Mick Hartley

On the subject of the Queering Mary Rose business, an appalled Philip Hensher was quoted in the Times as saying "“I am as keen as anyone on gay sex but I have to say to these curators — you’re f***ing mental.”

Now here's Hensher at UnHerd, having presumably had a chance to calm down a bit and give the matter more serious thought – The ‘queering’ of the Mary Rose insults gay history:

Gay men and lesbians from the past have proved a fruitful area for historians interested in those who lived secret and proscribed lives. Writers such as John Boswell and Alan Bray have patiently illuminated lost existences, recovering evidence their subjects would have felt compelled to conceal or destroy. However, the principle that drives good historians and curators, to understand how people of the past saw themselves differently from present day attitudes, has been apparently lost.

This week, the museum dedicated to Henry VIII’s flagship, the Mary Rose, published a blog post about “Queering the Mary Rose’s Collection.” Visitors to the ship were invited to consider objects like a mirror which may bring “queer people […] a strong feeling of gender dysphoria”. A nit comb is important because “queer people […] subvert and play with gender norms [to] find hairstyles that they feel comfortable with.” (Presumably nit-free.)

More than that, a gold ring reminds us that “queer people” have often regarded themselves as married. Probably not with this ring — but, anyway, it happens these days. Rather curiously, none of this engaged with what British sailors have done since the dawn of time: namely, have sex with each other. But “queer people” are often, I find, a bit prudish like that.

Not so much looking into mirrors and coming over all gender dysphoric, more "rum, sodomy and the lash".

It is unusual and deplorable that, before sharing its blog post, a museum like the Mary Rose didn’t say, quite firmly, “sorry – this isn’t good enough for us to publish.” It is perfectly reasonable for the author to incorporate her personal experience into a conversation with friends, and tell them what she feels when she looks into a mirror. But a historic public institution with a job to explain lost, past lives, is just wasting our time and their own by letting people witter on about what it’s like to be them in 2023. 

There is a more serious point to be made here. Gay and lesbian history had an enormous struggle to emerge into serious consideration, and it was the dedication of scholars like Boswell and Bray which brought it there. What serious and talented historian or curator now would think of dedicating his or her career to the subject? Who would want to say that they are working on networks of working-class gay men in 19th-century Manchester, for instance? An academic interlocutor would say “queer history, I suppose” and mentally lump them in with people who think looking at a Tudor mirror reminds them of being a bit different when they were, like, struggling with issues. Thanks, but no thanks.

The end result may be that bad work drives out good, and selfless scholarship runs aground, driven by people who aren’t half as interested in the past as they are in telling you all about themselves, at length.

What struck me was the infantile tone, like those special inserts for children that you get at some exhibitions to keep the kiddies interested: perhaps, "Some sailors on the Mary Rose will have been lonely being away from home for so long. Do you remember that feeling of being lonely when you were away from home for the first time?" But for gays. Or rather, for the "LGBTQ+ community".