Unhistorical sexual relationships

Readability

Unhistorical sexual relationships

[cap­tion id=”” align=“aligncenter” width=“479”] Queen Vic­to­ria and Prince Albert, from Wikimedia[/caption]

My wife got me started watch­ing the PBS series about Queen Vic­to­ria. Being a his­tory nut, it was fun to look up the his­tor­i­cal facts after and see what was true and what was “made for TV.” In sea­son one, the series was actu­ally pretty decent, cap­tur­ing a lot of the chal­lenges the young queen faced for her country.

But later sea­sons weren’t so good, and my biggest prob­lem was the inser­tion of unhis­tor­i­cal gay char­ac­ters. Lord Drum­mond and Lord Alfred are shown, mul­ti­ple times through­out the series, as hav­ing a behind the scenes homo­sex­ual rela­tion­ship. Doing some research, it’s highly unlikely that any of this hap­pened, given that British soci­ety didn’t con­done it, and that Lord Alfred mar­ried and had 14 chil­dren later in life.

This inser­tion of fake homo­sex­u­al­ity bugs me for two rea­sons. One, it’s patently false. Were there prac­tic­ing homo­sex­u­als back in the day? Yup! It’s noted all the way back to Sodom and Gomor­rah in the Bible, and I’m sure it didn’t dis­ap­pear at any point in his­tory. But in real­ity, most his­tor­i­cal events just didn’t fea­ture a lot of homo­sex­u­al­ity, and British his­tory is no exception.

My big­ger issue is that when PBS and oth­ers insert homo­sex­u­al­ity into “his­tor­i­cal” por­tray­als, they are really seek­ing to make it seem OK and much more preva­lent while skip­ping over the incon­ve­nient truths. And sadly, I think it’s work­ing. More and more peo­ple both accept this dis­torted view of his­tory as fact. Maybe it’s because watch­ing TV is eas­ier than read­ing a his­tory book and actu­ally learn­ing his­tory. And it’s not just sex. The movie “The King’s Speech” fea­tured a sec­tion with the King swear­ing pro­fusely…that never hap­pened. “U-​571″ fea­tured an Amer­i­can crew, when in real­ity it was the British that cap­tured a U-​Boat (the U-​110).

What­ever the case, this chang­ing of his­tory is eerily rem­i­nis­cent of the book 1984, where the facts are changed almost at whim. At the rate we’re going, unhis­tor­i­cal sex­ual rela­tion­ships will become the norm, not the excep­tion, and future gen­er­a­tions won’t be any the wiser.


This post rep­re­sents the views of the author and not those of the Depart­ment of Defense, Depart­ment of the Navy, or any other gov­ern­ment agency.

Did you donate to Da Tech Guy? Click the Donate link today!

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, from Wikimedia

My wife got me started watching the PBS series about Queen Victoria. Being a history nut, it was fun to look up the historical facts after and see what was true and what was “made for TV.” In season one, the series was actually pretty decent, capturing a lot of the challenges the young queen faced for her country.

But later seasons weren’t so good, and my biggest problem was the insertion of unhistorical gay characters. Lord Drummond and Lord Alfred are shown, multiple times throughout the series, as having a behind the scenes homosexual relationship. Doing some research, it’s highly unlikely that any of this happened, given that British society didn’t condone it, and that Lord Alfred married and had 14 children later in life.

This insertion of fake homosexuality bugs me for two reasons. One, it’s patently false. Were there practicing homosexuals back in the day? Yup! It’s noted all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, and I’m sure it didn’t disappear at any point in history. But in reality, most historical events just didn’t feature a lot of homosexuality, and British history is no exception.

My bigger issue is that when PBS and others insert homosexuality into “historical” portrayals, they are really seeking to make it seem OK and much more prevalent while skipping over the inconvenient truths. And sadly, I think it’s working. More and more people both accept this distorted view of history as fact. Maybe it’s because watching TV is easier than reading a history book and actually learning history. And it’s not just sex. The movie “The King’s Speech” featured a section with the King swearing profusely…that never happened. “U-571” featured an American crew, when in reality it was the British that captured a U-Boat (the U-110).

Whatever the case, this changing of history is eerily reminiscent of the book 1984, where the facts are changed almost at whim. At the rate we’re going, unhistorical sexual relationships will become the norm, not the exception, and future generations won’t be any the wiser.


This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

Did you donate to Da Tech Guy? Click the Donate link today!