Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Frances Scott Key

Expand Messages
  • gmginsfo@yahoo.com
    Colleagues: A continuing, if unspoken and certainly unwritten, tradition holds a certain air of mystery about the composer of the Star Spangled Banner. We
    Message 1 of 9 , May 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Colleagues:

      A continuing, if unspoken and certainly unwritten, tradition holds a
      certain air of mystery about the composer of the Star Spangled
      Banner. We know he was a Georgetown lawyer who might well have been
      attending to business when he traveled up to Baltimore to obtain the
      release of his friend and possibly client. But why wasn't this young
      man in the prime of life serving in the military? True, there was no
      compulsory service then, at least for members of his class, but he
      certainly demonstrated patriotic ardor in writing our national
      anthem. Why was it not realized on the battlefield at Bladensburg or
      before? Artists' depictions of the man - I have never seen what even
      purports to be a true representation of him - consistently portray
      him as a rather fashionable dandy, from his buckled beaver hat down
      to his au courant ([requiescat in] pace, Mr. Franklin) pantaloons.
      In short, he appears in American history as a sort of latter-day Will
      Scarlet, a likeable, rambling troubador with an honest enough - for
      then, at least - profession, but not to be taken too seriously once
      inside the courtroom. (I have not discovered any opinions in the
      early reporters listing him as counsel.) Thus, can anyone offer
      any evidence or their opinion as to whether or not FSK was gay? Or,
      why has his image come down to us in a way that at least suggests
      such a possibility? I ask not to trivialize this group's purpose,
      nor to reinforce stereotypes nor to lob a revisionist bomb into
      whatever study of his life has revealed to date, but because this has
      always been a question begged in my mind, if unaddressed by others'.
      Thanks for considering this issue and I look forward to hearing your
      thoughts.
    • spikeyj@crosslink.net
      ... In Richard Shenkman s I Love Paul Revere, Whether He Rode Or Not it s revealed that Key was not the patriot that 200 years of myth-accretion has made
      Message 2 of 9 , May 6, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 6 May 2001 gmginsfo@... wrote:

        > A continuing, if unspoken and certainly unwritten, tradition holds a
        > certain air of mystery about the composer of the Star Spangled
        > Banner. We know he was a Georgetown lawyer who might well have been
        > attending to business when he traveled up to Baltimore to obtain the
        > release of his friend and possibly client. But why wasn't this young
        > man in the prime of life serving in the military? True, there was no
        > compulsory service then, at least for members of his class, but he
        > certainly demonstrated patriotic ardor in writing our national
        > anthem.

        In Richard Shenkman's "I Love Paul Revere, Whether He Rode Or
        Not" it's revealed that Key was not the patriot that 200 years of
        myth-accretion has made him. He was actually against the war, calling
        it "this abominable war" and "a lump of wickedness". He told his
        mother that he thought the U.S. was at fault, and that the States
        deserved to lose.

        He did see military service, but described it as "brief and
        uneventful".

        Spike Y Jones
      • Scribe
        ... As for the clothing, since when did dressing in the fashion of the day necessarily make one gay? It was a fussy, frilly time. Less so, in my opinion, than
        Message 3 of 9 , May 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          gmginsfo@... wrote:

          > Artists' depictions of the man - I have never seen what even
          > purports to be a true representation of him - consistently portray
          > him as a rather fashionable dandy, from his buckled beaver hat down
          > to his au courant ([requiescat in] pace, Mr. Franklin) pantaloons.
          > In short, he appears in American history as a sort of latter-day Will
          > Scarlet, a likeable, rambling troubador with an honest enough - for
          > then, at least - profession, but not to be taken too seriously once
          > inside the courtroom. (I have not discovered any opinions in the
          > early reporters listing him as counsel.) Thus, can anyone offer
          > any evidence or their opinion as to whether or not FSK was gay? Or,
          > why has his image come down to us in a way that at least suggests
          > such a possibility?

          Then spikeyj@... wrote:

          > In Richard Shenkman's "I Love Paul Revere, Whether He Rode Or
          > Not" it's revealed that Key was not the patriot that 200 years of
          > myth-accretion has made him. He was actually against the war, calling
          > it "this abominable war" and "a lump of wickedness". He told his
          > mother that he thought the U.S. was at fault, and that the States
          > deserved to lose.
          >
          > He did see military service, but described it as "brief and
          > uneventful".
          >
          > Spike Y Jones

          As for the clothing, since when did dressing in the fashion of the day
          necessarily make one gay? It was a fussy, frilly time. Less so, in my
          opinion, than the fashions of waistcoats and falls of lace at the neck
          and wrists, such as those worn by our "founding fathers". But it really
          was an era when men obsessed on their clothing, if what I have read is
          accurate. Being a "dandy" was fairly common-place among callow young
          men. It was a means of rebelling. And among older men trying to look
          young. It was an age of fashion where men--most men--took their attire
          seriously. And a time when there were fewer options in clothing. You
          bought what your tailor would make.

          It was a time when people were sorting out their social standings in the
          world, when the "old way of judging things" was no longer holding true.
          America was still trying to figure out how we were going to know who was
          important and who wasn't, since we had turned our backs on noblesse.
          Clothing had something to do with that.

          And one must account for the biases of the portrait artists, who tended
          to put their subjects in what they considered "the best light". That is,
          best fashion.

          I'd have to say I think this is reaching just a bit. However, I am not
          the scholar most of you are, on this subject at least. It's interesting
          to pursue the subject, I suppose. But I haven't seen enough here yet
          even to make me wonder. Just searching Key on the Net has led to a
          source stating he had a wife, six sons and five daughters. Now, as we
          know, this is not definitive, but I would have to consider it more
          indicative than dandified clothing in an age of dandies.

          Scribe
        • Maxine Trottier
          Curious of a Sunday morning....is there a Peter Boardman on this list? Max [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Message 4 of 9 , May 6, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Curious of a Sunday morning....is there a Peter Boardman on this list?

            Max


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • BritcomHMP@aol.com
            In a message dated 5/6/2001 8:06:12 AM Central Daylight Time, scribe@pobox.com writes:
            Message 5 of 9 , May 6, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 5/6/2001 8:06:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
              scribe@... writes:

              << Now, as we
              know, this is not definitive, but I would have to consider it more
              indicative than dandified clothing in an age of dandies. >>

              As a strict fashion point I think a lot of people (and many historians) don't
              actually get what a 'Dandy' is. Most people confuse a Dandy with a Beau or
              Macaroni when in actual fact it is a complete repudiation of frippery and
              ostentation.
              The fashion is developed from English country clothes, whereas the 18th
              century was obsessed with cut the Dandy was obsessed with fit and absolute
              perfection in every aspect of dress. The supreme dandy was Beau Brummel, Dark
              blue coat with gilt buttons, buff waistcoat and breeches, perfectly polished
              boots and spotless linen shirt and neckcloth. Trousers were much used by
              later dandies.

              Military Dandies of the time included Captain Gronow, Col. Kelly and of
              course, though he was nicknamed 'the Beau,' what was Wellington, in his white
              breeches and neckcloth, blue frock coat and small black cocked hat, but a
              dandy?

              In fact what was introduced by the dandy of that period is still very much
              the fashion for today, George Brummels maxim was that if the common
              man-in-the-street were to turn to look at you, you are not properly dressed.

              Cheers

              Tim
            • colsjtjones2000@yahoo.ca
              I must admit that I am unsure of the differences between breeches, trousers and pantaloons when worn with Hessian boots in our period. Would appreciate
              Message 6 of 9 , May 6, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                I must admit that I am unsure of the differences between breeches,
                trousers and pantaloons when worn with Hessian boots in our period.
                Would appreciate amplification. Doug




                --- In WarOf1812@y..., BritcomHMP@a... wrote:
                > In a message dated 5/6/2001 8:06:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
                > scribe@p... writes:
                >
                > << Now, as we
                > know, this is not definitive, but I would have to consider it more
                > indicative than dandified clothing in an age of dandies. >>
                >
                > As a strict fashion point I think a lot of people (and many
                historians) don't
                > actually get what a 'Dandy' is. Most people confuse a Dandy with a
                Beau or
                > Macaroni when in actual fact it is a complete repudiation of
                frippery and
                > ostentation.
                > The fashion is developed from English country clothes, whereas the
                18th
                > century was obsessed with cut the Dandy was obsessed with fit and
                absolute
                > perfection in every aspect of dress. The supreme dandy was Beau
                Brummel, Dark
                > blue coat with gilt buttons, buff waistcoat and breeches, perfectly
                polished
                > boots and spotless linen shirt and neckcloth. Trousers were much
                used by
                > later dandies.
                >
                > Military Dandies of the time included Captain Gronow, Col. Kelly
                and of
                > course, though he was nicknamed 'the Beau,' what was Wellington, in
                his white
                > breeches and neckcloth, blue frock coat and small black cocked hat,
                but a
                > dandy?
                >
                > In fact what was introduced by the dandy of that period is still
                very much
                > the fashion for today, George Brummels maxim was that if the common
                > man-in-the-street were to turn to look at you, you are not properly
                dressed.
                >
                > Cheers
                >
                > Tim
              • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                In a message dated 5/6/2001 4:55:46 PM Central Daylight Time, colsjtjones2000@yahoo.ca writes:
                Message 7 of 9 , May 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 5/6/2001 4:55:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
                  colsjtjones2000@... writes:

                  << I must admit that I am unsure of the differences between breeches,
                  trousers and pantaloons when worn with Hessian boots in our period.
                  Would appreciate amplification. >>

                  Simply speaking.

                  Breeches end at the knee and are usually worn with stockings and pumps. No
                  gentleman would think of attending a formal engagement during our period in
                  anything other than breeches. They can be worn with boots of course but in
                  that case the lower part of the breeches (knee down) was usually covered by a
                  short tube of cloth called a 'manchette' these can be seen used by French
                  heavy cavalry officers of the period.

                  Pantaloons are cut like breeches but extend below the calf and are usually
                  (though not exclusively) worn with boots. If the pantaloons are the usual
                  buttoned kind and worn with boots they can look very much like breeches but
                  are rather more comfortable to wear when riding.
                  For certain gala occasions on foot (balls, court, etc.) certain light cavalry
                  officers were permitted to appear in pantaloons of stockinette, usually
                  highly decorated, and special soft boots.

                  Trousers were developed from overalls, though they fit the leg rather more
                  closely. They are still very loose compared to the above, are invariably worn
                  over the boots and can be strapped under the foot.

                  I think part of the problem here is that people use these terms in the wrong
                  way and pantaloons are often called breeches (and vice versa) whit many
                  people thing that these are just quaint period alternative words for
                  'trousers'.

                  As with most things in life, words mean things and are not interchangeable.

                  Cheers

                  Tim
                • Craig Williams
                  What are you basing your theory that FSK was gay on ? Or do you misunderstand ( misinterpret) the fashion of the time.? What kind of book is that? Craig Thus,
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 20, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    What are you basing your theory that FSK was gay on ?
                    Or do you misunderstand ( misinterpret) the fashion of the time.?
                    What kind of book is that?

                    Craig


                    Thus, can anyone offer
                    >> any evidence or their opinion as to whether or not FSK was gay? Or,
                    >> why has his image come down to us in a way that at least suggests
                    >> such a possibility?
                  • HQ93rd@aol.com
                    In a message dated 20/5/01 1:13:50 PM, sgtwarnr@idirect.ca writes: He seems to have been rather
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 21, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 20/5/01 1:13:50 PM, sgtwarnr@... writes:

                      << What are you basing your theory that FSK was gay on ? >>

                      He seems to have been rather happy at the "dawn's early light", but probably
                      not so gay when the Brits first made him stay on board...
                      OH!! -- You mean THAT gay!
                      ....nevermind.....
                      B
                      93rd SHRoFLHU
                      THE Thin Red Line
                      www.93rdhighlanders.com
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.