It's a lame movie and a costume porn-fest, but I can explain why it's getting so much attention.
1.) There have been a few cases of monarchs being gay in the past, but they were not common, and usually kept their madness a secret. In order to get heirs and satisfy their (97% percent hetero) subjects, they typically would have a proper consort that was the opposite gender and the right class, and have a few heirs with them. But in secret, they would have one or more same-sex lovers and carry out their bad lifestyle more freely.
I wouldn't say homosexuals were burned at the stake, but they were looked down upon by mainstream society and often shunned or even killed by the mob if they were commoners that were caught in the act. Burning at the stake was mostly reserved for witches. Nobles and royals could get away with it because they could bribe people working in the justice system, or their peers looked the other way and would snicker. They would also be as discreet as possible, and only certain friends (who might also be gay) would know about it. It was serious business to get rid of anointed sovereign just because of their sexual orientation, and most got away with it, save for Edward the IV (who was gay).
A rival king took the throne from him in the middle ages. He was imprisoned, and later executed. The new king demanded that no mark be left on the body, so his men executed Edward by having a red hot iron poker stuck up his anus. His screams were said to be heard all over England.
2.) That has to do with these lame attempts some movie-makers have done to try and make historical stories look more hip and interesting for the younger crowd. It fails miserably, does not interest most teenagers, and makes all the history fans squirm.
3.) That relates to the above reason.
4.) Depends on the person and who would allow them to do that. Usually only cowardly men slap women. A proper gentleman never lays a hand on a woman.
5.) Keep in mind that much of Show biz is not about who's the best actor, or who's the best singer. It's all about popularity among the snooty higher-ups. They don't care one whit about normal, everyday people who would watch their garbage. What we peons in society love is irrelevant to them. All they care about is our money in ticket sales. What the Academy lacks in taste, they make up for in their lack of class.
30% of Hollywood is represented by the Velvet Mafia, maybe more. They LOVE having people just like them in film, and they go NUTS when they see actors portray them in a positive or sympathetic light. Any time you want to win an Oscar, play someone who who is attracted to the same sex, or someone who is crazy.
It's one reason those "awards" and "honors" you hear about are pretty close to worthless in the real world, because they are.
And just so some people can't get away with deleting this, I'm copying and pasting it in digital storage so that you can't fully erase it. It's a pity when certain people get mad when told the truth.
I'm reporting this post. Replace the term "Black," "Hispanic," "Jew," or "White Trash" where you wrote "gay" and you'll see why it's clearly offensive.
You can take any word in the English language and call it "offensive," it's all the rage in this time of madness, and you never know what word will set people off each day. Perhaps "teapot" or "mandrake" will be tomorrow's offensive word of the day. Or it'll be "carpet" and "sadness" the next. I recall the word "mob" was also treated like a cuss word one day on the news. There's no telling with thin-skinned troglodytes these days.
He's referring to the way hings were in the 1800 's, not the way they are now.
Now it's offensive to say "waiter" instead of "server", but it wasn't 10 years ago.
Wow, your post is one outstanding example of subtle, sofisticated bigotry.
It's sad people still think such small minded, provincial, ignorance based beliefs.
Please quit holding others to standards you don't hold for yourself. You're not fooling anyone with your "enlightened" views or beliefs. People like you can be just as bigoted, hypocritical, and small-minded, you just do it in reverse towards us. That does not get you off the hook with anyone that has an IQ higher than 60. Double-standards have never worked except among the ignorant and uninformed.
What an ignorant imbecile. You're like Hitler advocating in his defense the fact that the Jews, after he tried to exterminate them, hate him too.
It's not a valid argument to be a racist or a bigot like you and then calling racist or bigot the ones you are racist or bigot against.
Ok. AmeriGirl26, You are obviously history illiterate, so allow me to school you. First of all, Edward IV was NOT gay. You must be thinking of Edward II who was reputed to have gay dalliances. Another thing you have wrong is that it was a rival king who overthrew him. It was his own wife and her lover who traveled to France (her home country) and came back with an army to dispose him and set their son (Edward's and Isabella's) on the throne. And while Edward II was imprisoned, it is unlikely that he was stuck with a hot poker whilst using the facilities. That is a very outrageous fallacy. Most likely he succumbed to dysentery.
Also, I have to ask. Are you a time traveler? How do you know that 97% of people back then were heterosexual? And if you did indeed travel back in time and take a census, how can you be sure that all of them were telling the truth? Just curious.
Oh, and another thing, witches weren't burned. They were hanged or drowned. Heretics were burned.
While you are correct on some of this stuff, you apparently aren't aware of the real demographics of homosexuals. They actually make up a very small part of any population, past or present, mostly because they do not make children from their "unique" unions. Instead of listening to the propaganda of Hollywood (in which 30% of the population is homosexual and loves to lie about the rest of the US's demographic makeup) try actually doing some real research like you did for the history you mentioned above. You will find that out of the 320 million people in the US, only 9 million are homosexual, meaning that less than 3.5% of the population is like that. There are even less in the bisexual and transgender communities. It appears to be similar in other countries as well, and probably has always been like that. Don't assume that everyone in some time in history was gay, because that would be historically illiterate too.
While you are at it, try reading the book "The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England," otherwise, I'm not going to take anything you say on merit. You're just an angry person that wants to put me down to make yourself look better, and that classifies you as a troll or bully. Thank you for using your mouth for the wrong end of your digestive system. Goodbye.
Ok, here's the thing. I NEVER said that I thought the gay population of 14th century England was 30% homosexual. I simply implied that there was no way you could possibly know that 97% were hetero. Statistics that are true now do not transcend the whole of history. For instance, it was VERY common in some parts of ancient Greece for boys to have sexual relations with each other and men. Considering the time they lived in it would be very detrimental for a person of the 14th century to admit to being a homosexual.
And while your at it, try reading the book you advised me to read. (Which, of coarse I have.) And also, try reading more than one historical account of the lives of the English monarchs. I find Antonia Fraser to be highly biased. So read other sources to get a full account and maybe do some research on your own before you spout off inaccuracies like they are "bible" truth.
Also, me correcting your misinformation does not make me a bully. History is important and it should be remembered accurately. But, yes, you are correct in assuming I get angry when misinformation is spread about the internet.