Showcasing vintage male photography, mostly nude. You must be 18 years of age or older to visit this blog! If you hold a copyright on any material shown on this blog, notify me, and it will be removed immediately.
Followers
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Archers who aren't the usual physique model suspects
Today I'm posting some nude archers whom (with one possible exception) I don't think
were physique models. We start with this middle aged nudist pointing out the target.
Now, that is an example of the full-sized English longbow - which won the Battles of Crécy (1346) and Agincourt (1415) for the English against the French. (The other bows in this series are the smaller, modern, competition bow.) The English longbow was traditionally made of willow for the wood's spring and are, in fact, extremely hard going, requiring an enormous amount of strength in the shoulder. I know someone who manufactures traditional longbows in the New Forest - he and his band of merry men attend Mediaeval fairs and also work as extras for the film industry. He looks absolutely fab in a pair of tights.
I visited the New Forest in 1997 and was most impressed by the lack of trees. I mentioned this to a publican and found out that the term forest in certain contexts in England has more to do with legal rights and land use than trees.
Yes, the word has more legal than topographical significance. The etymology is not certain, some maintaining that it derives from the Norman French 'forès' (modern French 'forêt') from the Latin 'forestem silvam' (the outside woods) from 'foris' (outside), from which 'foreign' also comes. Other authorities claim it derives, again via the French, from 'forestis', originally a forest preserve or a game reserve, from the Latin 'forum' which had a legal sense of 'court' or 'judgment' - in other words 'land subject to a ban'.
This latter derivation would make the greatest sense in view of the English forest's history. Anglo-Saxon England had largely but not exclusively communal land rights. The 'forest' was introduced by the Normans, who established large swathes of restricted land which served both the king and his henchmen as exclusive hunting land. The Anglo-Saxons were dispossessed and banned from entering - and would be hanged for hunting. Most of these hunting lands were not overly wooded as they contained open grazing land for the prized deer.
We have all heard of the Magna Carta - of which there was in fact a number of versions - of 1215, which affected largely the rights of the Barons and the City of London, but there was also a Carta Foresta, a Charter of the Forest, of 1217, which touched the lives of the common, English folk, and which established who could live in the 'forests' - such as charcoal burners. It was originally sealed in England by the young King Henry III, acting under the regency of William Marshall. It was in many ways a companion document to the Magna Carta and redressed some grievances of the English against the excesses of William Rufus, son of William the Conqueror, and one of England's gay kings. He was in fact shot to death by an arrow in unclear circumstances in the New Forest, in 1100.
Yes, we saw a roadside placard describing the Rufus incident. I read up on it later, and it seems it was the excesses far more than the gay thing that got him murdered . . . if he was indeed murdered. Is William like Henry, i.e., a name not given to an heir for centuries due to a less than savory reputation? I don't think there was another William until William of Orange, a 1689 Dutch import attached to a Stuart wife, and there has been no Henry between number VIII the current Prince Harry. They went a very long time without a Charles, too, but that one is far less clearly unsavory.
Prince William of Wales will be William V, there having been one between him and William and Mary, obscuring the fact that he was indeed William III). William IV was the last of the sons of George III and brother of George IV, whose daughter and only issue, Charlotte, died before ascending the throne. He was the uncle of Queen Victoria. He came to the throne unexpectedly, and so although William was a royal name, it was never one deliberately used for the heir presumptive or apparent since William Rufus - who had a dreadful reputation and is regarded as one of England's bad monarchs.
It is indisputable that reputation plays a distinct role in the choice of name.
Richard, for example, is never, ever used as a result of Richard III being regarded as the worst monarch of all... He was the last king of the House of Plantagenet and died in the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 in the last battle of the Wars of the Roses, having usurped the throne and thought to have murdered his nephew, Edward V, one of the "Princes in the Tower".
Charles, too, was a surprise choice for the present heir - Charles I's incompetence leading to our Civil War and his execution and his son, Charles II, at the Restoration, being a profligate womanizer and Catholic convert which was very unpopular at the time. It is widely believed Prince Charles will be crowned and reign as George VII, evoking the memory of his grandfather, George VI, who reigned during the Second World War and was, incidentally, a very beloved king. He was named Prince Albert - known as 'Bertie' - after his great-grandfather, Prince Albert, consort to Queen Victoria, but chose to reign using his father's name after the abdication of Edward VIII, known to his family as 'David', Edward also being until then a 'safe' name. I doubt there will ever be an Edward IX.
Henry VIII is a special case. Until only recently, he was held in high regard. A lot of that reputation had to do with the fact that he broke with Rome, ushering in the Reformation - England was to become a very Protestant country. He also reinvigorated our navy, which as an island kingdom was all important. During the reign of his third child and second daughter, Elizabeth, England beat the superpower of the day, Spain, in the famous sea battle known as the Spanish Armada, and sowed the seeds of our later imperial adventure. He has since come under far greater and less sycophantic scrutiny - particularly with the rise of feminism and the way he treated his succession of wives: divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived. It was doubtless because of this vast reputation that no one dared to use his name.
You are right that William Rufus's excesses were more important for his reputation than his supposed homosexuality - except with the Church.
A little known fact about William IV - the 'Sailor King' - was that he was the only British monarch ever to set foot in pre-revolutionary America. Born in 1765, he was sent to sea at the age of 13 with no special privileges and was known by his private family name of Guelph. His Riyal Navy ship docked at New York, where the British flag flew over the harbour.
I assume archery is popular at nudist camps as it can be done by a range of physical abilities. One day I'll get to have a go..
ReplyDeleteNow, that is an example of the full-sized English longbow - which won the Battles of Crécy (1346) and Agincourt (1415) for the English against the French. (The other bows in this series are the smaller, modern, competition bow.) The English longbow was traditionally made of willow for the wood's spring and are, in fact, extremely hard going, requiring an enormous amount of strength in the shoulder. I know someone who manufactures traditional longbows in the New Forest - he and his band of merry men attend Mediaeval fairs and also work as extras for the film industry. He looks absolutely fab in a pair of tights.
ReplyDeleteI visited the New Forest in 1997 and was most impressed by the lack of trees. I mentioned this to a publican and found out that the term forest in certain contexts in England has more to do with legal rights and land use than trees.
DeleteYes, the word has more legal than topographical significance. The etymology is not certain, some maintaining that it derives from the Norman French 'forès' (modern French 'forêt') from the Latin 'forestem silvam' (the outside woods) from 'foris' (outside), from which 'foreign' also comes. Other authorities claim it derives, again via the French, from 'forestis', originally a forest preserve or a game reserve, from the Latin 'forum' which had a legal sense of 'court' or 'judgment' - in other words 'land subject to a ban'.
ReplyDeleteThis latter derivation would make the greatest sense in view of the English forest's history. Anglo-Saxon England had largely but not exclusively communal land rights. The 'forest' was introduced by the Normans, who established large swathes of restricted land which served both the king and his henchmen as exclusive hunting land. The Anglo-Saxons were dispossessed and banned from entering - and would be hanged for hunting. Most of these hunting lands were not overly wooded as they contained open grazing land for the prized deer.
We have all heard of the Magna Carta - of which there was in fact a number of versions - of 1215, which affected largely the rights of the Barons and the City of London, but there was also a Carta Foresta, a Charter of the Forest, of 1217, which touched the lives of the common, English folk, and which established who could live in the 'forests' - such as charcoal burners. It was originally sealed in England by the young King Henry III, acting under the regency of William Marshall. It was in many ways a companion document to the Magna Carta and redressed some grievances of the English against the excesses of William Rufus, son of William the Conqueror, and one of England's gay kings. He was in fact shot to death by an arrow in unclear circumstances in the New Forest, in 1100.
Yes, we saw a roadside placard describing the Rufus incident. I read up on it later, and it seems it was the excesses far more than the gay thing that got him murdered . . . if he was indeed murdered. Is William like Henry, i.e., a name not given to an heir for centuries due to a less than savory reputation? I don't think there was another William until William of Orange, a 1689 Dutch import attached to a Stuart wife, and there has been no Henry between number VIII the current Prince Harry. They went a very long time without a Charles, too, but that one is far less clearly unsavory.
DeletePrince William of Wales will be William V, there having been one between him and William and Mary, obscuring the fact that he was indeed William III). William IV was the last of the sons of George III and brother of George IV, whose daughter and only issue, Charlotte, died before ascending the throne. He was the uncle of Queen Victoria. He came to the throne unexpectedly, and so although William was a royal name, it was never one deliberately used for the heir presumptive or apparent since William Rufus - who had a dreadful reputation and is regarded as one of England's bad monarchs.
DeleteIt is indisputable that reputation plays a distinct role in the choice of name.
Richard, for example, is never, ever used as a result of Richard III being regarded as the worst monarch of all... He was the last king of the House of Plantagenet and died in the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 in the last battle of the Wars of the Roses, having usurped the throne and thought to have murdered his nephew, Edward V, one of the "Princes in the Tower".
Charles, too, was a surprise choice for the present heir - Charles I's incompetence leading to our Civil War and his execution and his son, Charles II, at the Restoration, being a profligate womanizer and Catholic convert which was very unpopular at the time. It is widely believed Prince Charles will be crowned and reign as George VII, evoking the memory of his grandfather, George VI, who reigned during the Second World War and was, incidentally, a very beloved king. He was named Prince Albert - known as 'Bertie' - after his great-grandfather, Prince Albert, consort to Queen Victoria, but chose to reign using his father's name after the abdication of Edward VIII, known to his family as 'David', Edward also being until then a 'safe' name. I doubt there will ever be an Edward IX.
Henry VIII is a special case. Until only recently, he was held in high regard. A lot of that reputation had to do with the fact that he broke with Rome, ushering in the Reformation - England was to become a very Protestant country. He also reinvigorated our navy, which as an island kingdom was all important. During the reign of his third child and second daughter, Elizabeth, England beat the superpower of the day, Spain, in the famous sea battle known as the Spanish Armada, and sowed the seeds of our later imperial adventure. He has since come under far greater and less sycophantic scrutiny - particularly with the rise of feminism and the way he treated his succession of wives: divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived. It was doubtless because of this vast reputation that no one dared to use his name.
You are right that William Rufus's excesses were more important for his reputation than his supposed homosexuality - except with the Church.
A little known fact about William IV - the 'Sailor King' - was that he was the only British monarch ever to set foot in pre-revolutionary America. Born in 1765, he was sent to sea at the age of 13 with no special privileges and was known by his private family name of Guelph. His Riyal Navy ship docked at New York, where the British flag flew over the harbour.
ReplyDelete