Category talk:LGBT royalty

Untitled
"thought" to be homosexual is unacceptable. It should be known to be, or agreed to be by the consensus of historians. DGG (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Otherwise, WHO did the thinking, ect. Very hard to lock people down into this category. Anyways, --Tom 14:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is obvious, I would have thought, I have removed the CAT from a number of the articles where no evidence of LBGTness was indicated or sourced. Lobojo (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have reverted you in every instance I found. You read far too quickly, and even when your error is brought to your attention and you apologize, you do not reinsert the category. Please stop this POV pushing. Jeffpw (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is really no need to be unplesant here. Lobojo (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed one because I missed 3 words in a 10,000 word article, and the other one I removed beacuse the king was only accused of being a paedophile, and I though found the conflation offensive. Is it policy to label men who forcibly rape boys as LGBT? If so there are a lot of poeple missing from these LGBT categories. Actually the whole categorisation system is a mess. I cannot for the life of me understand why people can be in a Category:Bisexual people but cannot be in a Category:Homosexual people. Lobojo (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this category. In my book, any royal who has had sexual or homerotic relationships with people of their own gender should be included in this category. If you read almost all of these articles, they talk about specific same-sex relations involving the particular person. As a far as the idea goes that ALL historians MUST agree on the person's sexuality for them to be included in this category is ridiculous. That allows apologists to hide the real life of the people that they adore out of some misquided sense that their subject's perceived sexuality will bring disrespect to them. BoBo (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Way to go ahead and blanket label everybody as gay, only in denial. That's truth! Sceptik (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC) The article on Frederick the Great notes that he was rumoured to have been homosexual, yet he is listed here even though consensus about his sexual orientation seems lacking. I also note that James I is not listed here even though he was also widely rumoured to have been homosexual. This seems inconsistent. Is rumour alone enough to have someone listed here or not?--Smcg8374 (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Among more recent biographers, the case of Frederick the Great is no longer disputed, since his letters and other testimony exist that leave no doubt (see German article with references). The link in the article on James I has been reverted many times - there seem to be some gatekeepers that are not happy with it... just as with William III of England (whose relationships with William Bentinck and Arnold van Keppel are nowhere referred to in any of the English articles, unlike in other languages). - However, I am not sure if the sub-categories Gay and Bisexual Royalty, in addition to LGBT Royalty are really necessary. I believe they should rather all three be merged. Distinctions don't seem to be easy to make in retrospective, and in many cases differences are blurred, given the fact that most royalty got married in arranged marriages anyway, no matter what their preferences, personally or sexually, might have been. Among them some who are presently listed in the category Gay Royalty while others - with similar biographies and a similar level of knowledge - are listed Bisexual Royalty. -- Equord (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)