Talk:LGBTQ nobility and royalty

Adding sexual orientation to Wikipedia biographies may be a WP:CAT/R#Sexuality violation

WP:CAT/R#Sexuality For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such. Similarly, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, can not be categorized as gay. Categories that make allegations about sexuality – such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected to be gay" – are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. User: Pgarret (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

We need reliable sources for category claims. It may well be that such sources are indeed available and you can list them in the article - but if not, then who is saying that these people fit the bill? Just deciding that you think they fit the description is Original Research - and that's not allowed here. I need to see a few reliable little blue number in each categorization that links to a reference document that can be examined to confirm Basic Academic rigour

Most people that are listed in the misleading LGBT categorization can also be connected with the following:

-Heteroflexibility -is a form of a sexual orientation or situational sexual behavior characterized by minimal homosexual activity despite a primarily heterosexual sexual :orientation that is considered to distinguish it from bisexuality.

-Pansexual- A person who is fluid in sexual orientation and/or gender or sex identity.

-Polyamory- is the practice of having multiple open, honest love relationships.

-Affectional orientation - To holders of this view, one's orientation is defined by whom one is predisposed to fall in love with, whether or not one desires that person sexually

-MSM- are male persons who engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, regardless of how they identify themselves; many men choose not to (or cannot for other reasons) accept sexual identities of homosexual or bisexual.

-Situational sexual behaviour is sexual behavior of a kind that is different from that which the person normally exhibits, due to a social environment that in :some way permits, encourages, or compels those acts.

Many people change their sexual behavior depending on the situation or at different points in their life. For example, men and women in a university may engage in bisexual activities, but only in that environment. Experimentation of this sort is more common among adolescents (or just after), both male and female. Some colloquialisms for this trend include "heteroflexible", "BUG" (Bisexual Until Graduation), or "LUG" (Lesbian Until Graduation).

Sexual orientation

A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time". "There . . . [was, as of 1995,] essentially no research on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span. . . . [I]t [was] . . . still an unanswered question whether . . . [the] measure [of "the complex components of sexual orientation as differentiated from other aspects of sexual identity at one point in time"] will predict future behavior or orientation. Certainly, it [was] . . . not a good predictor of past behavior and self-identity, given the developmental process common to most gay men and lesbians (i.e., denial of homosexual interests and heterosexual experimentation prior to the coming-out process)."

Kinsey scale

Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, attempts to describe a person's sexual history or episodes of his or her sexual activity at a given time. Ituses a scale from 0, meaning exclusively heterosexual, to 6, meaning exclusively homosexual.

On Bedfellows

In the Middle Ages, it was common for people to share a bed, as often would whole families or close friends. Personal privacy was viewed much differently, and sleeping alone was not as desirable a situation as it is in modern culture. Having shared a bed with a same-sex fellow is a poor measure of sexuality today and no measure of it at all in antiquity. Such information alone is insufficient to advance the claim that a historical figure was homosexual, especially when clear records of heterosexual marriages and affairs are available.

References

User: Pgarret (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT nobility and royalty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141012110056/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/16/wduchess116.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/16/wduchess116.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nero?

Why Nero is not in this list? -GogoLion (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

nvm GogoLion (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't put unconfirmed people

I've found so many unconfirmed people in this list. DON'T PUT ALLEGEDLY LGBT PEOPLE IN THIS LIST!. -GogoLion (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I know I’m late, but who? Sapphoandherfriend (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Like, Elagabalus, who asked for their penis to be transformed into a vagina Sapphoandherfriend (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing Joan of Arc. Those claims are highly controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed Marie Antoinette for this reason. Bearian (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Queen Anne

I know there’s been vague speculation she was lesbian but believed this to be totally unconfirmed— could someone check me on this? She’s on the list currently. 82.69.8.41 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Scope of list

WP:LIST requires that all lists be limited in scope. We can't include every cousin of Queen Camilla, baronet, pretender, or impostor. I was bold and wrote about this limitation. Otherwise, the whole list would be deleted. Bearian (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Poor list

The list in this article is very poor. It is practically unlimited in scope, and very few are cited. I picked through a few of them, to find that in a fair percentage of them the linked articles do not mention sexuality, or it is discussed as disputed speculation. Frederick I of Württemberg, for example. Unsourced here, and the linked article merely mentions it in passing as rumour, equally unsourced.

The list really needs a clear scope, and names without unequivocal sources removed. Then is should be asked if this article is about the topic, or an attempt to compile a list of people which would be better handled in a category. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of potentially offensive words in article

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The Portugal section of the page needs attention and rewrite. Lumierre-w (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify what is the problem? Dimadick (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Use of potentially offensive words, subjective opinions, potentially biased. Lumierre-w (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Constantine and Maelgwn

Gildas says of these Welsh kings:

And not one worthy act could he boast of previous to this cruel deed; for many years before he had stained himself with the abomination of many adulteries, having put away his wife contrary to the command of Christ, the teacher of the world, who hath said: "What God hath joined together, let not man separate," and again: "Husbands, love your wives." For he had planted in the ground of his heart (an unfruitful soil for any good seed) a bitter scion of incredulity and folly, taken from the vine of Sodom, which being watered with his vulgar and domestic impieties, like poisonous showers, and afterwards audaciously springing up to the offence of God, brought forth into the world the sin of horrible murder and sacrilege; and not yet discharged from the entangling nets of his former offences, he added new wickedness to the former.

— Gildas, The Ruin and Conquest of Britain

O thou dragon of the island, who hast deprived many tyrants, as well of their kingdoms as of their lives, and though the last-mentioned in my writing, the first in mischief, exceeding many in power, and also in malice, more liberal than others in giving, more licentious in sinning, strong in arms, but stronger in working thine own soul's destruction, Maglocune, why art thou (as if soaked in the wine of the Sodomitical grape) foolishly rolling in that black pool of thine offences? Why dost thou wilfully heap like a mountain, upon thy kingly shoulders, such a load of sins? Why dost thou show thyself unto the King of kings who hath made thee as well in kingdom as in stature of body higher than almost all the other chiefs of Britain) not better likewise in virtues than the rest; but on the contrary for thy sins much worse?

— Gildas, The Ruin and Conquest of Britain

ArthurSBH (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)