Does chivalry has the same meaning for a gay knight like loras?

[Oakhearts head]

How did this thread get 15 or so serious replies. Fucking hell.

[The Dragons Hand]

16 hours ago, Zoo_Dane said:

Gregor Clegane could have children. That didn't stop him from butchering anyone and everyone, including children.  

I don't think Loras' sexual orientation warps his view of chivalry, as the "code" is rather straight forward. 

If anything, his need/desire to hide his sexual orientation from the conservative society increase his chivalrous displays. 

Loras seems no different from any other knight in a public manor. Again, he seems to be held in a much higher regard in relation to chivalry and admired by woman more than most other Knights. What he may or may not do behind closed doors is irrelevant in regards to chivalry.  

 

*Cough cough*

Now that I've stopped being twelve, it seems rather obvious you're correct.

[Lion of the West]

14 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

No, there was not.  Chivalry was a soldier having a horse. All the stuff of nobility, courtly etiquite and being noce to women was added in romantic times after the concept had been long dead. 
GRRM makes fun of this by having men like Gregor be knights annointed with the seven oils and swearing by the faith and all that bullshit while raping, pillaging and murdering children. Knights in the book are satire. The most honorable people in the books are not knights, just people. 

No and no.

Chivalry was the expected behavior of men-at-arms and the things you mentioned as being added later were very much part of the code when it was active and living, despite the many whishes for the contrary by different parties who fails to see how chivalry as a concept developed and changed as the society in which is was practiced also changed.

GRRM shows how all ideals known to man will be broken, or break you, in some fashion when confronted with reality, as can be seen across the whole series.

[Minstral]

21 hours ago, Marcus corvinus said:

Westeros is based heavily on medieval europe, which was a highly traditional and conservative society. The idea of chivalry is very much steeped in a sort of platonic friendship between a knight and a lady or even a subconscious attraction or romance. He's performing the role of the provider, he's defending women( potential wives/romantic interests), children and ensuring the continuation of society. Now a straight knight can easily go with that idea but does the same work for a gay knight like loras?

Since doesn't have any attraction towards women does it mean that protecting women or respecting them or maintaining courtesy isn't the same to him. We see jon con interact slightly with lemore and its mentioned that he was fond of her but again instantly becomes somewhat condescending while thinking that he doesn't need her approval with anything.

A straight knight might not instantly be such towards an attractive lady. Also the matter of protecting children....a gay man won't be a father, so can he feel the same urge to protect or show sympathy towards children?

Jon con seems to regard aegon as a son of sorts but that may be out respect for rhaegar and his royal lineage

You do realize that a gay man is still able to still have sex with a woman right? There are numerous cases of men having children with woman and then coming out of the closet in later life.

As to Lemore, she is one of the teachers of Aegon and does not hold the power to make a decision where Jon Con does.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

No and no.

Chivalry was the expected behavior of men-at-arms and the things you mentioned as being added later were very much part of the code when it was active and living, despite the many whishes for the contrary by different parties who fails to see how chivalry as a concept developed and changed as the society in which is was practiced also changed.

GRRM shows how all ideals known to man will be broken, or break you, in some fashion when confronted with reality, as can be seen across the whole series.

More accurately, it was an expected norm of how noble born soldiers and cavalrymen were to act to one another and the their betters on and off the battlefield strongly linked to knightly tournaments (the ideal of warfare, if not the reality). There certainly were concepts that were re-imagined or tacked on in the time of romanticism thought coming in the 1800's when people liked to idealize the time period (actually during the enlightenment it was the reverse, "the dark ages"), but the social customs of chivalry were in place in the medieval time period.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

From what we have seen when someone becomes a knight;

Quote

 

a touch on the right shoulder with the blade. "In the name of the Warrior I charge you to be brave."

The sword moves from right shoulder to left. "In the name of the Father I charge you to be just."

Right shoulder. "In the name of the Mother I charge you to defend the young and innocent."

The left. "In the name of the Maid I charge you to protect all women....

 

What a knight should do;
Breakspear

Quote

 

This man protected the weak, as every true knight must

 

Sansa said;

Quote

 

Knights are sworn to defend the weak, protect women, and fight for the right, but none of them did a thing.

 

I don't see where it is mentioned who he shoulf have sex with.

[Zoo_Dane]

7 hours ago, The Dragons Hand said:

*Cough cough*

Now that I've stopped being twelve, it seems rather obvious you're correct.

Lol you're the second person to point that out. I 100% didn't even do that on purpose. People are getting enough time to analyze these posts as they are the text haha 

[SeanF]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 1:44 PM, Marcus corvinus said:

Westeros is based heavily on medieval europe, which was a highly traditional and conservative society. The idea of chivalry is very much steeped in a sort of platonic friendship between a knight and a lady or even a subconscious attraction or romance. He's performing the role of the provider, he's defending women( potential wives/romantic interests), children and ensuring the continuation of society. Now a straight knight can easily go with that idea but does the same work for a gay knight like loras?

Since doesn't have any attraction towards women does it mean that protecting women or respecting them or maintaining courtesy isn't the same to him. We see jon con interact slightly with lemore and its mentioned that he was fond of her but again instantly becomes somewhat condescending while thinking that he doesn't need her approval with anything.

A straight knight might not instantly be such towards an attractive lady. Also the matter of protecting children....a gay man won't be a father, so can he feel the same urge to protect or show sympathy towards children?

Jon con seems to regard aegon as a son of sorts but that may be out respect for rhaegar and his royal lineage

As others have stated, I think you're dealing more with courtly love than with chivalry.  That said, a gay knight (accepting that a term like "gay" is anachronistic in a medieval setting) might very well have a good deal of admiration for a Queen or Lady that he was sworn to, even if he was in no way attracted to her, and fight and die in her service.  He would therefore be fulfilling his chivalric obligations.

Ser Loras is plainly arrogant and headstrong, but also very brave and courteous towards women.  He would certainly die in defence of his sister, or her ladies in waiting, and probably any other member of the royal family. That is what chivalry requires of him.

However, would Ser Loras carry out atrocities, if his commander ordered him to, or of his own volition, if he were in command?  Would he allow his men to rape women, and kill children?  I don't think we have enough information to say so one way or the other. I don't think his sexuality would have any bearing on this though.

Edit:  On my last point, I should add that for many knights, committing atrocities against the Smallfolk  would be quite compatible with chivalry.  Chivalry would be something that applies to soldiers who possess ransom value, and to noble ladies.  Ser Gregor Clegane is widely considered despicable for raping and murdering Elia of Dorne and her children.  Had he murdered and raped Elia of Flea Bottom, there would be less fuss.

[Equilibrium]

Chivalric ethos isn't one thing, it varies from period to period, place to place and all the people who ever wrote of it in the Middle ages had somewhat different outlook on things.

Courtly love was especially heated subject, since even bunch of chivalric ideologues frown upon flirting with wife of the superior of man of higher rank, and all flirtation with noblewomen was really slippery slope in the era where noblewomen were best tools of diplomacy. Writers about chivalry from ecclesiastical circles were especially critical of this aspect, ordinating from 12th century southern France (not a place that Catholic church held in high esteem).

Being gay makes it easier to be courteous to the ladies all the time, since it is less likely you will try to really seduce them. 

Whole defending the innocents stuff wasn't really all that prominent in system of chivalric virtues, it was mentioned, especially by clergy, like most important knightly traits, prowess, you had to be brave and great fighter, and loyalty, you serve your lord, innocents be damned.

Loras is still very good knight by any standard, either form Westeros perspective or perspective of say Ramon Llull or Charny.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-10-29 at 11:59 AM, Minstral said:

More accurately, it was an expected norm of how noble born soldiers and cavalrymen were to act to one another and the their betters on and off the battlefield strongly linked to knightly tournaments (the ideal of warfare, if not the reality). There certainly were concepts that were re-imagined or tacked on in the time of romanticism thought coming in the 1800's when people liked to idealize the time period (actually during the enlightenment it was the reverse, "the dark ages"), but the social customs of chivalry were in place in the medieval time period.

I'd say that rather than more "accurate" I'd say it its more "clarified". But I entirely agree that in the 1800s lots of additional traits were tacked onto chivalry from that era's morality and then projected backwards. Many of them traits that had very little to do with the chivalry followed in the Middle Ages.

So what I wanted to say is that I essentially agree with you. Sometimes I'm not very clear with what I want to say.