NATIONAL TRUST: Southampton 'A Fashionable Young Lady of Her Day.'
Elizabeth Weir
It's certainly a relief to discover that the National Trust was
not thrown into a gender identity crisis over the fact that a
painting of the Earl of Southampton in drag was found at
one of the Trust estates.
The National Trust was perfectly cool with Southampton's
cross-dressing and posted the following statement on its official
website:
News
Do I look like a girl? If you happened to be admiring the
collection of paintings at Hatchlands and your eyes rested on an
Elizabethan portrait, it would be fair to assume that you were
gazing upon the face of a young fashionable lady of her day. For
the last three centuries the picture, inherited by Mr Alec Cobbe,
had been identified as Lady Norton, an ancestor of the Cobbe
family. However, the National Trust's adviser on Paintings and
Sculpture, Alastair Laing, has established that the portrait is of
a man and perhaps not just any man. Backed by research into
connections between the Cobbe and Wriothesley families, Laing and
other historians are convinced that the attractive face is the
earliest known portrait of no other than Henry Wriothesley, Third
Earl of Southampton. Wriothesely was Shakespeare's patron and,
some would argue, lover, who inspired the majority of
Shakespeare's sonnets. The discovery has sparked off much interest
on both sides of the Atlantic as well as featuring on Have I got
news for you?
<http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2002/04/20/obs.ore.020421.005.pdf>
<http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/places/hatchlands/news%20and%20events.html>
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Christine Cooper
++++++++++++++
I hate to burst your bubble, Elizabeth, but
the BBC posted this correction of the Guardian &
Observer articles about four days later.
http://jenellerose.com/pol/Paintingsparksbardsexualitydebate.htm
Quote:
.....
Research
"Alastair Laing was the first person to recognize that he was wearing
men's clothes although he looked like a woman."
Mr. Laing and Mr. Cobbe have both said that the newspaper reports that
the Earl of Southampton was "cross-dressing" in the painting are
wrong.
Mr. Laing, an advisor on paintings and sculpture to the National
Trust, said: "It is of a man who is a dandy. It is perfectly normal
apart from the earring and the hair."
Professor Peter Holland of the Shakespeare Institute, at Birmingham
University, said the painting did not prove anything.
"It seems to me that what has been shown is a lack of knowledge about
Elizabethan Portraits. It seems to be a very normal picture of a
fashionable young man."
"It is impossible to tell from any Elizabethan painting whether
someone was wearing make-up or not."
Professor Holland also said that many young men in that time had long
hair.
Appropriate
Susan North, an expert in furniture, textiles and fashion, at the
Victoria and Albert museum, London, said, "One of the greatest errors
we make in looking at dress of the past is to view gender distinctions
from the perspective of our own dress."
"A 'frilly collar' was entirely appropriate for a man during this
period."
"Jewellery for men was also acceptable, and earrings were frequently
seen in portraits of men in this time, along with long hair."
"Again, these are part of masculine fashion and not any sign of sexual
preference."
She also agree that it was impossible to tell if the subject was
wearing make-up because it was not known if the painter had
accentuated colours.
Bisexual
Professor Holland said he did not think Shakespeare was gay.
"But I don't think there was any doubt that he was bisexual."
"There does not seem to me to be any doubt that some of the sonnets
were written to young men, quite possibly Southampton."
"But remember, notions of sexualtiy were different at the time and the
term homosexual did not exist at all."
The painting is currently on display at Hatchlands Park, A National
Trust property in East Claindon, Surrey.
(end quote)
Notice, Elizabeth, that the National Trust article doesn't say
that Southampton is wearing a dress.
Cordelialy,
Christine
Elizabeth Weir
> I hate to burst your bubble, Elizabeth, but
> the BBC posted this correction of the Guardian &
> Observer articles about four days later.
Take another look, Christine.
Nowhere in the article does the BBC mention the Guardian-Observer
nor does the BBC state that it's making any kind of correction.
> <http://jenellerose.com/pol/Paintingsparksbardsexualitydebate.htm>
I can't imagine the BBC making a correction on behalf of the
Guardian-Observer, especially since the Observer did not state
that Southampton was 'cross-dressing.'
It used the word 'androgenous' to describe the effect of the
painting and said that Southampton had his hand on his
breast in a 'rather camp gesture.' Other than that the article
focused on the history and discovery of the painting and let
Cobbe and Laing do the talking.
There was a small notice at the bottom of the page that
featured a museum exhibit on Elizabethan cross-dressing
but the notice was almost more explicit than Holden's
article. Holden never used the term 'cross-dressing.'
Cobbe and Laing are obviously referring to the British tabloids
such as The Sun which splashed 'Shakesqueer' all over its
front page. This is all that's left:
Sunday Times - South Africa's best selling newspaper
... Location: Sunday 28 Apr 2002 > Lifestyle features. Shakesqueer saga
drags on. From London. Andrew Unsworth. Through the windows of the ...
www.suntimes.co.za/2002/04/28/lifestyle/life15.asp - 30k - Cached - Similar
I have to say that as a Guardian-Observer online reader--I'm a
Steve Bell fan--I think you're doing a disservice to Anthony Holden
(Oxford MA, award-winning journalist and best-selling Shakespeare
biographer) who was quite circumspect in his article.
I don't think Holden got any facts wrong.
Laing, on the other hand, couldn't keep his story straight:
From the Observer:
Then came the day, only a few years ago, when Alastair Laing, the
National Trust's adviser on art and sculpture, told Cobbe he
believed the portrait was not of a woman, but of a young man
apparently dressed as a woman.
and to the BBC
Alastair Laing was the first person to recognize that he was
wearing men's clothes although he looked like a woman.
and more BBC
Mr. Laing, an advisor on paintings and sculpture to the
National Trust, said: "It is of a man who is a dandy.
It is perfectly normal apart from the earring and the hair."
and to Reuters
I was cataloguing this collection and realised that this was a
young man with long hair, which one or two dandies of the time
affected in this manner.
So we have Laing telling the press four different versions:
1. A young man dressed as a woman.
2. A young man who looked like a woman dressed as a man.
3. A young man who is perfectly normal 'apart from the earring
and the hair.'
4.. A young man with long hair dressed like a dandy.
> Mr. Laing and Mr. Cobbe have both said that the newspaper reports that
> the Earl of Southampton was "cross-dressing" in the painting are
> wrong.
Laing can't keep his facts straight.
> Mr. Laing, an advisor on paintings and sculpture to the National
> Trust, said: "It is of a man who is a dandy. It is perfectly normal
> apart from the earring and the hair."
Laing said a lot of things.
> Professor Peter Holland of the Shakespeare Institute, at Birmingham
> University, said the painting did not prove anything.
Holland is the director of the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford.
Another disinterested witness.
> "It seems to me that what has been shown is a lack of knowledge about
> Elizabethan Portraits. It seems to be a very normal picture of a
> fashionable young man."
In a woman's hair style and woman's earrings. Unquote.
> "It is impossible to tell from any Elizabethan painting whether
> someone was wearing make-up or not."
That's disputable. Has this 'historian of furniture' even seen
the painting?
The most telling thing in the painting are the pencil line eyebrows
plucked into perfect crescents. Those don't appear in nature.
Compare them to Southampton's natural eyebrows.
And the hair shaved back to the parietal bones. That fairly
screams 'I'm wearing a wig!!!'
> Professor Holland also said that many young men in that time had long
> hair.
I don't dispute that. However many young men didn't roll their hair,
or more likely some young woman's hair, into tight little curls to try
to approximate Elizabeth's wigs.
<http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/images/Elizamin02.jpg>
> Appropriate
>
> Susan North, an expert in furniture, textiles and fashion, at the
> Victoria and Albert museum, London, said, "One of the greatest errors
> we make in looking at dress of the past is to view gender distinctions
> from the perspective of our own dress."
Thousands of art history slides later, I scarcely think I could
disagree.
<snip>
> (end quote)
>
> Notice, Elizabeth, that the National Trust article doesn't say
> that Southampton is wearing a dress.
The National Trust doesn't say the word d-r-e-s-s but could this
be worse?
News
Do I look like a girl? If you happened to be admiring the
collection of paintings at Hatchlands and your eyes rested on an
Elizabethan portrait, it would be fair to assume that you were
gazing upon the face of a young fashionable lady of her day. For
the last three centuries the picture, inherited by Mr Alec Cobbe,
had been identified as Lady Norton, an ancestor of the Cobbe
family.
<http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/places/hatchlands/news%20and%20events.html>
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Christine Cooper
> kemahw...@yahoo.com (Christine Cooper) wrote in message news:<45b7371d.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > I hate to burst your bubble, Elizabeth, but
> > the BBC posted this correction of the Guardian &
> > Observer articles about four days later.
>
> Take another look, Christine.
>
> Nowhere in the article does the BBC mention the Guardian-Observer
> nor does the BBC state that it's making any kind of correction.
The BBC does not make a retraction on behalf of the Guardian-Observer.
The BBC is correcting a mis-statement attributed to Alastair Laing
published in multiple newspapers world-wide.
>
> > <http://jenellerose.com/pol/Paintingsparksbardsexualitydebate.htm>
This link was good yesterday, but it's not working today, at
least from my computer. Here's another link, same article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1943632.stm
>
> I can't imagine the BBC making a correction on behalf of the
> Guardian-Observer, especially since the Observer did not state
> that Southampton was 'cross-dressing.'
>
The Anthony Holden article, in paragraph three, states:
"Then came the day, only a few years ago, when Alastair Laing, the
National Trust's advisor on art and sculpture, told Cobbe he believed
the portrait was not of a woman, but of a young man apparently dressed
as a woman."
> It used the word 'androgenous' to describe the effect of the
> painting and said that Southampton had his hand on his
> breast in a 'rather camp gesture.' Other than that the article
> focused on the history and discovery of the painting and let
> Cobbe and Laing do the talking.
>
> There was a small notice at the bottom of the page that
> featured a museum exhibit on Elizabethan cross-dressing
> but the notice was almost more explicit than Holden's
> article. Holden never used the term 'cross-dressing.'
>
No, he didn't "explicitly," but I believe that in your first
post on this thread, you *explicitly* stated:
"It is certainly a relief to discover that the National Trust
was not thrown into a gender identity crisis over the fact that
a painting of the Earl Of Southampton in drag was found at one
of the National Trust Estates."
"The National Trust was perfectly cool with Southampton's
cross-dressing."
Apparently *YOU*, Elizabeth, Anthony Holden, and a bunch of
other newpapers who interpreted the
Guardian/Observer paragraph in which Holden wrote that
"...Alastair Laing...believed the portrait was not of a man,
but of a young man apparently dressed as a woman," to mean
that the sitter was dressed "in drag" or "cross-dressing."
The BBC would be the appropriate venue for the National Trust
to announce that the Anthony Holden article misrepresented
Alastair Laing's interpretation.
> Cobbe and Laing are obviously referring to the British tabloids
> such as The Sun which splashed 'Shakesqueer' all over its
> front page. This is all that's left:
>
> Sunday Times - South Africa's best selling newspaper
> ... Location: Sunday 28 Apr 2002 > Lifestyle features. Shakesqueer saga
> drags on. From London. Andrew Unsworth. Through the windows of the ...
> www.suntimes.co.za/2002/04/28/lifestyle/life15.asp - 30k - Cached - Similar
bad link
>
> I have to say that as a Guardian-Observer online reader--I'm a
> Steve Bell fan--I think you're doing a disservice to Anthony Holden
> (Oxford MA, award-winning journalist and best-selling Shakespeare
> biographer) who was quite circumspect in his article.
>
> I don't think Holden got any facts wrong.
>
> Laing, on the other hand, couldn't keep his story straight:
>
> From the Observer:
>
> Then came the day, only a few years ago, when Alastair Laing, the
> National Trust's adviser on art and sculpture, told Cobbe he
> believed the portrait was not of a woman, but of a young man
> apparently dressed as a woman.
>
Holden misrepresented Laing's interpretation. Whether this was
deliberate or inadvertent or Holden misunderstood Laing,
we can't tell.
> and to the BBC
>
> Alastair Laing was the first person to recognize that he was
> wearing men's clothes although he looked like a woman.
>
Another *interpretation* of what Laing said.
> and more BBC
>
> Mr. Laing, an advisor on paintings and sculpture to the
> National Trust, said: "It is of a man who is a dandy.
> It is perfectly normal apart from the earring and the hair."
>
The first "quote" by Laing about the hair.
> and to Reuters
>
> I was cataloguing this collection and realised that this was a
> young man with long hair, which one or two dandies of the time
> affected in this manner.
>
The second "quote" by Laing about the hair.
The two quotes are not incompatible.
> So we have Laing telling the press four different versions:
>
> 1. A young man dressed as a woman.
No, Laing went public for the express purpose of denying this
statement.
He expressly stated," This is a man but he is not a cross-dresser."
http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/02apr25/inter.htm#3
and see the BBC article, above.
> 2. A young man who looked like a woman dressed as a man.
an interpretation of Laing's statement (not a quote)
> 3. A young man who is perfectly normal 'apart from the earring
> and the hair.'
a quote
> 4.. A young man with long hair dressed like a dandy.
>
a quote
> > Mr. Laing and Mr. Cobbe have both said that the newspaper reports that
> > the Earl of Southampton was "cross-dressing" in the painting are
> > wrong.
>
> Laing can't keep his facts straight.
>
No, *YOU* can't keep your *facts* straight.
> > Mr. Laing, an advisor on paintings and sculpture to the National
> > Trust, said: "It is of a man who is a dandy. It is perfectly normal
> > apart from the earring and the hair."
>
> Laing said a lot of things.
>
He said Southampton wasn't a cross-dresser and that his clothes
were perfectly normal.
> > Professor Peter Holland of the Shakespeare Institute, at Birmingham
> > University, said the painting did not prove anything.
>
> Holland is the director of the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford.
>
> Another disinterested witness.
>
> > "It seems to me that what has been shown is a lack of knowledge about
> > Elizabethan Portraits. It seems to be a very normal picture of a
> > fashionable young man."
>
> In a woman's hair style and woman's earrings. Unquote.
>
No, he didn't say "in a woman's hairstyle and woman's earrings."
> > "It is impossible to tell from any Elizabethan painting whether
> > someone was wearing make-up or not."
>
> That's disputable. Has this 'historian of furniture' even seen
> the painting?
>
Susan North, "an expert in furniture, textiles and fashion,
at the Victoria and Albert museum, London," infinitely more
qualified than you.
> The most telling thing in the painting are the pencil line eyebrows
> plucked into perfect crescents. Those don't appear in nature.
> Compare them to Southampton's natural eyebrows.
>
> And the hair shaved back to the parietal bones. That fairly
> screams 'I'm wearing a wig!!!'
>
To you.
Infinitely less your statements.
"Webb likes to play the authoritarian so he keeps this tedious game
going by repeatedly denying that Southampton was a cross-dresser--
see pdf below-- even though hundreds of articles have been published
on the discovery of a portrait thought for 400 years to be of a
young woman but discovered to be of Southampton...."
"Southampton's identity as the 'young woman' has been verified
by top experts in Elizabethan portraiture."
"The experts agree that Southampton is wearing drag."
"Hundreds of articles" are re-playing the Holden article.
Even *YOU* in your last post on this thread, said that
"the Observer did not state that Southampton was cross-dressing."
So, exactly *which* experts "agree that Southampton is wearing drag?"
Not Laing, Holland, or North.
Definitely in the realm of the sublime.
Cordelialy,
Christine
> Best regards,
>
> Elizabeth
Elizabeth Weir
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > kemahw...@yahoo.com (Christine Cooper) wrote in message news:<45b7371d.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > I hate to burst your bubble, Elizabeth, but
> > > the BBC posted this correction of the Guardian &
> > > Observer articles about four days later.
> >
> > Take another look, Christine.
> >
> > Nowhere in the article does the BBC mention the Guardian-Observer
> > nor does the BBC state that it's making any kind of correction.
>
> The BBC does not make a retraction on behalf of the Guardian-Observer.
> The BBC is correcting a mis-statement attributed to Alastair Laing
> published in multiple newspapers world-wide.
That's not what you wrote above but it's more correct.
> > > <http://jenellerose.com/pol/Paintingsparksbardsexualitydebate.htm>
>
>
> This link was good yesterday, but it's not working today, at
> least from my computer. Here's another link, same article.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1943632.stm
>
>
> >
> > I can't imagine the BBC making a correction on behalf of the
> > Guardian-Observer, especially since the Observer did not state
> > that Southampton was 'cross-dressing.'
> >
>
>
> The Anthony Holden article, in paragraph three, states:
>
> "Then came the day, only a few years ago, when Alastair Laing, the
> National Trust's advisor on art and sculpture, told Cobbe he believed
> the portrait was not of a woman, but of a young man apparently dressed
> as a woman."
There's a difference, Christine, between what Anthony Holden
quotes and what Athony Holden himself claims.
You're trying to charge the Observer with the responsibility for
Cobbe's account of Laing's reaction at the time the painting
was discovered to be 'not of a young woman, but of a young
man apparently dressed as a woman.'
Holden is not printing hearsay.
Cobbe heard Laing state the words directly and Anthony Holden,
since he's a professional journalist, has kept his notes that would
hold up in litigation.
Holden then describes the portrait to back up Cobbe's
statement.
In the portrait by an unknown artist, dating from the early 1590s,
the teenage Henry Wriothesley, third Earl of Southampton, is
wearing lipstick, rouge and an elaborate double earring. His long
hair hangs down in very feminine tresses and his hand lies on his
heart in a somewhat camp gesture.
> > It used the word 'androgenous' to describe the effect of the
> > painting and said that Southampton had his hand on his
> > breast in a 'rather camp gesture.' Other than that the article
> > focused on the history and discovery of the painting and let
> > Cobbe and Laing do the talking.
> >
>
>
> > There was a small notice at the bottom of the page that
> > featured a museum exhibit on Elizabethan cross-dressing
> > but the notice was almost more explicit than Holden's
> > article. Holden never used the term 'cross-dressing.'
> >
>
> No, he didn't "explicitly,"
That's right. Holden never used the term 'cross-dressing.'
> but I believe that in your first
> post on this thread, you *explicitly* stated:
>
> "It is certainly a relief to discover that the National Trust
> was not thrown into a gender identity crisis over the fact that
> a painting of the Earl Of Southampton in drag was found at one
> of the National Trust Estates."
That's correct. This is a newsgroup, not a courtroom and I use
the slang 'drag' to mean (quote) 'a young man apparently dressed
as a woman.'
> "The National Trust was perfectly cool with Southampton's
> cross-dressing."
>
> Apparently *YOU*, Elizabeth, Anthony Holden, and a bunch of
> other newpapers who interpreted the
> Guardian/Observer paragraph in which Holden wrote that
> "...Alastair Laing...believed the portrait was not of a man,
> but of a young man apparently dressed as a woman," to mean
> that the sitter was dressed "in drag" or "cross-dressing."
Let me try to sort that out, Christine.
1. If Cobbe was right and Laing stated that 'it was of
a young man, apparently dressed as a woman'
then Laing was the first to suggest that Southampton
is wearing drag in the portrait.
2. Holden allowed the reader to make his or her determination
by describing the portrait and posting the portrait itself.
At no point did Holden characterize Southampton as a
'cross-dresser.
3. I've used the word 'cross-dressing' plenty of times
because all males who played female roles on the
Elizabethan stage 'cross-dressed.' That term is used
in scholarship on the Elizabethan theatre:
BIB... depicts, comments on and debates about cross-dressing is
The ... Boy Actors, Female Roles, and Elizabethan ... on the
Elizabethan Stage." New Theatre Quarterly 13 ...
<http://www.english.uga.edu/~cdesmet/judson/bib.htm> - 5k - Cached -
Similar pages
Crossdressing in The Roaring Girl Crossdressing in The Roaring
Girl: The Issues. ... Garber notes that the issue of cross-
dressing reflects not ... already present in the Elizabethan
theatre and cements ...
<http:// www.english.uga.edu/~cdesmet/judson/helen.htm> - 8k - Cached -
Similar pages
Topics in Theatre History: Comparative Corss-Dressing, Spring
2001... COMPARATIVE CROSS-DRESSING. ... 159-178; Jean E. Howard,
?Crossdressing, The Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern
England? (bulkpack). ...
<http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cmazer/140sp01.html> - 20k - Cached -
Similar pages
> The BBC would be the appropriate venue for the National Trust
> to announce that the Anthony Holden article misrepresented
> Alastair Laing's interpretation.
Are you serious?
It would be unprofessional at best and a violation of
journalistic ethics at worst.
The National Trust isn't going to sully it's reputation by getting
into a cat fight with the Observer.
The National Trust is promoting Southampton's 'cross-dressing
portrait' because it's getting £15 a head at Hatchlands Park. It
wants free publicity and there's no line up at the National Gallery
to see the de Critz.
Maybe the British aren't as offended by 'cross-dressing' as
you and Webb.
> > Cobbe and Laing are obviously referring to the British tabloids
> > such as The Sun which splashed 'Shakesqueer' all over its
> > front page. This is all that's left:
> >
> > Sunday Times - South Africa's best selling newspaper
> > ... Location: Sunday 28 Apr 2002 > Lifestyle features. Shakesqueer saga
> > drags on. From London. Andrew Unsworth. Through the windows of the ...
> > <http://www.suntimes.co.za/2002/04/28/lifestyle/life15.asp>;' - 30k - Cached - Similar
>
>
> bad link
Fixed it.
> > I have to say that as a Guardian-Observer online reader--I'm a
> > Steve Bell fan--I think you're doing a disservice to Anthony Holden
> > (Oxford MA, award-winning journalist and best-selling Shakespeare
> > biographer) who was quite circumspect in his article.
> >
> > I don't think Holden got any facts wrong.
> >
> > Laing, on the other hand, couldn't keep his story straight:
> >
> > From the Observer:
> >
> > Then came the day, only a few years ago, when Alastair Laing, the
> > National Trust's adviser on art and sculpture, told Cobbe he
> > believed the portrait was not of a woman, but of a young man
> > apparently dressed as a woman.
> >
>
> Holden misrepresented Laing's interpretation.
You cannot know that.
Holden is a professional journalist with excellent credentials
as well as a distinguished author.
It's far more likely that Cobbe and Laing flinched when the
lipstick hit the fan the next morning and the Sun ran the
Shakesqueer headline.
> Whether this was
> deliberate or inadvertent or Holden misunderstood Laing,
> we can't tell.
We can make deductions, Christine.
First of all, the logical thing Laing and Cobbe would have done
had they felt they were misquoted would be to get on the phone
to the Observer and demand a retraction.
There's no evidence that Laing or Cobbe did the reasonable
thing because the Observer did not print a retraction.
Then the tabloids picked it up as 'Shakesqueer.'
That's fairly humiliating if you're an art expert so if the
Observer had really gotten it wrong, Laing and Cobbe would
have been right to get on the phone to their lawyers.
(Don't make the assumption that the Sun didn't check out
the facts).
Instead of doing the logical thing Laing and Cobbe ignore
the Observer (and Sun) and go on the BBC with somewhat
different versions.
For whatever reason. Perhaps they had a different recollection.
That doesn't mean that Anthony Holden and the Observer
made a mistake.
> > and to the BBC
> >
> > Alastair Laing was the first person to recognize that he was
> > wearing men's clothes although he looked like a woman.
> >
>
>
> Another *interpretation* of what Laing said.
>
> > and more BBC
> >
> > Mr. Laing, an advisor on paintings and sculpture to the
> > National Trust, said: "It is of a man who is a dandy.
> > It is perfectly normal apart from the earring and the hair."
> >
>
> The first "quote" by Laing about the hair.
So?
> > and to Reuters
> >
> > I was cataloguing this collection and realised that this was a
> > young man with long hair, which one or two dandies of the time
> > affected in this manner.
> >
>
> The second "quote" by Laing about the hair.
>
> The two quotes are not incompatible.
In the first he characterizes Southampton as a 'perfectly normal
dandy' but his hair and earring are 'not normal.'
In the second he says that the Southampton's long hair was
'affected by one or two dandies of the time,' meaning it was
'normal for a dandy.'
Laing changed his story when he talked to Reuters.
Or perhaps you just assume that all reporters get it
wrong except those who write for the BBC.
> > Mr. Laing, an advisor on paintings and sculpture to the
> > National Trust, said: "It is of a man who is a dandy.
> > It is perfectly normal apart from the earring and the hair."
Hair and earring not normal for a dandy.
>
> The first "quote" by Laing about the hair.
> > and to Reuters
> >
> > I was cataloguing this collection and realised that this was a
> > young man with long hair, which one or two dandies of the time
> > affected in this manner.
Long hair normal for a dandy.
> > So we have Laing telling the press four different versions:
> >
> > 1. A young man dressed as a woman.
>
>
> No, Laing went public for the express purpose of denying this
> statement.
That doesn't change the fact that Laing gave four different
versions.
> He expressly stated," This is a man but he is not a cross-dresser."
>
> http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/02apr25/inter.htm#3
The Jakarta Daily Excelsior or what ever it is just conflated
both stories and ran it. There's nothing new in that article.
> and see the BBC article, above.
Yes, Christine. I'm only showing that Laing gave four
different versions. Be patient.
> > 2. A young man who looked like a woman dressed as a man.
>
> an interpretation of Laing's statement (not a quote)
Correct. I'm summarizing the quotes above. Here's the summary
again:
So we have Laing telling the press four different versions:
1. A young man dressed as a woman.
2. A young man who looked like a woman dressed as a man.
3. A young man who is perfectly normal 'apart from the earring
and the hair.'
4.. A young man with long hair dressed like a dandy.
> > 3. A young man who is perfectly normal 'apart from the earring
> > and the hair.'
>
>
> a quote
That's not a quote. I use quotes to set off the part of the
statement I wanted to emphasize. See the MLA Style Sheet.
> > 4.. A young man with long hair dressed like a dandy.
> >
>
>
> a quote
That's the summary of the quote. Here's the quote.
I was cataloguing this collection and realised that this was a
young man with long hair, which one or two dandies of the time
affected in this manner.
In his last statement there is nothing about Southampton that
is not typical of 'a dandy.'
In the preceding statement, there was something 'not normal'
with the earring and hair.
> > > Mr. Laing and Mr. Cobbe have both said that the newspaper reports that
> > > the Earl of Southampton was "cross-dressing" in the painting are
> > > wrong.
> >
> > Laing can't keep his facts straight.
> >
>
> No, *YOU* can't keep your *facts* straight.
That's just opinion, Christine. If you think otherwise
you'll have to present evidence instead of just kibitzing.
> > > Mr. Laing, an advisor on paintings and sculpture to the National
> > > Trust, said: "It is of a man who is a dandy. It is perfectly normal
> > > apart from the earring and the hair."
> >
> > Laing said a lot of things.
> >
>
> He said Southampton wasn't a cross-dresser and that his clothes
> were perfectly normal.
Among other things.
If you think that the Observer filed a false story, Christine,
you have to prove it. You can't just make empty claims.
> > > Professor Peter Holland of the Shakespeare Institute, at Birmingham
> > > University, said the painting did not prove anything.
> >
> > Holland is the director of the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford.
> >
> > Another disinterested witness.
> >
> > > "It seems to me that what has been shown is a lack of knowledge about
> > > Elizabethan Portraits. It seems to be a very normal picture of a
> > > fashionable young man."
> >
> > In a woman's hair style and woman's earrings. Unquote.
> >
>
> No, he didn't say "in a woman's hairstyle and woman's earrings."
That's correct. I made the deduction 'woman's hair and woman's
earrings' from Laing's remark that the hair and earrings were
'not normal' for a dandy.
We can make two deductions from 'not normal' hairstyle and
earrings. The first is that they are (A) 'too masculine' to be worn
by a dandy and the second is that they are (B) 'too feminine' to
be worn by a dandy.
An observation of the portrait tells us that the hairstyle and
earrings are not (A) too masculine.
Both the hair and earring look feminine. So it must be (B) too
feminine to be 'normal for a dandy.'
> > > "It is impossible to tell from any Elizabethan painting whether
> > > someone was wearing make-up or not."
> >
> > That's disputable. Has this 'historian of furniture' even seen
> > the painting?
> >
>
> Susan North, "an expert in furniture, textiles and fashion,
> at the Victoria and Albert museum, London," infinitely more
> qualified than you.
The question is, did Susan North ever view the painting"
Her statement 'it's impossible to tell from any Elizabethan painting
whether someone was wearing make-up or not' may not even
be true, Christine, because as far as we know, Southampton's
portrait is the only Elizabethan painting of a male 'apparently
dressed up as a woman.'
Or 'girl' as the National Trust puts it.
Susan North may never have seen any male wearing lipstick
in a painting.
> > The most telling thing in the painting are the pencil line eyebrows
> > plucked into perfect crescents. Those don't appear in nature.
> > Compare them to Southampton's natural eyebrows.
> >
> > And the hair shaved back to the parietal bones. That fairly
> > screams 'I'm wearing a wig!!!'
> >
>
> To you.
So refute it with facts.
That's correct. Anthony Holden did not say 'Southampton was
cross-dressing.' Holden quoted Cobbe as stating that Laing said:
Then came the day, only a few years ago, when Alastair Laing,
the National Trust?s adviser on art and sculpture, told Cobbe he
believed the portrait was not of a woman, but of a young man
apparently dressed as a woman.
I have always characterized 'dressed as a woman' as 'drag' and
'cross-dressing.'
cross-dress·ing the wearing of clothes designed for
the opposite sex
and
drag clothing typical of one sex worn by a person of
the opposite sex -- often used in the phrase in drag
Note that in Cobbe's first statement, the most reliable since
it preceded the brouhaha in the British tabloids, Cobbe uses
the word 'dressed.'
Dressed as a woman.
> So, exactly *which* experts "agree that Southampton is wearing drag?"
> Not Laing, Holland, or North.
Cobbe contradicted himself and Laing can't keep his
story straight.
North said nothing about the portrait but made only
categorical statements. We have no knowledge that North
has ever seen a smiliar portrait.
You don't have credible witnesses.
> Definitely in the realm of the sublime.
Take it up with the National Trust.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Christine Cooper
> kemahw...@yahoo.com (Christine Cooper) wrote in message news:<45b7371d.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > kemahw...@yahoo.com (Christine Cooper) wrote in message news:<45b7371d.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > > I hate to burst your bubble, Elizabeth, but
> > > > the BBC posted this correction of the Guardian &
> > > > Observer articles about four days later.
> > >
> > > Take another look, Christine.
> > >
> > > Nowhere in the article does the BBC mention the Guardian-Observer
> > > nor does the BBC state that it's making any kind of correction.
> >
> > The BBC does not make a retraction on behalf of the Guardian-Observer.
> > The BBC is correcting a mis-statement attributed to Alastair Laing
> > published in multiple newspapers world-wide.
>
> That's not what you wrote above but it's more correct.
>
> > > > <http://jenellerose.com/pol/Paintingsparksbardsexualitydebate.htm>
> >
> >
> > This link was good yesterday, but it's not working today, at
> > least from my computer. Here's another link, same article.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1943632.stm
> >
> >
> > >
<snip>
You said
>
> > "Webb likes to play the authoritarian so he keeps this tedious game
> > going by repeatedly denying that Southampton was a cross-dresser--
> > see pdf below-- even though hundreds of articles have been published
> > on the discovery of a portrait thought for 400 years to be of a
> > young woman but discovered to be of Southampton...."
> >
> > "Southampton's identity as the 'young woman' has been verified
> > by top experts in Elizabethan portraiture."
> >
> > "The experts agree that Southampton is wearing drag."
> >
> > "Hundreds of articles" are re-playing the Holden article.
> >
> > Even *YOU* in your last post on this thread, said that
> > "the Observer did not state that Southampton was cross-dressing."
>
> That's correct. Anthony Holden did not say 'Southampton was
> cross-dressing.' Holden quoted Cobbe as stating that Laing said:
>
> Then came the day, only a few years ago, when Alastair Laing,
> the National Trust?s adviser on art and sculpture, told Cobbe he
> believed the portrait was not of a woman, but of a young man
> apparently dressed as a woman.
>
Okay, Holden said that Cobbe said that Laing said that....
So, Holden is *not* directly quoting Laing. Right?
Let's try this again.
*IF* it were indeed Laing's position that Southampton
is only "apparently" dressed as a woman,
(to the untrained eye)
but the clothes are actually those of a man,
which is how the search for the identity of the
sitter in the portrait got started in the first place,
then Southampton can't be "cross-dressing" or wearing "drag,"
because he's wearing men's clothes in the portrait.
If the sitter were actually a woman,
then *she* would be cross-dressing,
because the sitter is wearing men's clothes.
The length of Southampton's hair and the earring don't
imply that his *CLOTHING* is a dress.
The length of his hair is an exaggerated version
of the long hair commonly worn by Elizabethan dandies.
Are you suggesting that Southampton is "cross-dressing"
in his other portraits, because he had the same hair-style
in those portraits, too?
Maybe Southampton is wearing a woman's earring,
and has his hand over his heart to
signify his affection for the lady
who owned the earrings.
Maybe he's got one earring and some guy
has the other one. Who knows?
Certainly not you.
What matters to this discussion is that
Southampton is wearing men's clothing
in the portrait, and by definition
can't be "wearing drag" or "cross-dressing."
> I have always characterized 'dressed as a woman' as 'drag' and
> 'cross-dressing.'
>
> cross-dress搏ng the wearing of clothes designed for
> the opposite sex
>
> and
>
> drag clothing typical of one sex worn by a person of
> the opposite sex -- often used in the phrase in drag
>
> Note that in Cobbe's first statement, the most reliable since
> it preceded the brouhaha in the British tabloids, Cobbe uses
> the word 'dressed.'
>
> Dressed as a woman.
>
> > So, exactly *which* experts "agree that Southampton is wearing drag?"
>
> > Not Laing, Holland, or North.
>
> Cobbe contradicted himself and Laing can't keep his
> story straight.
You didn't answer the question.
What experts agree that Southampton is wearing drag?
Holden didn't get Laing's story straight,
because he was quoting Cobbe, not Laing.
>
> North said nothing about the portrait but made only
> categorical statements. We have no knowledge that North
> has ever seen a smiliar portrait.
Can we *infer* that she saw the portrait
because the photo was plastered all over
the British press?
>
> You don't have credible witnesses.
>
Well, since you claim Laing isn't "credible,"
you can't use him to claim
Southampton was apparently dressed as a woman.
So, you don't have *any* experts, do you?
I don't suppose you would notice any correlation between
the timing and sensational nature of Holden's article,
and the the fact that Holden's Illustrated Biography
of Shakespeare came out a few days later.
(that came off a Shaksper thread. I forgot to
pick up the url, but it's not hard to find.)
> > Definitely in the realm of the sublime.
>
> Take it up with the National Trust.
One more time.
The Trust doesn't say Southampton was
*cross-dressing* or *wearing drag,*
because he wasn't.