden thought he did it because he 'despised and hated all whom he knew to be familiar friends of his father', which seems a distortion, but at least underlines the point that Philip was of independent mind from the first.

Philip preferred his close counsellors to be lesser men who accepted their subordinate role without question. We may be clear that his policy expressed his own views. There was an encounter at one of the conferences between Philip and King John which occurred between Boutavent and Gaillon, when the two kings were 'face to face for an hour, no one except themselves being within hearing', a brief comment but one which allows a sudden and vivid insight into the personal nature of thirteenth-century diplomacy.

Of course Philip took counsel, and made a point of doing so, but he was too independent a man to be dominated by another. And though inclined to prefer diplomatic solutions, he was a good enough warrior to win respect; as William the Breton said 'his arm was powerful in the use of weapons'. Bouvines was the most important battle of the age, and Philip was the victor. Where the loss of documentary evidence from the earlier period often makes it impossible to be certain that Philip was the innovator or the initiator, a knowledge of his character, his able leadership and his drive, make him far and away the likeliest candidate. One of Philip's major achievements was to shift the balances of an intricate system of government in France in favour of the Capetian monarchy, so that its views were more often heeded, and came to be heeded in areas where that had not previously been the case.

Jim Bradbury- Philip Augustus, King of France, 1180-1223xiii

[lil-melody-moon]

Oh thank you! @circle-bircle I will have a kick out of it <3

Three Ships: I'm not much of a shipping person, unless it's self-inserts so I guess I will go with that - there were canon character x oc ships in the past, but that is in the past, so let me uncover myself now: 1. Keith Moon/Me - Now that one began for personal reasons. I just feel some kind of connection to this drunkard, I don't know. I'm acting like a high school girl in love when I see him - I blame it entirely on the fact that he reminds me of my dad, but it can be many other reasons. Along with the fact that it's thanks to him that I love drums so much. It's a cute relationship most of the time, kind of a replacement for the fact that I'm still single and I don't deal with it well. If I can't have a partner in reality (for now I hope) I can have one in my mind, right? Haha... 2. Uncle Ernie/Me - I've watched "Tommy", that was it. That was enough to make me go from being totally embarrassed at first to then mumble "Fuck, he's hot" upon seeing him later in the musical. And I will summarize it like this - I fell into "uncle/niece" trope and two of my dear friends group are kicking my ass with it. I like it tho, it's toxic, but like, why not? 3. John Bonham/Me - I would go with another one, but I guess this one deserves a third place at least. My sweet sweet chubby guy <3 There's just something friendly and family like about him that just draws me in. There's a lot to hug actually and I love cuddles so. Ideal men to have cuddles with <3 It's a family like relationship, very warm and protective. One I turn to when I feel very very lonely.

It's noticeable that I have a weakness for alcoholics, right? The blame's on dad

First Ever Ship: Umn, if I remember correctly it was from Harry Potter. I was young, I didn't even know about the concept of shipping, but I always had thought that Harry will end with Hermione. My disappointment at the end was VERY BIG XD Last Song: Currently listening to sweet Friends by Led Zeppelin Currently Reading: A Court of Wings and Ruin by Sarah J. Maas and as much as I like the first and second book this one is just... I don't know. It exists because the war has to be resolved somehow. The entire nice and heat atmosphere about Rhys's and Feyra's relationship was blown away by the fact that they are together in this one, very close. I don't know, the way their relationship is shown doesn't speak to me. So I'm just pushing to the end and THEN I'm gonna read John Lennon's biography *heart eyes*. Heart eyes even if I hear mixed opinions about Philip Norman. I am a curious fucker, I bought it because it's about Lennon! Currently Watching: The Office and I keep asking myself "Michael, what do you see in this woman???" I'm after the episode where Jim and Pam were visiting Michael and Jean at their house. Michael, stop being such a fool ;; Currently Consuming: I'm not eating anything but if it comes to media consumption... Anything that has even the slightest connection to Keith Moon. You would have to see me at the book fair when I've noticed Who's Next album by The Who. My friend from my degree was standing next to me and I almost hugged the album, saying: "I will not let it go, mine" and she laughed so hard at that XD Currently Craving: I will make it not food related because I ate lunch not so long ago, but... NSFW incoming - I do crave one guy's dick, some days even way too much, to the point that I can't think, but I think that's the single woman's fate.

Tagging! @jimmysdragonsuit13 @jimmys-zeppelin @groovyysav @boilmynoodles @diamondstuddedflunkies @whothefuckisanja @marleighdrinkscoffee @shades-of-tiefes-purpur @m-faithfull

9 people you’d like to get to know better

omg thank you @neotula for tagging me!!! i love being tagged in things!!! yay!!!!!!

Three Ships:

I guess I'll do the first three that come to mind????? I don't have a #1 OTP or anything like that so

Sonya/Genny. They're just so freaking pretty together. I love women!!!!!!

Jecht/The Emperor: ok hear me out. HEAR ME OUT. why wouldn't someone ship them? when Tidus dies or whatever and Jecht gives him his lifepower/energy/whatever the hell happens, the Emperor takes JECHT when he's like that and gosh their conversation in Dream's End where the Emperor is all like 'actually I've been lying to you this entire time lol' UGHGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!

Cecil/Rosa/Kain: ummm idk i just had a fleeting thought about mind-controlled kain and mind-controlled cecil and which one would be the lesser evil to rosa. like. i don't know. but mind-control shenanigans aside they love each other very much and that is fact. i love ffiv

First Ever Ship: it was probably len/luka tbh. i feel like people got peeved at it because len is supposedly 14 and luka is supposedly 20 but i just aged em up. something about the yellow/pink combo (and the fact i was obsessed with vocaloid for like a decade too)

Last Song: I'm currently listening to the Tetra Master theme from FFIX :)

Currently Reading: Allen Ginsberg's A Supermarket in California. It's for class. I hate poetry, but I have to do it for my grade. I also have to read a bunch of other poems. Gosh, I hate poems. I don't know what my professor wants me to interpret from poems because it feels like he wants a "right answer" but my answer is that "it was a poem and it did things."

Currently Watching: I don't watch TV. Or movies. The last thing I watched was the first Twilight for the first time! I wish I sparkled in the sunlight.

Currently Consuming: Nothing ATM, but me and a friend went to a bakery and I got her a whoopie pie! So yay for her! We also got coffee before that, and it was delicious.

Currently Craving: I'm not hungry right now, so nothing. But I could go for some of Miss Vickie's Spicy Dill Pickle chips when I do want to nosh. I wonder if the vending machine has been restocked...

i don't know 9 people who would want to do this. i feel like @lil-melody and @ashnwolves might get a kick out of it. um. if you want me to secretly add your name to that list let me know because when people are like "anyone can do it!!!" it still feels kinda awkward. or just steal it! that's ok too i think :P

[elafranco2024]

I find it funny how people are biased and Manichean, especially the Beatles fan club. I see an excess of criticism of Paul as if he was responsible for the breakup of the Beatles, was cunning, prostituted his own beauty and the other members were nice, naive. I don't think they've actually seen the show Get Back or read any biography like Philip Norman, who is an ardent fan of John, by the way. All of them had a huge ego, were difficult to deal with and each had their flaws.

John is very talented, but was jealous of Paul, obsessed with him and lazy. It was very easy for him that Paul took the major responsability with the Band. After the break up it distilled its venom and made the media turn against Paul by demonizing him.

In fact, I doubt he loved him, he wanted him for his beauty, which by the way, heterosexual men and homosexual women also desire him, that's not love. Paul did love him and forgave him everything. Who loves does not try to destroy the other.

George, on Get Back, behaved like a prima donna who wanted Mal Evans to buy ties and bring him shoes so he could choose what to buy. Plus he cheated on poor Ringo by having an affair with his wife Maureen... he's not a beautiful soul, although I love him too.

In the series Get Back the only one who took the band and the work seriously was Paul. Ringo Star, probably the best person among them, really, has said that the Beatles achieved the success they were thanks to Paul. He is an angel? Obviously not, but not seeing his qualities and his gigantic talent is being completely unfair.

I really vented, stop hating Paul!

[dwellordream]

“During the years of Eleanor of Aquitaine’s captivity, 1174–89, she disappears almost entirely from sight. According to one account, Henry II ordered her confined in “well guarded strong places”; and she was first housed under close supervision in the royal castle at Sarum, or Old Salisbury, although later she can be located occasionally at other royal castles in southern England. As a woman, Eleanor received more lenient treatment than men captured while taking part in an armed rebellion; and Henry may have chosen Salisbury Castle for her detention as a gesture of leniency, for its residential quarters, a large quadrangle next to the keep, had been one of her favored abodes during her earlier years as queen.

According to a chronicler at Limoges, Henry imprisoned his queen at Salisbury Castle, “on guard against her reverting to her machinations.” The king’s fear was Eleanor’s continued involvement in the intrigues of their quarrelsome sons, and he tried to ensure that no communication passed between them. Yet he could not afford to treat her too harshly, for that would only have added to the hatred that Young Henry, Richard, and Geoffrey already felt for him. Earlier, both Anglo-Norman monarchs and counts of Anjou had not hesitated to imprison defeated nobles, including near-relatives, for years, often under such harsh conditions that they lost their health, if not their lives. 

A queen’s long captivity was startling, but imprisonment of great ladies was not unprecedented. In medieval vernacular literature, tales were not uncommon of aristocratic ladies locked away for years, many of them by their own families, and history records many noble maidens whose fathers were forced to turn them over to their lords as hostages. Henry II could have made other choices for ridding himself of the threat presented by Eleanor to the stability of his rule. She could simply have disappeared during her captivity at Chinon, but young Arthur of Brittany’s mysterious disappearance from Rouen Castle later during John’s reign shows that such a solution would have created more problems than it solved. 

Rumors that John had murdered his nephew with his own hands quickly spread, and it sapped his subjects’ loyalty to him, crippling him in his contest with his archenemy Philip of France. Certainly rumors of Eleanor’s death while in Henry’s hands following his suspected role in the murder of Becket would have had a similar effect. His wife’s murder would have aroused revulsion throughout Europe, and it would have so enraged the Poitevins that Plantagenet rule over them would have been impossible. In any case, Henry’s character had little in common with that of the insecure and overly suspicious John, and although severe and vengeful, he lacked his youngest son’s depraved cruelty that surfaced once he was king. 

An option that great men had often chosen in earlier centuries for dealing with wayward or unwanted wives was immuring them in convents. Henry II considered such a step in 1175–76, when his adulterous affair with Rosamund Clifford was at its most passionate stage. A contemporary writer claimed that Henry, having imprisoned his queen, no longer tried to hide his adultery, and publicly displayed as his mistress, “not a rose of the world (mundi rosa) . . . , but more truly might be called the rose of an impure husband (immundi rosa).” 

Apparently Henry was not worried that dissolution of his marriage to Eleanor would threaten his authority over her duchy of Aquitaine. Despite Louis VII’s loss of Aquitaine as a result of his divorce, Henry seemed confident that Richard’s formal installation as duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitou would keep Eleanor’s lands safely in Plantagenet hands. Henry saw an opportunity to secure a divorce from Eleanor at the time of a mission to England by a papal legate, sent from Rome to settle one of the endless quarrels between the kingdom’s two archbishops. On the papal representative’s arrival in England in autumn 1175, the king received him with honor, showering him with gifts and flattery. 

Henry assumed that the cardinal would agree readily to a dissolution of his marriage on grounds of consanguinity, since Louis VII had won a divorce for that reason, and Henry’s kinship to Eleanor was even closer than her relationship to her first husband. The English king allegedly offered his queen release from her captivity during his Easter court at Winchester in 1176, if she would agree to enter a religious house, no doubt Fontevraud Abbey, probably with the prospect of becoming abbess there. The abbey had a reputation as a residence for noble ladies seeking refuge from wordly affairs, but Eleanor was unwilling to join them, not even if installed as abbess, and she and her sons resisted Henry’s plan. 

She even appealed to the archbishop of Rouen against being packed off to Fontevraud, and he refused to give his consent to Henry’s plan. As the archbishop of Rouen’s role shows, the Church’s opposition was another obstacle to Henry in ridding himself of Eleanor, and his projected divorce was not to be easily accomplished. After Becket’s martyrdom, the English king had little credit with the papacy or with churchmen in England or elsewhere in Europe. He was in no position to pressure a pope firmly opposed to approving a divorce, particularly one who was doubtless aware of rumors that he desired the divorce in order to marry his mistress. 

Whatever the possibility of Henry II setting his queen aside and taking Rosamund Clifford as his wife, events intervened to prevent it, for his beloved mistress died late in 1176 or in 1177. His fair Rosamund was buried at Godstow Priory in Oxfordshire only a few miles from their trysting place at Woodstock. Around the time of Rosamund’s death the patron of Godstow, an Oxfordshire baron, assigned his patronage rights over the house to Henry in order that it should be held “in chief of the king’s crown, as the Abbey of Saint Edmund and other royal abbeys throughout the kingdom of England are constituted.” This elevation in Godstow’s status reflects Henry’s deep feelings for his mistress, a desire to honor the convent that housed her tomb and to place the nuns watching over it under royal protection. 

In the years following Rosamund’s death, Henry showed great generosity to the Godstow nuns, making them cash grants and giving them timber for their building projects. Soon gossip was circulating that Henry II’s desire for an annulment of his marriage was not in order to wed Rosamund Clifford, but so that he could marry instead the sixteen-year-old Alix of France, a maiden whom he had already “unchastely, and with too much want of faith, dishonored.” Alix’s father Louis VII had betrothed her to Richard at the Montmirail settlement of 1169, and he had handed her over to be raised at her future father-in-law’s court. 

Henry’s ravishing of young Alix was far more shameful to contemporaries than his affair with Rosamund Clifford, for he had taken advantage of a girl entrusted to him as his ward when she was only nine to remain in his household until she reached the proper age for marrying Richard. In taking her to his bed, he had not only violated her trust, but also the trust of her father, his lord the French king, as well as that of his own son. This affair had begun during the queen’s absences from court, but given the rapid circulation of rumors from the royal court, Eleanor heard of the scandal almost at once, whether still in Poitou or sequestered in England later. 

The queen would learn that Henry did not limit his adulterous affairs to Alix of France while she was in captivity. He sired another illegitimate son by a Welsh woman, Nest, married to one of his knights from southwestern England. He acknowledged the boy, named Morgan, who became a cleric and eventually was named provost of Beverley, Yorkshire, a lucrative ecclesiastical living that English kings often granted to high-ranking royal servants. News of the king’s liaison with Alix must have left Eleanor appalled, for the king’s conduct not only grossly violated aristocratic standards of honorable behavior, but also betrayed and humiliated her favorite son. 

It gave both Eleanor and Richard yet another grievance against Henry. According to a courtier’s hostile account, the king hoped by means of new heirs born to his new favorite that he might “be able effectually to disinherit his former sons by Eleanor, who had troubled him.” The story of Henry II’s seduction of Alix is not simply another scurrilous tale told by his enemies, for several sources corroborate it. Henry was curiously reluctant to carry out the princess’s long-delayed marriage to Richard, despite periodic protests from Louis VII and Philip II and from high-ranking churchmen including the pope complaining on their behalf. 

Strongest evidence for the accusation’s accuracy, however, is Richard Lionheart’s own resistance to marrying Alix. Roger of Howden, a chronicler with access to court circles, records Richard’s excuse offered to Philip, her half-brother, for refusing to marry his betrothed of many years at the outset of the Third Crusade. He quotes Richard as telling the French king, “I do not reject your sister; but it is impossible for me to marry her, for my father had slept with her and had a son by her.” Richard then added that he could present many witnesses capable of testifying to the truth of his statement. 

At the time, the English king was in the embarrassing position of preparing to take a Spanish princess as his bride, and he needed a potent excuse for breaking off his engagement to Alix. The Lionheart’s most respected modern biographer finds it difficult to discount Howden’s “explicit statement.” Furthermore, the Lionheart need not have lodged such a bitter accusation against his own father in order to justify his rejection of Alix; he could simply have declared that she had borne another man’s child without naming the father.

…As years passed Eleanor was allowed to make sojourns at other castles, certainly to Winchester and Windsor and perhaps as far west as Devonshire, where she had held substantial lands. Within Winchester Castle was a series of buildings that together formed the equivalent of a royal palace; and during Henry II’s reign repairs and additions to the residential quarters were constantly under way.  At Winchester, the queen probably encountered her daughter-in-law, Margaret, wife of the Young King, who was a frequent visitor there, for works undertaken in 1174–75 included construction of an addition “where the young queen hears mass.”

In 1176, Robert Mauduit received a payment of almost three pounds by the king’s order, apparently for Eleanor’s expenses during Henry’s Easter court held that year at Winchester. That court marked the last time that she would see all four of her sons together. Richard and Geoffrey had crossed from France for the feast, and they returned to the Continent with their father. Henry the Young King and his queen also left England after Easter, and he would be away from the kingdom for three years before returning for another Easter court at Winchester. 

The dullness of Eleanor’s life was brightened by the betrothal of her youngest daughter Joanne in 1176. The captive Eleanor had no voice in negotiations for the eleven-year-old girl’s hand, but she would have been filled with pride at Joanne’s selection as the bride of William II, king of Sicily. William’s kingdom was the creation of eleventh-century Norman adventurers incorporating both Sicily and the southern Italian mainland and heir to traditions of the island’s previous occupiers, Greeks, Romans, and Arabs. 

Years earlier Eleanor had seen first-hand the island’s splendors at their height under King Roger II, when her ship from the Holy Land, blown off course, landed her at the cosmopolitan city of Palermo in 1149. By the time William succeeded to the throne, however, Sicily’s greatness was fading into a sort of “Indian summer.” Henry II had sought a Sicilian marriage for one of his daughters earlier, and the project was revived in May 1176, when ambassadors from the Sicilian royal court came to England. They were entertained at Winchester, where Joanne was residing and where Eleanor had remained for a time after the Easter court. 

The young princess’s beauty impressed the envoys, and Henry agreed to her betrothal to the young Sicilian ruler. English emissaries set off for Sicily to negotiate the marriage settlement, arriving at Palermo in early August. Perhaps the queen helped in readying her daughter’s trousseau and prepared her for life at the Sicilian royal court by recalling her own visit there years earlier. After Joanne’s departure for her new home, her mother could not have expected to see her ever again, but chance would reunite them on two occasions many years later. In September 1176 Joanne left Winchester for Palermo, loaded with clothing, gold and silver plate, and other impressive gifts to take to her new island home; the cost of one of her robes, no doubt her wedding dress, was over £114.25 

In February 1177 in the Palatine Chapel at Palermo, she married William, a young man of twenty-two, and her coronation as his queen quickly followed. Joanne’s Sicilian marriage aroused greater interest among the English than had her two elder sisters’ marriages earlier to foreign princes. English adventurers journeyed south to seek their fortunes, attracted by accounts of the island kingdom’s riches. Artistic and literary inspiration flowed northward from Sicily; mosaics in Sicily’s Byzantine-style churches influenced English wall-paintings and manuscript miniatures, and the Sicilian kingdom became a setting for English romances.”

- Ralph V. Turner,  “A Captive Queen’s Lost Years, 1174–1189.” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of France, Queen of England

[torchlitinthedesert]

Kenneth Tynan and the Beatles

Shout out to @mmgth for noticing Beatle mentions in the letters of Kenneth Tynan - including working with John Lennon, Paul's 1960s reputation, and glimpses of the breakup. (Alas, no George or Ringo.)

Tynan was a drama critic and later worked with Laurence Olivier at Britain's National Theatre. Philip Norman calls him "the most rigorous cultural commentator of his age": he championed working class plays in the 1950s, supported progressive art (and was widely believed to be the first person to say "fuck" on British television). So he's an interesting perspective: well connected, arty, eager for cultural change, but from an older generation, and outside the immediate rock/pop world.

The first mention is 1966, when Tynan is already working at the National Theatre.

28 September 1966

Dear Mr McCartney,

Playing 'Eleanor Rigby' last night for about the 500th time, I decided to write and tell you how terribly sad I was to hear that you had decided not to do As You Like It for us. There are four or five tracks on 'Revolver' that are as memorable as any English songs of this century - and the maddening thing is that they are all in exactly the right mood for As You like It. Apart from 'E. Rigby' I am thinking particularly of 'For No One' and 'Here, There and Everywhere'. (Incidentally, 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is the best musical evocation of L.S.D. I have ever heard).

To come to the point: won't you reconsider? John Dexter [theatre director] doesn't know I'm writing this - it's pure impulse on the part of a fan. We don't need you as a gimmick because we don't need publicity: we need you simply because you are the best composer of that kind of song in England. If Purcell were alive, we would probably ask him, but it would be a close thing. Anyway, forgive me for being a pest, but do please think it over."

Paul replied that he couldn't do the music because, hilariously, "I don't really like words by Shakespeare" - he sat waiting for a "clear light" but nothing happened. He ended, "Maybe I could write the National Theatre Stomp sometime! Or the ballad of Larry O."

It's interesting that Tynan approaches Paul individually - because they had theatre connections in common? Or did Tynan assume that John wrote the words and Paul the music, so Paul's the guy to ask for settings of Shakespeare lyrics? (Though he does correctly identify Paul songs in his letter, plus the musical setting of Tomorrow Never Knows, so he might just be asking because he's a Paul girl. He also wants Paul to know that he's cool and hip and has done acid.)

Tynan definitely is a Paul girl. On 7 November that year, he pitched possible articles (I think for Playboy). He offers articles on the War Crimes Tribunal (set up by Bertrand Russell on the US in Vietnam), an interview with Marlene Dietrich, or:

"Interview with Paul McCartney - to me, by far the most interesting of the Beatles, and certainly the musical genius of the group."

It's a reminder of how drastically Paul's reputation changed, between cultural commentators of the 1960s and post-breakup.

Tynan didn't get his Paul interview, but he worked twice with John.

On 5 February 1968, he's sorting out practical details for the National Theatre's company manager about about the stage adapation of John's book In His Own Write (which had already had a preview performance in 1967). It's a very Beatle-y affair:

Victor Spinetti and John Lennon will need the services of George Martin, the Beatles A & R man to prepare a sound tape to accompany the Lennon play. Martin did this tape as a favour for the Sunday night production, but something more elaborate will be required when the show enters the rep, and I feel he should be approached on a professional basis as Sound Consultant, or some similar title. I have written to him to find out if he is ready to help and will let you know as soon as he replies.

...John Lennon says that as far as his own contract is concerned, we should deal directly with him at NEMS rather than his publisher.

So John prefers to work within the Beatle structure: George Martin, Victor Spinetti, plus NEMS, rather than pursuing closer ties with his book publisher.

On 16 April 1968, Tynan writes to John about his ideas for a wanking sketch.

Dear John L,

Welcome back. You know that idea of yours for my erotic revue - the masturbation contest? Could you possibly be bothered to jot it down on paper? I am trying to get the whole script in written form as soon as possible.

John's reply is very John:

"you know the idea, four fellows wanking - giving each other images - descriptions - it should be ad-libbed anyway - they should even really wank which would be great..."

Oh John.

Tynan still wanted to interview Paul - and was noticing changes in Beatle dynamics. On 3 September 1968, Tynan pitched another feature on Paul, this time for the New Yorker:

In addition to pieces on theatre, I'd love to try my hand at a profile (I remember long ago we vaguely discussed Paul McCartney though John Lennon is rather more accessible)...

Accessible because Tynan had already worked with him, or because John was already flexing his PR muscles? The New Yorker was interested, because Tynan follows up on 14 October 1968:

4. A few days in the life of Paul McCartney (which we agreed should come at the end of the series of articles, because of the current overexposure of the Beatles.)

Why does he see the Beatles as "overexposed" in autumn 1968, when he hadn't in 1966? Was it the Apple launch? The JohnandYoko press campaign? The cumulative impact of a lot of Beatle news?

Tynan was still trying on 17 September 1969:

...I'd like to go on to either Mr Pinter [playwright Harold Pinter] or Paul McCartney... I incline towards McCartney who has isolated himself more and more in the past from the other Beatles and indeed from the public: he seems to have reached an impasse that might be worth exploring. On the other hand Pinter is a much closer friend and would be more accessible to intimate scrutiny."

I'm fascinated by this - that Paul's isolation was visible to those outside the Beatles circle (the letter is dated three days before the meeting of 20 September 1969, where John said he wanted a divorce).

But Tynan was right about Paul being inaccessible. On 5 January 1970:

I'm saddened to have to tell you that Paul McCartney doesn't want to be written about at the moment - at least, not by me. I gather that for some time now the Beatles have been moving more and more in separate directions. Paul went to a recording session for a new single last Sunday which was apparently the first Beatles activity in which he'd engaged for nearly nine months. He doesn't know quite where his future lies, and above all he doesn't want to be under observation while he decides.

So while Paul "doesn't want to be under observation", he's surprisingly open about the breakup - less blunt than "the Beatle thing is over", which he told Life in November 1969, but still frank.

Trying to persuade Paul to open up to "intimate scrutiny" in 1969 does suggest another reason why 1970s interviewers adored John. Tynan works for an older, more established press, but he's offering the kind of profile John would make his own - discussing his inner life and personal/artistic conflicts with cultural commentator who respects him as an artist. And Paul can't run away fast enough. As a journalist, you'd absolutely go for the guy who makes himself accessible and is eager to bare his soul, over Mr Doesn't Want To Be Written About At The Moment.

[thebeatleaesthetic]

Paul McCartney on John Lennon’s Sexuality [Quotes]

[wordcount: 1.3 k]

I don't think [the gay claims] are true. John never ever tried anything, I slept with him a million times. I've seen him on tour roaring drunk, out of his mind in the early days before he sobered up and went to rehab. Roaring drunk and it was always with a female, never once [with a man]. If you've got a little gay tendency and you’re roaring drunk I'd have caught him once.

— Paul McCartney (from The Sun)

That was the intimacy we had. We would always be walking in on each other and things. I’d walked in on John and seen a little bottom bobbing up and down with a girl underneath him. It was perfectly normal: you’d go, ‘Oh shit, sorry,’ and back out the room... 

That’s why I’ve always found very strange the theory that John was gay. Because over fifteen years of sharing rooms, sharing our lives, not one of us has an incident to relate of catching John with a boy. I would have thought that kind of thing would be more prevalent, and John’s inhibitions were certainly free when he was drunk.

...

So there was the homosexual thing - I’m not sure John did anything but we certainly gave him a lot of grief when he got back [from Spain with Brian].

...

There has been a suggestion since that John had some homosexual thing with Brian, but I personally doubt it. All the intimate moments we shared were always about girls. 

— Paul McCartney (from The Beatles Anthology book)

The funny thing is when later the rumour came out that John was gay, I said: 'I don't think so.' I mean, I don't know what he did when he went to New York, but certainly not in any of my experiences. We used to sleep together, top and tail it, you know. I always used to say: 'Come on, I would have spotted something here.' But what I spotted was completely the opposite. It was just chicks, chicks, chicks.

— Paul McCartney (from The Guardian 2007 interview with Pete Doherty)

But I--I mean, I hear [Peter Brown] said John Lennon had a gay thing with Brian Epstein when they went to Spain together once.  That's been rumored for years. I mean, was he in the room with them? It's probably just wishful thinking on his part. But I'll tell you what's naughty about it--that John's not here to answer it, and neither is Brian. All that stuff that's written about us, I just hope that people who've sort of heard of our music, vaguely, know what the Beatles, or the ex-Beatles, were--and it wasn't what's been written. I mean, John's time and effort were, in the main, spent on pretty honorable stuff. 

— Paul McCartney (from the Playboy 1984 interview)

I don't actually know the truth of the John [and Brian Epstein relationship] rumor. I mean, all I can ever say about that is that I slept with John a lot just 'cause you--you had to sleep and you know you didn't have, you know, more than one bed. And, um, to my knowledge John was never gay. It might've been--I've suspected that the John thing and Brian was a power play on John. 'Cause John was a very political animal. And John I suspect went away on that, uh, Spanish holiday, wherever it was, number one 'cause nobody went on holiday so anyone--I would've gone. Anyone would've gone. Off a free holiday? You're kidding. Yes! I'm there. Number two, I'm sure John took Brian aside and said "Hey, you wanna deal with this group, I'm the guy you deal with. Okay?" John was that kind of guy. Very sensible, very pragmatic. So I'm sure that was the main reason John went there. Now as to whether there was any sort of gay dalliance or whatever, I don't know. That's--that's--that’s, uh, I can't tell you that... And I say, he never hit on me at all. You know, there was never any question of it at all. And I say, we lived so intimately together that there would've been one evening when he's sort of drunk and so and so and so, would've been in his character to do that...

— Paul McCartney (from the Beatle Stories channel)

I slept in a million hotel rooms, as we all did, with John and there was never any hint that he was gay...

When the group was formed John was a smart cookie. Brian Epstein was going on holiday to Spain and Brian was gay. He invited John along. John, not being stupid, saw his opportunity to impress upon Mr Epstein who was the boss of this group. And I think that's why John went on holiday. And good luck to him, too - he was that kind of guy, he wanted Brian to know who he should listen to in this group, and that was the relationship...

So they say he went on holiday with someone who was known to be gay and therefore he is gay.

— Paul McCartney (from Lennon, Ray Coleman)

I think where [Albert Goldman in his John Lennon biography] started to exaggerate and says that John was possibly homosexual. I think that he throws that in with the truth and it starts to have the same credence as the real truth... But, um, there's a bit about me where John's supposed to come around to my house and put his foot through a picture or something. Well, I mean, it never happened you know. So if one of them never happened it's quite possible that a lot of stuff in the book never happened. And I say, if he’s homosexual, I'd have thought he'd made a pass at me in 20 years, darling!

— Paul McCartney (from The Today Show 1988)

You know, that rumor [about John being gay] came out a long time ago and the thing was, the person that started the rumor or the book that it was in, he didn't know John. Whereas I did. So I--I said to people, you know around about that time, said, "Look. I was on tour with John. I grew up with John. We kind of--we slept in the same bed in hotel rooms. We topped and tailed it like kids do, you know, when you're growing up." And I said, "I never once did I see any hint of that." Now, you know, we spent drunken nights together. I think there would've been a hint. Don't you? Somewhere. If he was gay, I think there would've just been a hint, somewhere. But it was a rumor started, uh, years ago that I--I think is a nice story if you can make it stick, but I don't think it's true.

— Paul McCartney (on The Howard Stern Show)

Stern: Here's what [Philip Norman’s] book claimed: Your sexuality was so powerful over [John], he was so enamored of you, so attracted to you, almost... McCartney: Wow. Stern: ... that you could have your way with him. Not sexually... Quivers: Did you feel a power over him? McCartney: No. Stern: ... that in business. That you had a--that--that he was sort of at your mercy because he was so in love with you. That was the theory in the book. McCartney: Well, you know, I mean I--I like that theory. Stern: Yeah [laughs]. Wish that could've been true. McCartney: No, man. Stern: No, not to have sex, but to be able to control him more because it would've been a little bit easier, business-wise. McCartney: No, but--but Howard, listen man. You can make up theories about anything... I mean, you know, we can make up anything. And that is really, particularly with The Beatles, that is what happens. They just take one tiny fragment of evidence and they blow it up into a book, even.

— Paul McCartney appears on The Howard Stern Show

▬▬▬▬

If I were to insert my own personal take on this...

I think part of the reason Paul is insistent on John’s heterosexuality (other than because he never saw John as gay) is because Paul found Albert Goldman’s, Philip Norman’s and Peter Brown’s biographies ‘trashy’. As he said when speaking about Goldman’s book in 1988: “For me, I just think it’s trash.” The rumors were around before the books’ release, but I think they - particularly Goldman - widely spread the theory among the public and elaborated on it. Paul claims there are lies in the books and he’s commented before that he strongly dislikes when people ‘cash in’ on the Beatle story with made up information. Especially when it was old friends, like Peter Brown.

As far as I can tell, Paul is also a bit protective of John’s image. To quote him from the Today Show: “[John] isn’t here to defend himself. I think that’s the big problem with a book like [Goldman’s]. It’s too cheap a shot, I think.” Remember that this book was released not even ten years after John’s death, when his name must’ve been a hot-ticket, and it’s obvious John wasn’t there to respond to any claims. John used to be asked about his relationship with Brian, denying that anything happened between them. But in these books, it was no longer asking John directly if he were gay; it was speculating that John was gay and strongly suggesting it to the reader. I think Paul feels the need to talk about what John was really like, even clarifying things like John’s flawed nature, or that John wouldn’t have wanted to be a martyr. John’s sexuality is something deeply personal and accusing him of being gay even more so. Paul must see himself as one of the few people who knew John well enough to comment on such personal things like that - which is why he says things like “I mean, was he in the room with them? It's probably just wishful thinking on his part” about Brown writing on John’s trip to Spain. I think he must find spreading rumors like that a bit presumptuous. 

And of course there’s the thought that John might’ve been attracted to Paul himself. I think Paul values his memories of John’s friendship to the highest degree. So, when he hears people turning it into something else entirely, he almost immediately goes “No, no” in very clear and firm terms as he did on The Howard Stern show. 

I know there is a variety of opinions on this subject, but that’s just mine!

[stewy]

What's your take on Paul & Yoko relationship, specially after John's death? Like I don't think they dislike each other, but I don't known if I would call them friends.

Oh, man... I think they're the exact dose of too similar/too different to have ever liked each other. While their relationship had many lows, I don't think it ever had peaks lol I mean, ofc Paul tries to keep on her good graces because without her approval none of the re-releases after John's death (including the Anthology) would've had happened and he wouldn't be so fucking rich. I think he always disliked her but tried to like her very much because of John, even after his death, since he loved her so much and Paul had to respect that. But it must've been hard trying to like someone who kept ducking his calls (supposedly on John's behalf) and keeping him from getting near to his best friend (I'm not saying John wanted to see Paul and Yoko kept him from it, indirectly or not, but that's how it must've looked like in Paul's head).

After his death... I appreciate how Paul was one of the first people she tried to call because at least it showed she acknowledged and respected John's love for him. But then... I don't know. She seemed to have so much against Paul while he was trying to like and respect her (calling him over to NYC just to see her and repeatedly delaying the meeting with the excuse of being busy; this fucking creepy video; the constant Paul Was Lesser Than John statements throughout the 80s; the whole MJ catalogue purchase shady af deal). And finally, the songwriting McCartney/Lennon thing that seems to be such a criminal thing for Paul (even more than the catalogue purchase by the frequency of mention). Paul is so weirdly fixated on this that he mentioned twice how Linda called during her chemo (???) to ask Yoko about switching the credits and Yoko said no, and how cold that made her seem. It's just SUCH a fucked up thing to even mention, and it makes him look worse than her imo.

There's a lot of shit between them, this constant quiet battle about who was rightEr about John/who knew him best, etc. There's that classic quote from the 2015 Esquire interview ('fuck you, darling!' top 5 Paul quotes), the whole Philip Norman John biography shit, and I think there's an interview where she's asked if Paul was John's soulmate as well and she replies "ask Paul" which? sure, she's not even involved, but considering she claims to have authority of every facet of John's life, looks like something she'd answer less dryly.

so YEAH, anon, I wouldn't call them friends either :-) seem to be better business partners, though!

[ljblueteak]

The Lisa Robinson reference to Paul was a pretty obvious joke. A lot of that interview was trolly.

Anon is referring to the Hit Parader ‘75 John Lennon interview with Lisa Robinson, where we get the following exchange: 

JOHN: "Yes, all your best friends let you know what's going on. I was trying to put it 'round that I was gay, you know-- I thought that would throw them off... dancing at all the gay clubs in Los Angeles, flirting with the boys... but it never got off the ground."

Q: "I think I've only heard that lately about Paul."

JOHN: "Oh, I've had him, he's no good."

(laughter)

You know, this is one where I really wish I could find audio (if anyone has it, I’d love a link!). It does seem somewhat incredible that Robinson is discussing this rumor in a serious way in a major magazine. However, if she’s joking here, it looks like this is the only joking question in the interview (not that it’s impossible to have a mostly serious interview with one joke question). John jokes a few times (like in his response to this question), but the interview read as pretty serious on the whole, and, imo, nothing other than wondering “would they seriously print a non-joke about this?” marks it as possibly being a joke.

John’s discussion of his immigration status, relationship with George and Paul and Ringo, the price of fame, etc. seems pretty earnest for the most part with a few jokes sprinkled in. I hadn’t read the whole thing until recently, but it’s here and really interesting (I had no idea John had ever said this, for example: “I'm not really interested if I get knighted when I'm seventy. I'll deal with it when it comes. I want it now-- not the knighthood-- I'll take the green card, and a passport, and the cash I earn in the band in my own name. And I'll let my music, or my art, speak for me. If they give me knighthood at age 70 I'll deal with it then. Sir John...")

But! Back to the “rumors about Paul” material. @monkberries  suggests 3 compelling possibilities here: “1) there were actual rumors about men [Paul] had had sex with, 2) there were rumors but only because of his looks/mannerisms (standard homophobia) or 3) the interviewer made it up to have something for john to bounce off of”

There’s evidence for option 2 around (i.e. Tony Sheridan’s assumptions about Paul based on stuff like his eyebrows). 

And then there’s also Francie Schwartz’s (unreliable) Body Count, which came out in ‘72. In it, she says this about Paul’s marriage to Linda: “This was the third time. He had to make it work, or else he’d go raving queer and kill himself” (92). I think it’s possible some readers would have read “queer” there as referring to sexual orientation (whether Francie intended for it to be read that way in addition to the main intended meaning here idk), and there may have been rumors that sprung up based on that--especially since Francie also apparently suggested she’d found a love letter to Paul from Brian on rec.music.beatles when the internet became a thing. She may have shared this story before the internet age too (I’m not suggesting that Francie is a reliable source--her credibility is seriously questionable--but what she wrote and may have said back then could have served as a basis for rumors. I’d like to find out more about it, as well as the post she wrote--I’ll add it if I find it in the archives). And in terms of “Brian being in love with Paul,” we also have the ‘80 Sheff interview where he asks John about Brian’s having been in love with Paul. Apparently this was a claim that was circulating in “biographies” according to the clip (I’d really love to know where Sheff was getting this from since I didn’t see this in Body Count--though please let me know if I missed it!). It doesn’t look like anyone suggested that Paul had also been in love with or had had a sexual relationship with Brian, but it’s possible, especially given monkberries’ option 2, that people speculated about it.

Then there’s option 3, where Robinson may not have been aware of any rumors about Paul or Paul and Brian and just wanted to jokingly pit Paul against John to see what he’d say about Paul and/or himself. This is a very real possibility, though it’s also possible that Robinson had heard some rumors and used the cover of a joke to see what kind of response she’d get from John. If she was aware of it (and I don’t think there’s evidence she was--I’m very much speculating), she may also have been thinking it would be an interesting question to ask given John’s very jokey ‘74 self-interview where he asks himself about rumors about the nature of his relationship with Paul.

Just in terms of other rumors that were possibly out there that might have made *readers,* especially in the industry or who knew people at Apple, take the “I think I’ve only heard that about Paul” remark seriously (and this would have been something that involved John as well, so Robinson wouldn’t have been seriously saying she’d only heard it about Paul), McCabe and Schonfeld’s ‘72 Apple to the Core appears to include a reference to the “John’s Princess” nickname that Philip Norman (and Yoko Ono) claim had been used to refer to Paul. McCabe and Schonfeld write: “With Yoko present, Paul McCartney’s reign as Lennon’s princess was doomed” (thanks for finding it, @james-winston ) While they don’t explicitly say that this is a nickname or that it’s linked to the desire for a sexual relationship, it sounds, as monkberries says in this post, “like a specific enough turn of phrase that mccabe/schonfeld might have heard someone say it.” And Norman, in his John bio, does explicitly say “John’s Princess” was a nickname for Paul that was linked to what people saw as John’s sexual desire for Paul (though he and Yoko suggest that the desire was only on John’s part). So, if it is the case that people around Apple were characterizing Paul in relation to John as being his “princess” and linking it, at least in part, to the idea that John desired Paul sexually, then it’s possible that, even if McCabe and Schonfeld didn’t say so in print and those around Apple didn’t either, there were rumors/speculation based on their relationship in the industry and some might have taken what could have been a joke question in the Robinson question seriously.

That...got seriously long and there’s a lot we just don’t have answers to (and may never have answers to), but that question in Hit Parader is fascinating to think about in terms of not only what rumors Robinson may or may not have heard but how different readers might have taken it as well.

[tinyshe]

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - “I started this list as the 100 Best Pieces of Sacred Music, but I decided instead to recommend specific recordings. Why? No matter how fine the music, say Bach's Mass in B minor, a poor performance will leave the listener wondering where the "greatness" went.  So the recommendations below represent a merging of both: All of the compositions are among the very best sacred music ever written, but the recorded performances succeed in communicating their extraordinary beauty.  

“I also dithered over whether or not to make a list of "liturgical" music, or "mass settings," or "requiems." Each of these would make interesting lists, but I chose the broader "sacred music" with the hope that this list might be of interest to a wider spectrum of people. Composers are not limited to any denomination -- some are known to have been non-believers -- although the music belongs to the Christian tradition.  

“I've also decided to limit my choices to recordings that are presently available on CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, or digital downloads.  I don't expect those who are curious about a particular title to start hunting down LPs, especially since these vinyl recordings are suddenly in great demand and prices are rising.  

“This list is alphabetized, rather than listed in chronological order. This was necessary, since recordings will often include several pieces composed years apart, perhaps much more. Thus, to reiterate, there has been no attempt to arrange them in order of preference -- all 100 are among "the best" recordings of sacred music currently available. The recording label is indicated in parentheses.

What I would call 'Indispensable Sacred Music Recordings' are marked with an ***.

1.Allegri, Miserere, cond., Peter Phillips (Gimell).*** 2.Bach Mass in B Minor, cond., Nikolaus Harnoncourt (1968 recording;Teldec).*** 3.Bach, St. Matthew Passion, cond., Philippe Herreweghe (Harmonia Mundi).*** 4.Bach, Cantatas, cond., Geraint Jones and Wolfgang Gonnenwein (EMI Classics). 5.Barber, Agnus Dei, The Esoterics (Naxos). 6.Beethoven, Missa Solemnis, cond., Otto Klemperer (EMI/Angel). 7.Bernstein, Mass, cond., Leonard Bernstein (Columbia). 8.Berlioz, Requiem, cond. Colin Davis (Phillips). 9.Brahms,  Requiem, cond., Otto Klemperer (EMI/Angel).*** 10.Briggs, Mass for Notre Dame, cond., Stephen Layton (Hyperion). 11.Britten, War Requiem, cond., Benjamin Britten (Decca). 12.Brubeck, To Hope! A Celebration, cond. Russell Gloyd (Telarc). 13.Bruckner, Motets, Choir of St. Mary's Cathedral (Delphian).*** 14.Byrd, Three Masses, cond., Peter Phillips (Gimell). 15.Burgon, Nunc Dimittis, cond., Richard Hickox (EMI Classics). 16.Celtic Christmas from Brittany, Ensemble Choral Du Bout Du Monde (Green Linnet) 17.Chant, Benedictine Monks of Santo Domingo de Silos (Milan/Jade). 18.Charpentier, Te Deum in D, cond., Philip Ledger (EMI Classics). 19.Christmas, The Holly and the Ivy, cond., John Rutter (Decca). 20.Christmas, Christmas with Robert Shaw, cond., Robert Shaw (Vox). 21.Christmas, Cantate Domino, cond., Torsten Nilsson (Proprius).*** 22.Christmas, Follow That Star, The Gents (Channel Classics). 23.Christmas, The Glorious Sound of Christmas, cond., Eugene Ormandy (Sony). 24.Christmas: Moravian Christmas, Czech Philharmonic Choir (ArcoDiva) 25.Desprez, Ave Maris Stella Mass, cond., Andrew Parrott (EMI Reflexe). 26.Dufay, Missa L'homme arme, cond., Paul Hillier (EMI Reflexe). 27.Duruflle, Requiem & Motets, cond. Matthew Best (Hyperion) 28.Dvorak, Requiem, cond. Istvan Kertesz (Decca). 29.Elgar, The Dream of Gerontius, cond. John Barbirolli (EMI Classics).*** 30.Elgar, The Apostles, cond. Adrian Boult (EMI Classics). 31.Elgar, The Kingdom, cond., Mark Elder (Halle). 32.Eton Choirbook, The Flower of All Virginity, cond., Harry Christophers (Coro). 33.Faure, Requiem, cond., Robert Shaw (Telarc). 34.Finnish Sacred Songs, Soile Isokoski (Ondine). 35.Finzi, In Terra Pax, cond. Vernon Handley (Lyrita). 36.Gabrieli, The Glory of Gabrieli, E. Power Biggs, organ (Sony). 37.Gesualdo, Sacred Music for Easter, cond., Bo Holten (BBC). 38.Gonoud, St. Cecilia Mass, cond. George Pretre (EMI Classics). 39.Gorecki, Beatus Vir & Totus Tuus, cond. John Nelson (Polygram). 40.Gospel Quartet, Hovie Lister and the Statesman (Chordant) 41.Guerrero, Missa Sancta et immaculata, cond., James O'Donnell (Hyperion) 42.Handel, Messiah, cond., by Nicholas McGegan (Harmonia Mundi)*** 43.Haydn, Creation, cond., Neville Marriner (Phillips). 44.Haydn, Mass in Time of War, cond., Neville Marriner (EMI Classics). 45.Hildegard of Bingen, Feather on the Breath of God, Gothic Voices (Hyperion). 46.Howells, Hymnus Paradisi, cond., David Willocks (EMI Classics).*** 47.Hymns, Amazing Grace: American Hymns and Spirituals, cond. Robert Shaw (Telarc).*** 48.Lauridsen, Lux Aeterna & O Magnum Mysterium, cond. Stephen Layton (Hyperion).*** 49.Lassus, Penitential Psalms, cond. Josef Veselka (Supraphon). 50.Leighton, Sacred Choral Music, cond., Christopher Robinson (Naxos). 51.Liszt, Christus, cond., Helmut Rilling (Hannsler). 52.Liszt, The Legend of St. Elisabeth, cond., Arpad Joo (Hungaroton). 53.Lobo, Requiem for Six Voices, cond., Peter Phillips (Gimell). 54.Martin, Requiem, cond. James O'Donnell (Hyperion). 55.Machaut, La Messe de Nostre Dame, cond., Jeremy Summerly (Naxos). 56.Mahler, 8th Symphony, cond., George Solti (Decca). 57.Mendelssohn, Elijah, cond. Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos (EMI 58.Monteverdi, 1610 Vespers, cond., Paul McCreesh (Archiv). 59.Morales, Magnificat, cond., Stephen Rice (Hyperion). 60.Mozart, Requiem, cond. Christopher Hogwood (L'Oiseau-Lyre). 61.Mozart, Mass in C Minor, cond. John Eliot Gardiner (Phillips). 62.Nystedt, Sacred Choral Music, cond., Kari Hankin (ASV). 63.Organum, Music of the Gothic Era, cond., David Munrow (Polygram). 64.Palestrina, Canticum Canticorum, Les Voix Baroques (ATMA). 65.Palestrina, Missa Papae Marcelli, cond. Peter Phillips (Gimell). 66.Part, Passio (St. John Passion), cond., Paul Hillier (ECM New Series). 67.Parsons, Ave Maria and other Sacred Music, cond., Andrew Carwood (Hyperion). 68.Pizzetti, Requiem, cond., James O'Donnell (Hyperion). 69.Poulenc, Gloria & Stabat Mater, cond., George Pretre (EMI Classics). 70.Poulenc. Mass in G Major; Motets, cond., Robert Shaw (Telarc). 71.Puccini, Messa di Gloria, cond., Antonio Pappano (EMI Classics). 72.Purcell, Complete Anthems and Services, fond., Robert King (Hyperion). 73.Rachmaninov, Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, cond., Charles Bruffy (Nimbus). 74.Rachmaninov, Vespers, cond., Robert Shaw (Telarc). 75.Respighi, Lauda Per La Nativita Del Signore, cond., Anders Eby Proprius). 76.Rheinberger, Sacred Choral Music, cond., Charles Bruffy (Chandos). 77.Rossini, Stabat Mater, cond., Antonio Pappano (EMI). 78.Rubbra, The Sacred Muse, Gloriae Dei Cantores (Gloriae Dei Cantores). 79.Rutter, Be Thou My Vision: Sacred Music, cond., John Rutter (Collegium).*** 80.Russian Divine Liturgy, Novospassky Monastery Choir (Naxos). 81.Rutti, Requiem, cond., David Hill (Naxos). 82.Saint Saens, Oratorio de Noel, cond., Anders Eby (Proprius). 83.Schubert, 3 Masses, cond., Wolfgang Sawallisch (EMI Classics). 84.Schutz, Musicalische Exequien, cond., Lionel Meunier (Ricercar). 85.Spirituals, Marian Anderson (RCA).*** 86.Spirituals, Jesse Norman (Phillips) 87.Telemann, Der Tag des Gerichts, cond., Nikolaus Harnoncourt (Teldec). 88.Thompson, Mass of the Holy Spirit, cond., James Burton (Hyperion). 89.Shapenote Carols, Tudor Choir (Loft Recordings) 90.Stravinsky, Symphony of Psalms, cond., Robert Shaw (Telarc). 91.Tallis, Spem in alium & Lamentations of Jeremiah, cond., David Hill (Hyperion).*** 92.Tschiakovsky, Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, cond, Valery Polansky (Moscow Studio). 93.Taneyev, At the Reading of a Psalm, cond., Mikhail Pletnev (Pentatone). 94.Vaughn Williams, Five Mystical Songs, cond., David Willcocks (EMI Classics).*** 95.Vaughn Williams, Mass in G, cond. David Willcocks (EMI Classics). 96.Vaughn Williams, Pilgrims Progress, cond., Adrian Boult (EMI Classics).*** 97.Verdi, Requiem, cond., Carlo Maria Guilini (EMI Classics).*** 98.Victoria, O Magnum Mysterium & Mass, cond., David Hill (Hyperion).*** 99.Victoria, Tenebrae Responsories, cond., David Hill (Hyperion). 100.Vivaldi, Sacred Music, cond., Robert King (Hyperion).   “ -----

Deal W. Hudson is president of the Pennsylvania Catholics Network and former publisher/editor of Crisis Magazine. Dr. Hudson also a partner in the film/TV production company, Good Country Pictures.

[margridarnauds]

Your "Grace O'Malley" tag is extremely gratifying--it's so nice to see actual scholarship. So with that in mind: Have you read Morgan Llwelyn's novel, and if so, what do you have to say on it?

Hi! Thank you so much! I’m glad you like it; it can feel a little bit like I’m shouting into the wind, given that Gráinne is one of my more niche focuses. I still kind of want to do something that actually looks at the EVIDENCE, but I digress.

Morgan Llewelyn….I have mixed feelings about. I last really looked into this book when I was toying with doing my undergrad Capstone Thesis on Donal O’Flaherty, about….4 years ago, now. Time really does fly. So, I forced myself into a refresher, just to remind myself what I missed. 

[warning for references to rape, incest, and some of the most Cursed™ lines I’ve ever been forced to read in my life, and that’s including the zombie blowjob scene.]

Final Verdict: 2.5/5 - DEFINITELY not the worst retelling of Gráinne’s life (I’ve seen....Things), but also not the best, either, and with some very, very glaring flaws that make it impossible for me to really enjoy. 

My main take away from it is that…as far as its depiction of Gráinne, it did about as well as its source material. I can tell, looking at it and reading it, that she really looked hard at Anne Chambers’ book. Which is unfortunate because, as I’ve made……………relatively clear over the years, I think that it’s very, deeply flawed. And, unfortunately, Llewlyn stuck rather close to the book, leaving in things like Donal’s “murder" of Walter Fada Burke (if the patronymic don’t fit, you’ve got to acquit), Sexist™ Incompetent™ Donal™, and…..Hugh de Lacy, which, in my personal opinion, owe more to Chambers lack of critical reading of her own sources than they do to the historical record. ESPECIALLY Hugh de Lacy because…the name. Very odd that one of the major Anglo-Norman officials should share a name with Gráinne Ní Mháille’s boytoy. Very odd. Especially given that the pattern of “Love interest of Gráinne’s killed off/Gráinne seeks revenge” is VERY similar to what we hear of the Defense of Hen’s Castle. Almost as if they come from the same story.

This also leads us to the scene where Donal tries to rape Gráinne in her sleep which, honestly, I loathe with every fibre of my being. Nope, nope. Hate it. Hate. It. Oh, God, I forgot about the references to Donal!Incest. Why is this a mini-genre of Gráinne Ní Mháille historical fiction. Why. I can think of at least…..2-3 books that do this. Why God. Why. 

Lest anyone think that this is the Donal fangirl in me jumping out, in general, I feel like Llewelyn’s treatment of most of the characters is ultimately paper-thin. Richard Burke is also given this treatment and, while I wouldn’t REALLY expect a sympathetic Richard Bingham (nor would I particularly want one - I’ve spent a lot of quality time reading his complaints and cackling), even HE’S done a disservice. 

On a technical level, I don’t REALLY like how she handles the timeline, it jumps around a little too much for my taste. We’re treated to constant flashbacks with little warning, including ones that could have been just as easily folded into the timeline proper. And, while Llewelyn has a rich, descriptive style, she also writes an, honestly, impressive number of lines that will haunt me for all the wrong reasons. I’ve detailed a lot of them under the readmore, but some highlights: 

She had gazed in wonder at the child—his perfect ears and fingers, the miniature penis that would eventually become a mighty rod for transmitting further life.” This is, I’m sure, what every mother thinks when she sees her newborn son’s penis for the first time. Why. Why God. Why. Why. Why.

Okay, another candidate for Cursed Lines: "Richard noted the high color in her cheeks, and saw how her nipples stood out strongly under the soft fabric of her gown.” If this were a male author, I would be-Nah, it’s still bad. It’s just bad writing, I’m sorry. In general, I found that she massively sexed up Gráinne’s life, for no real reason that I can tell except for that it felt almost like she felt like it was necessary to prove that Gráinne was a Real Woman™? There’s a very....odd way that her sex life is treated, and it grates on me. We have to deal with Donal, Richard, Huw(uwu), Philip Sydney, and Tigernan, all in the course of one book and, honestly, I don’t really CARE about Gráinne’s sexcapades, and they’re generally written with so little development or feeling, even and especially in the case of her GREAT LOVE HUW, that I found myself actively groaning. My take on Gráinne, at least the Gráinne that I know in the sources, is almost asexual. I don’t deny that she had sex. She obviously did. (FOUR CHILDREN.) And I think that she might very well have enjoyed it. (Not that there’s enough evidence to KNOW.) But I also think that she was a profoundly pragmatic woman who didn’t fixate on it that much. Again, I could be wrong! When we have as little as we have to go on as we do with her, it’s impossible to know! But I just do not see her as jumping into bed with guys that often, especially not in cases where there was no clear benefit. There’s this...trend, where Gráinne HAS to have a love interest, in every major adaptation of her life, because it’s almost like people are afraid to have her without the anchor of sex and romance. (For what it’s worth - I do think, simply because of the amount of time that they spent together + the fact that they did have at least three children with one another, that Donal was probably her favorite of her two spouses. I don’t KNOW this, because I can’t. The evidence isn’t there. I don’t know whether they loved one another, whether it was a great romance, whether the sex was good, or even if it was just a mild affection, but I do lean towards him, even if I can’t say that he was the Great Love of Her Life™. I think they complimented one another’s lifestyles quite nicely, and that’s all that I can really give.) 

Llewelyn also has a very, very obvious bias against Catholicism that ultimately makes me wonder whether she ever meant to engage with 16th century Ireland on its own terms. As an atheist in Celtic Studies....look, I can GET having many, many mixed feelings about Catholicism, but it WAS the religion of the land at the time. If you want to have ANY understanding of the people and what was going through their minds, you have to try to engage with them on their own terms. I’m not in any hurry to convert to Catholicism, but I do try to consider life through the eyes of medieval and early modern Catholics when I’m analyzing sources made in that time. And trying to separate it off from the Good Pagan Times, to the point of creating a 16th century druid woman to voice your opinions on free love/organized religion/etc. is just going to get you into disaster. (Though Evleen did give us one female character who is a friend to Gráinne, so...victory?) Bonus, by the way, for the Evil Priest who schemes against Gráinne and is fucking boys on the side. (It seems like they’re of age, at least?) We’re told that he has reasons for what he does, but it comes as a bit of a last minute attempt at creating the illusion of a three dimensional character. I feel like Llewelyn, ultimately, should have stuck to Pre-Patristic times. I shudder at what she would do with, say, the Mythological Cycle, I don’t particularly want her touching my baby (if she touched Bres in particular, I would probably cry) because, at this point, I don’t trust her with ANY medieval materials (mainly because they’ve all been CONTAMINATED by CATHOLIC HANDS, oh NO), but I feel like it’s where her heart truly is. 

IF she’d stuck with pre-Patristic sources, we wouldn’t have to deal with 16th century characters thinking things like: " He would go in the style of his warrior ancestors, fearless in the face of death; the ancient, pagan Gaels had known death was only a brief incident in the ongoing flow of life, a transitory happening of little importance.” Admittedly, Llewelyn herself SEEMS to realize this, as she has him cross himself afterwards, but I really, really don’t think it would be the sort of thing to cross a man’s mind in the Early Modern Period. There was very little evidence for reincarnation that was that explicit (One of the papers that I did was on the existence of reincarnation in Pre-Christian Ireland, so I actually CAN speak on this one with some degree of confidence - My ultimate findings were that it probably did exist in some form, but the evidence makes it hard at times to draw definite conclusions), and I’m not sold that they would…understand it as reincarnation, as SUCH. We can look at what, say, Julius Caesar wrote about the druids’ beliefs and apply them to medieval Irish texts, but a man living in 16th century Ireland wouldn’t necessarily have the same luxury, especially since relatively few figures are given reincarnation narratives. It’s like…she’s applying the Mythological Cycle, but she momentarily forgets that these characters wouldn’t have VIEWED the Mythological Cycle like we would have, and it’s rather jarring. No one else might pick up on that, because this is my field. This is the ONE THING I can be pedantic on.

Now! There are some things I actually do like! Outside of Chambers’ questionable grasp of historical interpretation and the resulting taint, I can tell that Llewlyn did have a solid grasp of the FEEL of Early Modern Ireland. As I noted above, she’s a very fine author, the kind I honestly ENVY as a historical fiction writer, the type that is so confident and descriptive that, even when she’s wrong, which is often, I find myself reaching for the sources just to make sure. Her descriptions are vivid and visceral, pulling me immediately into the FEEL of Ireland in the 16th century, a way of life on the verge of collapse. 

When she isn’t being descriptive in all the wrong ways as detailed above. I do feel, for whatever it’s worth, that as someone with the background in this material that I have, I was kind of doomed from the get-go. I THINK that for someone who isn’t a Celticist (in training), it would be much, much more enjoyable, BECAUSE she is so confident in her style and her way of evoking the mood that it wouldn’t really stick out. I happen to be both blessed and cursed in that regard. 

 It’s clear, as well, that she has a grasp on the literature of the time - References to the things like the first Gaels coming from Spain make my heart SING with joy because it’s a very clear allusion to Lebor Gabála Érenn and the Mythological Cycle, which is my specialty, and there are plenty of times that I can tell you EXACTLY what sources she had to hand while she was typing on a section. It’s just a pity to me that she seems to try so hard to toss it all away in order to bifurcate Early Modern Irish society into Pagan VS Catholic, since she fundamentally did betray her own sources there. And, unfortunately, the way she tends to show her research is about as subtle as a blunt nail, in a very “As you know” manner: See:  “I have heard the brehons chanting the laws governing fosterage, describing every article of clothing that must be furnished a child and every detail of the training the child is to be given.” Like, yes, the law texts record this, but I can’t really see someone from the 16th century SAYING it that bluntly, you know? Also, I’m not really sold that they would be chanting it out loud as a ritual thing, rather that a lot of the law tracts are in a simple Question/Answer format because it would have, presumably, made it simpler for the Brehons THEMSELVES to remember that way.

I do like that Llewlyn’s Gráinne…she’s attractive, yes, but she’s not conventionally attractive, and she’s explicitly said to be big and tall as a man. I feel like a lot of pop cultural depictions of Gráinne want to make her dainty and beautiful, despite living in an incredibly harsh, stressful environment. I think that her outfit’s a little too much “Modern pirate”-y for my taste, but I’ll allow it because, tbh, it looks really, really badass and, whatever clothing Gráinne would have worn, we probably wouldn’t have really recognized it as “Pirate-like”, since our vision of pirates in the modern day is mainly an early 18th century one. I do appreciate that Gráinne has that hard, pragmatic edge that I respect in the Gráinne that we read about in the State Papers and in Bingham’s recollections - a very matter of fact, no nonsense woman who would do whatever it took to survive. Though I do think that she probably didn’t really spend that much time thinking about Elizabeth. It seems slightly unrealistic to me that, knowing how pragmatic Gráinne was, that she would really, really concern herself that much with Elizabeth, especially when she would have had powerful women like Iníon Dubh closer to home. There are some really nice, poignant moments as well that the hard edge masks, like the moment where she asks after a piece of hair that sent on to her son Owen. When Gráinne is in her natural element, having fun on the open sea, taking vengeance, and getting to be angry and proud and fierce, as well as the moments where she shows a softer side....those are the moments that make it for me. But then we’re back to the sex and romance, to the point where the book is literally divided by which man she’s screwing at the time. 

Also, despite wanting to LOATHE Tigernan, as an OC love interest of Gráinne’s, I did find myself warming to him, as he has a nice, laid-back dynamic with Gráinne built on trust and filled with plenty of banter. Next to her, he is probably the single best developed character in the book, though, unfortunately, he does get it through a ton of space devoted to his thoughts, his pining for Gráinne, and his intense jealousy for the many times she chooses someone else over him (mainly because he never tells her he loves her and then he feels like she owes him for what he does for her - yes, there are some Nice Guy tendencies here, but, honestly, after about the second or third time this happened, I was very pro-Tigernan running away and finding a better gig for himself.) No, besides being Catholic and lower class, we don’t really have that MUCH on him outside of being Gráinne’s first mate, but, honestly....that’s still more characterization than the others get, and, at least as of Chapter 24, he hasn’t done anything TOO atrocious. 

My PETTIEST of bitching/impromptu liveblog beneath the cut: 

A VERY pedantic thing: Llewelyn says, multiple times, that the English would anglicize her name “Grace”. In reality, no one in Early Modern England did that, it came much, much later. In all the Letters of State, she’s referred to as “Grany” or a variation of that name - An English attempt at “Gráinne.” That’s also why you’ll notice that I tend to refer to her as Gráinne here - It was the name she was known by in her own time, it was the name her contemporaries called her, and so it’s the name I call her.

"He wore a full and drooping mustache in the old Gaelic style, though otherwise he was cleanshaven.” Again. MINOR nitpicking. The Gauls were the ones who, traditionally, we associate with the droopy mustaches. In the sagas, beards are given a TON of prominence, to the point of being the marker of being a man. So. Odd choice on Tigernan’s part there. I know that Llewelyn didn’t intend to write him as a 16th century Irish coxcomb, but…well.

"He realized he had made a bad mistake in referring to her peculiar relationship with her husband. He had been in the castle at Bunowen himself; he had seen with his own eyes that Grania’s belongings were taken to one bedchamber, and Donal O Flaherty’s were put in another. Many might speculate in private about the arrangement, but only a fool would have mentioned it to her face.” As I’ve mentioned before, I really, really don’t think this relationship was as loveless as it’s generally portrayed as. I don’t know whether they were PASSIONATELY in love (and unlike a certain biographer, I won’t try to fill in what I don’t know with what I WANT her to have had), maybe they simply got on, but they did have three LIVING children. And I underline “living” because there were likely more. “Likely more” means that they probably did regularly share a bed, at least as much so as their respective schedules allowed.

“Aye, and didn’t she put her children out to fostering before they could stand? A woman’s not usually that anxious to get away from her children that she takes to the sea to avoid them.” Given that fosterage could begin VERY early, I really, really don’t think anyone would have questioned this at all. Gaelic Ireland, simply put, often didn’t have our own conception of the nuclear family, and this was generously provided for in the law codes. Fosterage was useful as a way of maintaining ties between both neighboring families and, most especially, between kings and their vassals, with vassals often fostering kings’ sons. (That way, if the king should die with multiple possible heirs, it means that the kids have people backing them for the kingship.)

"I think that husband of hers had been crying poverty so loud and long he made her deaf to everything else” - Not to be #TeamDonal on main, but the facts as they’re recorded tend to have a strong pro-Donal bias. Take the words of his 17th century relative, Ruari O’Flaherty: "Of all the western O'Flaherties, Donel an chogaidh , although not the chieftain, was the most powerful and opulent.” Most. Powerful. And. Opulent. Yeah, Donal wasn’t crying poverty to anyone. Could he have been lying through his teeth? Maybe. Who knows? But this is ONE thing we have on Donal’s personality, recorded not too long after he died, by a historian who would have had close access to O’Flaherty sources. I believe him. And, I’d even be willing to commit the ultimate heresy and say that Donal’s success was not due entirely to his wife.

She does use the proper terms in a few places! Such as “rechtaire” for “steward”. (Io stem, masculine.)

“You are a noble Irishwoman, you go to no man’s bed unless you want to.” COMPLICATED. Arranged marriages were definitely the norm, and, in the legends, we get to see the unfortunate downsides of what happens when a woman is coerced into a marriage she doesn’t want, generally by an older man, while she is generally pining over a younger one. I wouldn’t say it was something that people LIKED, the fact that this entire genre exists is a pretty good example of people being like “DON’T DO THIS SHIT”, but I can’t say it didn’t happen. Examples of this include Fingal Rónáin, Tóraigheacht Dhiarmada agus Ghráinne, Longes mac n-Uislenn, Aided Con Roí, etc. I would not say that it was considered to be an IDEAL, it was something that was definitely warned against, but it could, in theory, happen. It wasn’t necessarily a legal form of marriage, but it was a form of marriage. 

"Shorter than Cuchullain or Brian Boru,” PETTIEST of pettiest bitch complaints, but Cú Chulainn is generally described as short. I know, I know, not what she’s going for. But still. Let me be a petty bitch on this one thing.

“Times have changed,” he said impatiently. “Those are archaic luxuries, and luxury has worn thin here. Perhaps in Umhall there is still leisure for sitting around listening to bards, but it takes every resource I can command just to maintain my territory against those who constantly nibble at my borders.” MOST. OPULENT. AND. POWERFUL. Okay, but one thing that she does get right, and is right to emphasize, is the importance of the bard - chieftain relationship. This was really, really one of the key relationships in a chieftain’s life, to the extent where one of the privileges of the chief ollaimh was the right to sleep with the king in his bed. And yes, it was EXACTLY as homoerotic as it sounds. For a chieftain to not keep a bard - It’s actually a really, really stupid move on Donal’s part, not just for the sake of tradition, but because…who’s going to be there to remember him and keep his memory alive? Who’s going to write praise poems for him (and for Gráinne! The chieftain’s wife was often celebrated in verse.)

"Grania had brought a handsome marriage portion with her, her own property under the Brehon law, for a woman of her rank must be able to stand on equal footing with her husband.” Accurate - Gráinne would have, most likely, been a cétmuinter, or chief wife, under the law, and her union to Donal would have been a union of equal contribution. (Donal also might or might not have owed her a “Thank you for your virginity!” Present on their wedding night.)

 “The priests are right in giving husbands authority over their wives,” he had shouted at her then, while she pleaded to be allowed to keep her babies with her longer. “The old Gaelic way gave women too much freedom altogether, and you are a fine example of the folly of that custom.” Kill me now, kill me now, kill me now, kill me now. This is just….GAR. GAR. Or, as Llewlyn likes to say every five seconds…*Dar Dia*. Suffice it to say, the question of how much freedom post-Christianity Ireland had for women VS Pre-Christian Ireland is an endlessly long topic that has to begin with how we define “freedom” and, specifically, which women get it. (Sucks to be a slave girl no matter what.) But also, while women definitely DID have power (EVEN POST-CHRISTIANITY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH)…that doesn’t mean that it was that COMMON, or that post-Christianity radically changed how (un)common it was. This is just…too blunt, too much of a caricature, and also happens to be insanely, insanely anachronistic. (Also: What would a 16th century chieftain really KNOW of the Old Gaelic Way? He would know about women like Medb, yeah, and he would probably see her as evil and uppity, depending on which stories he’d read - Though as a Connachtman, he would probably be inclined towards being on her side. But that doesn’t mean he would have really thought “Oh, yeah, pre-Christianity, women had SO MUCH power.” Lawlessness and chaos tend to be features of pre-Christian Ireland in the medieval writings, but I wouldn’t really say that liberated women….were? Especially because in those same writings you have women like Emer who, while distinct in their characterization, are still very much proper and chaste women who keep to the house.)

“I warn you, Grania—you will accede to me in this or I will send you back to Clew bay and denounce you throughout Connaught for a lack of womanly graces. Is that what you want, to be sent home rejected with your shortcomings shouted from the hills?”

           “Who would believe such charges?” she had demanded to know, outraged at his unfairness.” 

I’m just going to say it now: She could sue him SO MUCH in a proper Brehon court if she could get some witnesses to say that they heard him talking shit without cause. So. So much. So. Much. Donal would be losing a solid chunk of his goods. Though I will point out that, technically, since Gráinne isn’t sleeping with him, she isn’t doing her proper duties as a wife, laid out by the Brehon laws, and so, yeah, he could probably have a case against her. (For what it’s worth: If he was refusing to sleep with her, she could ALSO divorce him, with him explicitly being at fault and having to pay up. It was equal opportunity, in that sense.)

The Brehon law keeps being called “pagan” and…no. No non noon no. It had its origins in pre-Christian Ireland, likely, and that’s why a ton of legal scholars, with a few noted exceptions, tend to be strongly Nativist, but that doesn’t mean that, by Gráinne’s time, it hadn’t been more or less adapted into Christian marriage in Ireland, albeit sometimes semi-awkwardly. (For example: Polygamy was allowed, but the law very much privileged the rights of chief wives, including their right to toss their husbands out on their ear for taking in a woman over their head.) There’s this odd obsession in the book with Brehon Law =/= Christian Law, and that’s definitely not the case. You wouldn’t have had two marriage ceremonies, one under the church and one under the Brehon Law, because the Brehon Law would apply no matter WHAT. It’d be like forcing a couple to undergo a ceremony after their official wedding where a bunch of lawyers read out of a law book to them. It just wouldn’t happen.

“The Augustinian monks of Umhall, who taught me history in my childhood, explained that when the Romans left England and that land sank into barbarism, it was missionaries from Ireland who took God’s words to the British tribes and taught them to read and write.

          “Perhaps they hate us, Donal, for being a more ancient and educated race. Perhaps they mean to drag us down by treating us as savages until we do not remember ever having been anything else. And along the way they can take our land from us with a clear conscience because we are only savages and deserve no better.”

On one hand, it DOES capture that note of PRIDE that tends to be there, loud and clear, in the texts, especially, say, Auraicept na n-Éces, which claims that Irish is a perfectly formed language, made from all the best bits of the Tower of Babel’s languages. (And….well….”The land of saints and scholars”. Ireland WAS a hotspot of monastic activity.) And, honestly, I support showing off the literary side of Ireland, since it doesn’t get discussed enough. That being said, no monk in his right mind would have said that it Irish missionaries civilized Britain. Why? Because Patrick came from Britain. Or, rather, Britannia, more accurately. He wasn’t an Englishman, not in the modern sense, he would probably be Welsh today, but he was from a monastic, educated family (despite claiming his Latin was poor in his Confessio, it’s actually quite good - Patrick was a MASTER at using humility as a rhetorical device).        

"Grania slept naked. She liked her skin to breathe as she slept, not encumbered with a gown that would twist and bind.” “And then Gráinne froze her ass off because the nights in Ireland, even in the warm heat of summer, are cold and bitter as a Norseman’s frozen tit, if there were, in fact, any Norsemen in Ireland in the 16th century, and frequently require multiple blankets + a solid duvet. Gráinne then died of pneumonia several weeks later, making for a very short book.” Also. Again. If this were a male author. I would have committed a murder at this point.  

Reference to saffron dye - NICE. This was really a staple of the clothing, for both men and women, to the extent that it features a LOT in accounts of Ireland at this time.

“By the paps of Danu!” No one. In 16th century Ireland. Would have shouted out “By the paps of Danu!” “By the Washington Monument!” “By the Lincoln Memorial!” “By the stunning cliffs of Oregon!” Sounds rather silly, doesn’t it? (Though if you WANTED to start shouting “BY THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL!” Well. I’m not here to stop you.)

"She was small for a Gaelic woman, and pale, a tiny wraithlike creature who exuded a contradictory air of resilient strength.” I’m not going to say that Chambers is WRONG, because, of course, Irish women come in a variety of shapes and sizes. You know, like people everywhere. But I WILL say that, during my time here, it’s the only time in my life that I’ve felt at home, because, for the first time in my life, I’m not short. Also, I want it on the record that now, whenever I see her, I’m picturing the little old woman who sits in on research seminars and who has the entire department scared shitless. Tiny, but MIGHTY.

"Her only ornament was a triskele of silver in an ancient pattern, suspended upon her flat bosom by a leather thong.” The Triskele is a Neolithic symbol used through the Iron Age, DEFINITELY not in use, in Ireland, by the Early Modern Period.

"“Evleen Ni Brien-“ That would be “Ní Bhriain” in modern Irish. Normally, I wouldn’t be THIS nitpicky, but hey, if you’re patting yourself on the back for the research you did and then can’t be bothered to put in a fada + the proper possessive form of “Brian”. I also don’t THINK that the “Ní” form had been adopted yet, I’m fairly certain that’s modern, so it would, more properly, be Evleen iníon Bhriain. Though, since it emphasizes that she’s from the Dál Cais and the O’Briens are predominately associated with them, I’m going to GUESS the proper form would involve her father’s name. It would be “Evleen iníon *possessive form of father’s first name* Uí Briain”.

"He had only heard whispers of such people, but enough tales still abounded concerning them to make them readily identifiable—even if this one did claim the noble name O Brien.” You know, in Reign, when you have a bunch of druids dancing in the forest and everyone was like “That’s fucking ridiculous!” Yeah. Yeah. That’s exactly how I feel right now. Druids DID last for some time in Ireland after Christianity, but not INTO THE 16TH CENTURY.

"“Of course not. But neither can I forget that it was the strictures of that faith which kept me bound in marriage to a man I learned to despise.” Divorce was still a thing. There was no problem, in theory, with getting married at a fully Catholic altar and then dumping them for getting jiggy with the serving girls a few years down the line. Llewelyn’s misunderstanding of the relationship that the Church and the Brehon laws BOTH played in the lives of people (SHOCKINGLY ENOUGH, the Catholic Church was NOT seen as pure evil by every day people at the time, who had to flee into the arms of the Brehons for comfort from Mother Church. Note that I’m saying this as a confirmed and strong atheist.)

Can I just say that the scene where Gráinne’s feeling up Hugh (the OC) in his sleep would be MUCH creepier if the genders were reversed?

"But he was not the man he had always been. He was some different person here.” Wow, the sex must be REALLY good!

"set in violet shadows that spoke of wonderfully sleepless nights.” Why is it that when I stay up doing an all-nighter, I end up looking like a raccoon going through its emo phase, but when Gráinne tumbles some random dude for a little while, she gets “violet shadows?” It’s not right, I tell you.

"“Was your marriage so bad, Grania, that you have turned your back on your own womanhood forever?” GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Well. Now I know where The Pirate Queen gets its “Your ultimate worth as a woman and happiness in life is decided by whether or not you have a dick in you” philosophy. I wish I hadn’t known. But now I do.

“That’s the way it is with men,” he said. “They touch us. For the feel of strong arms around her and a solid chest to lean her head upon, a woman will put up with a lot of misery. It’s the curse of our skin to be hungry for the feel of a man’s skin.” GAAAAAAAAH. GAH.

"God the benevolent patriarch promises us rewards in the next world if we’re willing to sacrifice in this one. But maybe I don’t believe in patriarchs anymore.” Totally a thing that the real Gráinne Ní Mháille would have thought. Because women, in general, in the 16th century had the terminology to make these critiques in this exact way.

" If one satisfaction was snatched from her she would find another; if she lost love she would embrace hate, and glory in it.” Oh, god, not THIS motivation for a female character, please. Gráinne Ní Mháille was a hell raiser from birth, there’s no reason to think that, because she lost her boytoy, that really radically altered her life path.

“I wonder if Tigernan thinks you and I are damned,” she asked her husband. “We were wed in no chapel.” Given that there were nine degrees of marriage under the law, of varying types of legality, I doubt it.

Yay, exactly what this book needed: More sex!

I’ll be real: Richard Bingham playing Weddingcrashers at Margaret’s wedding only to nearly get his ass handed to him by two members of Gráinne’s family is truly an #Iconic moment. 10/10, if the rest of the book was like this I could die a happy woman.

"It was not an Irish face, but the eyes were unforgettable.” ….what is an “Irish face?” Especially post-Norman invasion? What does an Irish face look like?

“There are rumors he gained his inheritance by murder, and it is said outright that he and his mother between them drove his first wife into her grave.” Yay, the return of the Oedipus complex! My favorite thing in this book!

"Grania herself slept alone in a tiny walled guest chamber above, but she was aware of Richard sleeping in the same house. A strong man, sleeping naked in a bed … .

How people change, she thought to herself with amusement. This is definitely not the same Grania whom Donal an Chogaidh knew.” 

Yay, MORE sex! MY FAVORITE THING. IN THE WORLD. BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS WHEN I READ THE LIFE OF GRÁINNE NÍ MHÁILLE?"**MORE SEX**.”

" If Richard took her at all, he must take her under the old Gaelic concept of “marriage for one year certain” to see if they suited one another.” Ah, yes, the old Gaelic concept of marriage that mysteriously shows up in no legal texts, legends, or genealogical tracts. A very authentic Gaelic tradition, very old, much wow. (For what it’s worth….the Telltown marriages are as close as this comes, but the thing that makes them stand out is that everyone KNEW they were the oddballs.)

"According to pagan custom—which still lived in uneasy truce with Christianity in many parts of Ireland—there were ten degrees of marriage, all the way from a union between propertied partners of equal rank to union by abduction or the mating of the mad. From any of the ten a child could result, and the brehons therefore had allowed for every child’s rights to be recognized by the social order. No human containing an immortal spirit could be illegitimate.” The astonishing thing is that it’s very, very obvious that she read Cáin Lanamna for this…and then proceeded to not apply it to any other time except for when it was necessary.

"How can I be Grania if there is no Tigernan at my shoulder?” Yes, because we all know that the thing that really defined Gráinne Ní Mháille was, in fact, the men in her life.

"Evleen smiled. “At least it isn’t fettered with Christian chains,” she said. “You were wise.”” Oh, God help me. There’s no way to have a marriage in Early Modern Ireland not “fettered with Christian chains” because Christianity IS the religion of the people.

Remember when Gráinne was described as “More than master’s mate” to Richard Burke, implying a union that was mutually respectful? Yeah, me neither. I’m so glad he’s a one dimensional sexist with mommy issues. That’s such a new, innovative take on their relationship. I LOVE to see it. (Note: I’m saying this as someone who HATED Chambers’ blatant shipping in her biography, but hey. I can’t deny what the first hand evidence says. Unlike Chambers.)

" I’ll get the O Lee—he’s our ship’s physician, and at least he can-“ Unless the chieftain of the O’Lee family moonlights as a ship’s doctor, you wouldn’t call him The O’Lee. Just say “I’ll get Aidan O’Lee.” Or, even, “I’ll get the ship’s leech!”

“TAKE THIS FROM UNCONSECRATED HANDS.” I won’t say that all’s forgiven because, I’ll be honest, I really, really hate this novel at this point, but you know what? This forgives at least some of this novel’s sins. One of my favorite tales about her being brought to life on page by a very talented author does make for a high point, between this and Gráinne avenging the boytoy.

Okay, I’ll be real: The O’Donnell and Gráinne boasting about their respective kids is really, really cute, and I accept it because my very first exposure to Early Modern Ireland was “The Fighting Prince of Donegal.”

The O’Donnell talking shit about English poetry is…..very accurate to the time and the mood. My personal favorite genre of Early Modern Irish poetry is probably “The English aren’t shit.”

"Black Hugh nodded. Grania stood up, and Philip Sidney rose with her, as smoothly as if they were joined at the hip. Tigernan uttered a strangled curse. The sasanach was taking hold of Grania’s arm as if she were an old woman and he were a blackthorn stick for her to lean upon! Was that some English custom, insulting the strength of women? Or did he mean to grab her and make off with her?” Honestly, for once, Tigernan is a #Mood.

"But when Philip’s hands moved over her body, Grania discovered that all human landscapes have a certain similarity. She knew his touch as male, and hungry, and when she returned it in kind she felt a familiar rising response that flattered her and made her eager for more. Within the bed they did not seem to be foreigner and Gael. They were just man and woman, enjoying each other.” I ENDURED THE SEX SCENE WITH PHILIP FUCKING SYDNEY. SO THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS TO.

And, just like with Richard, no one can match up to Wonderful Boytoy Huw.

"She prances along the seaways as if she had a man’s balls, John, and by the bright blue eyes of God, it should be my hand that grabs those balls of hers and crushes them.”” Oh, GOD, I THOUGHT THAT THE PIRATE QUEEN’S MOST INFAMOUS LINE WAS JUST BAD LYRIC WRITING. I DIDN’T KNOW THEY TOOK IT *FROM THE NOVEL*. WHY, MORGAN LLEWELYN. WHY.

Look, I’ve made it to Chapter 24. There are 32 in total. I COULD read the rest of the way, since I want to see how poorly the treatment of Elizabeth is going to be (I’d be very shocked if there isn’t some variation of Not Like Other Girls involved), but also: I do not care at this point. I might pick it up again, but also: A bitch is tired. And illiterate. Perhaps, if I’m ever feeling brave, I’ll take on the last eight chapters, but for now: I’m calling it. 

[johns-prince]

I need two parts to explain about Paul and Stu. This is 1/2. I think people don't understand that while yes, Paul himself admit he was jealous of John's friendship with Stu, because they were older and considered themselves too cool for Paul. Stuart ( people fail to mention but you can read his letters online) enjoyed putting Paul down saying he was not cool, he was too young/lame, not artistic enough, desperate for John's attention and honestly encouraged Paul's jealousy. John was a bit of[1/2

[2/2] John was a bit of a dick to Paul too, the typical 'in public i say you are not that cool, needy and i'm with the cool guys' and in private needing Paul and wanting Paul to be the closest to him. I love John but it's very obvious he hurt Paul during that time. It was specially bad bcs Paul disliked the fact Stuart put no efforts in improving his bass and didn't take serious, skipping rehearsals, gigs to be with Astrid. But remember: Paul was the one John asked to go to Paris with him paying

Oh no, I know. I’ve read SOMEWHERE though I’m not sure I reblogged it [stupid git] actually describing Stu as someone who enjoyed antagonizing Paul, teasing him, almost rubbing it in his face, how much John enjoyed him and liked hanging out with him so much. 

It wasn’t as much as them being older, as it was because Stu was the same age as John [they had met in art college] that sort of feels like you’re gonna be given second place because suddenly your friend has friends his OWN AGE now, who are artsy and creative and blah blah blah...

“WHEN HE [SUTCLIFFE] CAME INTO THE BAND, AROUND CHRISTMAS OF 1959, WE WERE A LITTLE JEALOUS OF HIM; IT WAS SOMETHING I DIDN’T DEAL WITH VERY WELL. WE WERE ALWAYS SLIGHTLY JEALOUS OF JOHN’S OTHER FRIENDSHIPS. HE WAS THE OLDER FELLOW; IT WAS JUST THE WAY IT WAS. WHEN STUART CAME IN, IT FELT AS IF HE WAS TAKING THE POSITION AWAY FROM GEORGE AND ME. WE HAD TO TAKE A BIT OF A BACK SEAT.“ - Paul, from the Anthology.

Today, every time Paul talks about his feelings for John, he never put himself in the first place, he always has to involve other people into it. Examples: every time he says that he loves John, he always ends up saying “WE loved John, me and george..” there always must be someone else so that he is not alone and doesn’t expose himself too much. When it comes to jealousy, it’s the same. Every time he mentions his jealousy towards Stuart, it’s always “we” “me and george”, when George literally gave zero fucks about Stuart. [source: @mclennonwasreal ]

and I don’t doubt John sort of gave Paul and George shit for being the youngsters, especially if Stu was both egging him on and starting it. Though remember, John wasn’t a bully, nor did he try to be a bully. So I seriously doubt he meant anything he said, especially if it was out of temperamental emotions. I want to assume John probably thought Stu was just, taking the piss out on Paul, you know, as boys do with each other. Honestly, I think this time around John was probably the more oblivious, with Paul trying his hardest not to show he’s jealous/envious because Paul isn’t as open as John is about things like that, but Stu perhaps catching on that Paul is jealous/envious, and finds it both amusing and annoying. John was truly stuck in the middle. 

And apparently Stu didn’t even want to be in the band, at all, he was actually forced too as they simply needed another member to go to Hamburg. So of course the guy didn’t give a shit to begin with-- so I don’t blame Paul for being annoyed with him for basically slagging off his duties to the band and all that, because Paul was passionate about the music and the band, just like John was. 

Which is why technically, Paul really had no reason to be envious/jealous, or afraid of losing his place besides John. Stu was into art, and John loved art yes-- but Stu wasn’t into music like John was. Paul was really the only person who ever understood John when it came to his love for music and creating music. 

John and Paul not only shared the same passion for music and had the same talent in writing songs that none else had around them, and they also formed a huge bond after Julia died, cause they both knew what it meant to lose a mother when you’re so young.

Stuart was creative and charming, and had a bohemian vision of life John was attracted to. With Stuart John shared his love for art and literature, but with Paul John shared his entire world and life. [source: @mclennonwasreal ]

In the end, John would always choose Paul over Stu, it’s just, you know, John could be a downright bastard, and maybe he did strut around with Stu to get under Paul’s skin, who knows? John wasn’t stupid, he might have caught on too, just never voiced it. 

This quote makes me laugh because I think it shows a clever, indirect way Paul was able to express a bit of his jealous/envy towards Stu without being too obvious what exactly he was jealous/envious about:

“Paul had always felt himself in competition with Stu for John’s attention, even though their respective friendships with John were on entirely different levels. With his omnivorous musical talent, he was already a far better bass player than Stu could ever hope to be—and also at least as good a drummer as Pete Best. Onstage at the Cavern, he had once been heard to shout at Stu and Pete, “You may look like James Dean and you may look like Jeff Chandler, but you’re both crap!”— John Lennon:  The Life by Philip Norman (pg. 237). [x]

So yeah, in the end, John still chose Paul over everyone else. Stu was a great friend, someone in which John could also connect to on some level-- but he wasn’t Paul, and he’d never be on the same plane as Paul when it came to John’s affections.