Talk:Paul of Greece

Direct descendant of five Greek imperial (Byzantine) dynasties
This claim cannot be supported and should be taken off. It is well documented that Paul was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. I am suspecting a Greek Royalist just put it there to support his political agenta.

Yeah, essentially all of the modern Greek kings (since the collapse of the Ottoman yoke) were German, Danish, etc. Where do the Byzantine emperors fit in?


 * Oh, come on! He must be descended from a large number of Byzantine emperors. Of course, he is not an agnatic descendant of any Byzantine emperor but every descendant is a "direct" descendant. Byzantine princesses often married European rulers and even more often married Russian rulers whose descendants then married European rulers. For example, he must be descended from Isaac II Angelos through Queen Maria of Germany. However, I am not sure how relevant that is seeing that (most likely) all currently reigning European monarchs are descended from a large number of Byzantine emperors. Surtsicna (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Denham Fouts
If it's a secret how do we know about it? Are there any documents, or is it hearsay? If the latter, who said it? What was their relationship to Paul or Fouts? And how did they know about it? DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It was secret only to the general public of the time, but the affair was well enough known in international high/homosexual society that references to Fouts being the lover of Paul appear in around half dozen biographies and autobiographies of contemporary figures, as well the several roman a clefs listed in the linked Fouts article, none of which you would ever trouble yourself with I'm sure. (You clearly didn't even bother to check the ones I referenced before supplying your edit page comment.) Given that you also deleted the section on Paul and Frederika's political interference (the most marked factor of their reign) shows that you have no regard for the truth, and what I presume you're now demanding is a signed confession from Paul written in Fouts' spoof. However, I'm disinclined to pander to the inadequate. Engleham (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are quite wrong. I, in fact, have Clive Fisher's Cyril Connolly in front of me, and it quite specifically says, "Fouts was said to have attended Nazi rallies in Berlin with a Prussian admirer and to have cruised the Aegean with the no less besotted King Paul of Greece." Note what it says: "was said to have" gone on a cruise. It says nothing about "maintaining a relationship", which implies a long-term commitment. It seems less certain than you are trying to portray. Your flame post is totally out-of-order. Particularly when taken in conjunction with other views of Fouts, such as "Myth surrounds Denham Fouts" (Katherine Bucknell's Christopher Isherwood Diaries volume 1, p.941) and "'He invented himself', said one of his friends John B. L. Goodwin, 'If people didn't know his background he would make it up."' (Gerald Clarke's Capote: A Biography p.172).
 * Your personal attack is totally unwarranted and I expect a retraction. DrKiernan (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry pet, you only have my contempt. But best o' luck with trying to whitewash the reputation of a king and his consort who never knew the meaning of constitutional monarchy. Engleham (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of removing any information regarding Fouts given that:

a) Assuming that Paul and Fouts were lovers, the only information regarding their relationship was on a cruise to the Aegean. A vacation-trip is an otherwise unmentionable biographical detail in an article that is supposed to serve as a primer for those attempting to find information regarding the life of the King of Greece. b) There is more information about Fouts in the opening paragraph then there is about Paul's own life. - 157.252.147.85 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I placed the element of his possible sexuality at the bottom of the page. However, someone should really take the time to write an effective article about Paul as the homosexual element really drowns out any other information and achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.147.85 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources do not support this paragraph. The sources listed do not say that Fouts "allegedly exaggerated" or that they "may be" myths. They say explicitly that they are myths, that they were inventions and that they were made up. DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, so long as you attribute directly who said that they "are myths" and "made up". Otherwise the statement read as though it was fact. The statements should be cited directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drachenfyre (talk • contribs) 11:02, 28 October 2010
 * Attributed. DrKiernan (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Reads better! TY! ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 04:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul's Sexuality
Weirdly – particularly given it's 2024 – any mention of Paul's bisexuality, however authoritatively cited, is being removed from the article by royal sycophants. This is especially foolish given it was an important aspect of his personality and relationships, and important to understanding the dynamic of his reign – not least his marriage to the ballbreaking fascist Frederika, who effectively set the majority of the country against the monarchy. The Henry Channon diaries unequivocally and matter of factly detail Paul's bisexuality, and should be used a source (e.g.Henry 'Chips' Chanon: The Diaries 1938-43, Penguin, London 2022, fn429.), but there are other good sources as well. He was basically a bisexual rake in his youth. Excluding mention of the nature of his sexuality paints a false picture of the man, and his life. 120.148.165.123 (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)