The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Life and Lifestyle (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f161/)
-   -   Gay Royalty (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f161/gay-royalty-7689.html)

Osipi 09-18-2016 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1924794)
Correct it is a Marquess. Not thinking straight today. Have just received the news of a death of a dear friend - 15 months after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She fought the good fight but past away yesterday so I am not thinking straight.

Lost my mother to lung cancer and I miss her but I've never been able to say goodbye. For me, its only until we meet again. A dear friend is never totally gone but always with us in our hearts.

WreathOfLaurels 03-01-2017 08:37 PM

Regarding the two older examples cited on this page Edward II and James VI & I: what you need to keep in mind is that the view of sexuality in the Middle Ages and the early modern period was very different to our own and indeed to each over. It's fine to talk about the modern royals metioned on this thread (modern being the nineteenth century onwards) as being gay/straight/bi etc... but that's a product of the enlightenment and anything prior to that time period was very different to our own, and even then that's to ignore situational sexuality (that's what the boarding school and army/navy jibes are about - although with the rise of co-ed education and women serving in the military....)

The first thing is that regarding sexual activity in history the only concrete way of knowing that somone engaged in sexual activity is if she becomes pregnant.# Everything else is open to conjecture and interpretion and this unsurprisingly makes determining homosexual activity all the more tricky as there is also the issue of social taboos, both contempary and of later historians, as well as notions of what actually constuites sexual intercourse. It's a much tricker topic than what it looks like on the surface.

For example in the Middle Ages the main sexual divide was between the celibate and the non-celibate - all other sexual acts, which were phallocentric due to the fact that what constituted "sex" was based on what a mostly male clergy thought, were equally sinful and those for having children was seen as a necessary evil - in other words one of the side effects was that there was no conception of female homosexuality in this time period and the oddity of somthing like feliatio being regarded as a form of sodomy* but cunnilingus was not due to it not involving penile penetration. However this was also the great age of courtly love and chivalrous botherhood as well so make of that what you will. Regarding Edward, the sodomy allegations (its not accurate to talk about him as being 'gay' in this time period) were really more about the fact that his favorites hogged his patronage and blocked out other great magnates of the realm who Edward depended on to help him run the country, from offering him their council and guidance. It also alienated Isabella as these men, Hugh Despencer in particular, were a threat to her status and wealth - that's what angered her more not the sex.

Kathryn Warner has a blog about Edward and has written biographies of him and Isabella which goes into this in more detail: Edward II. There are also a number of lectures on YouTube about sexuality in the Middle Ages in Europe - they're actually about sexuality in Game of Thrones but they go into detail about the RL Middle Ages and are well worth listening to for more information.

By James's time period attitudes were beginning to shift more toward what we might recognize in our own time period due to a shift away from the emphasis on celibacy - a byproduct of the population decrease caused by the Black Death, the questions raised by the reformation, and the development of an alternative discourse on sexuality based on classical learning - to what we would now recognize as the homo/heterosexual divide, it's no coincidence that this was the time period when men finally began to figure out how women could have sex with one another as well. In James's case there was also the fact that his sexuality was seen as linked to his foreign policy choices, James was somthing rare for the time period in that he was a pacifist in principle and fact, when warfare was seen as the correct occupation of kings and gentlemen, and was pursuing what a large number viewed as a policy of appeasement against the catholic powers. The fact that James seems to have prefers these pretty-boys to his wife and natural children was also a problem to many of his contemporaries as it looked like he was mocking marriage and the family unit - when you consider that James's political thinking was based on this kind of familial metaphor, it just looked like the worst kind of hypocracy imgainable. However that said James wasn't as "out" as he's often made out being and did try and keep things on the sly as much as was possible.

The literature on the subject of LGBT in the early modern period and James's importance to it is vast and there are too many books and articles to mention here but Michael B Young's James I and the History of Homosexuality has a comprehensive look at James's sexuality and it's impact on both the politics of the time and posterity. It does go into detail and can be quite explicit so its not a easy or comfortable read as it discusses child sex abuse allegations with James as both victim and perpetrator - in short Trigger Warning: Sexual Abuse and Pederasty. David Bergeron and Roger Lockyer (a biographer of one of the more important favorites and James himself) are also good as well.

What's intersting is the interplay not only of biology and society, but also how its been viewed and reinterpreted over time.

* Sodomy has meant a variety of things over time and wasn't always a derogatory synonym for male homosexual behavior. It actually had a meaning closer to perverted rather than queer.

# The exception to this rule being the conception of Our Lord and Saviour obviously ;).

XeniaCasaraghi 08-18-2017 10:06 PM

^^^2 Long Didn't read

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 1832504)
The problem with children from same-gender couples is that a third person is needed for the conception. In a country as the Netherlands an Act of Parliament is needed (Act of Consent). This Act says that Parliament approves the royal marriage of X with Y and that possible fruit of the union between X and Y are legitimate successors to the throne.

When Prince X marries a Mr Y but ask a Ms Z to bear his child, then both Ms Z and their child are outside this legal bond and per definition the child is no "fruit of the marriage between Prince X and Mr Y".

When Princess A marries a Ms B but ask a Mr C to create their child, then Mr C and their child are outside this legal bond and per definition the child is no "fruit of the marriage between Princess A and Ms B".

So the equal gender marriage on itself will not be the biggest problem. Possible offspring from that marriage, which will always require a ménage-à-trois, no matter it is done in a laboratory, always will be a problem.

You bring up a good point, one most people don't want to acknowledge because it brings up legitimate questions.

An Ard Ri 10-06-2019 12:03 PM

There were many rumours of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II's sexuality and among his many lovers were said to have included Radu III, Prince of Wallachia and Jacob Notaras who was the nephew of the last Byzantine Emperor.

Duc_et_Pair 10-06-2019 01:43 PM

King Willem II of the Netherlands, Grand-Duke of Luxembourg, was once engaged to The Princess Charlotte of Wales and finally married Anna Pavlovna Romanova, Grand-Princess of Russia. But an official autobiography, with full access to the private family archives of the Dutch Royal House learned that the King had friends when on campaign (as Prince of Orange he was a renowned military commander) and later in his life. In the Royal House Archives letters were found to scandalise Willem and all his life long he had to pay vast sums to silence blackmailers.

https://s.s-bol.com/imgbase0/imageba...0016499857.jpg

Countessmeout 10-06-2019 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri (Post 2258346)
There were many rumours of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II's sexuality and among his many lovers were said to have included Radu III, Prince of Wallachia and Jacob Notaras who was the nephew of the last Byzantine Emperor.

Jacob was not a nephew of the emperor. His father Loukos was high up in the emperor's court but not related. His father did arrange when Constantine married his second wife Caterina, for the marriage of Jacob's sister Helena to Caterina's cousin Giorgio. Caterina's father was the Lord of Lesbos Dorino I. Giorgio was the son of Dorino's younger brother. Giorgio's grandmother little is known of but she is believed to have been a maternal niece of Emperor Manuel. This would become important later as Helen used her husband's power and money to ransom her sisters.

Both Jacob and Radu's relationship with the sultan stemmed from their same fate as children. Jacob and Radu were both royal hostages. Jacob's father and brothers were executed after the fall of Constantinople (mother died in slavery and Helena ransomed her two sisters). Jacob spent years in the royal harem as a page but believed to be catemite to the sultan, before he escaped to Italy. Radu and his brother Vlad III were sent as hostages when Vlad II sought aid from the Ottomans in retaking his throne. Radu remained in the Ottoman empire when his brother returned home to take the throne.

An Ard Ri 10-06-2019 02:57 PM

I've just realised that Radu III the who was known as Radu the Handsome/Beautiful was the brother of Vlad the Impaler :eek:

Muhler 10-06-2019 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri (Post 2258397)
I've just realised that Radu III the who was known as Radu the Handsome/Beautiful was the brother of Vlad the Impaler :eek:

And he sure lived a most interesting life!
Surrounded by even more "interesting" persons!
Worth a TV-series.

It is, I understand, an open question as to how gay he really was. You may have to do things to survive that may not seem natural to you - at least not initially. Especially if you were a young pretty boy/young man back then.
It has, as you probably know, been suggested that Vlad himself was abused sexually while he was "guest" at the sultan's court. Something that to me sounds very plausible, as he would have been pretty vulnerable.

An Ard Ri 10-06-2019 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muhler (Post 2258401)
And he sure lived a most interesting life!
Surrounded by even more "interesting" persons!
Worth a TV-series.

HBO might be taking note ;)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises