Talk:Philippe I, Duke of Orléans

Older
''Philippe had a naturally feminine disposition, and this was encouraged by his mother, to wear dresses, makeup, and to enjoy feminine pursuits. This was simple pragmaticism on the part of Anne.''

I don't get it. David.Monniaux 23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm unable to find another source for the assertion that Henrette d'Angleterre was not poisoned, that this was "disproved". The statement needs to be supported. Rogermexico 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

''I have studied French history for years, and I think it is disgraceful that this page does not reference his overt homosexuality. Rarely was a man of his era so "out." Agrippina Minor

"Put out," would be more appropriate. The poor kid didn't have a chance...216.78.100.182 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Excerpts from article:

''' ***His inclination toward homosexuality had not been discouraged, with the hope of reducing any threat he may have posed to his older brother. Reportedly, Cardinal Mazarin even arranged for the de-flowering of Philippe at the hands of his own nephew, Philip Julian Mancini. . Even once married, he reportedly carried on open romantic affairs with German nobles, with no regard to either of his two wives. ***

''' ***Philippe's favourites, invariably younger, handsome men, would dominate contemporary and historical commentaries about his role at court. Among them one man stands out, Philip of Lorraine-Armagnac, the chevalier de Lorraine, who has been described as "insinuating, brutal and devoid of scruple". According to Dirk van der Cruysse, he...   "...was also the worst enemy of the latter's two wives. As greedy as a vulture, this cadet of the French branch of the House of Lorraine had, by the end of the 1650s, hooked Monsieur like a harpooned whale. The young prince loved him with a passion that worried Madame Henrietta and the court bishop, Cosnac, but it was plain to the King that, thanks to the attractive face and sharp mind of the good-looking cavalier, he would have his way with his brother."   ***In January 1670, Philippe's wife had prevailed upon the King to imprison the chevalier, first near Lyon, then in the Mediterranean island-fortress of Château d'If. Finally, he was banished to Rome. However, by February, the Duke of Orléans' protests and pleas persuaded the King to restore him to his brother's entourage.***'''

 ***Her letters record how willingly she gave up sharing Philippe's bed at his request after their children's births, and how unwillingly she endured the presence of his minions in their household, which caused the couple to quarrel.***

''' ***Philippe enjoyed court life, gambling, chasing young men, and ceremony.*** 

How much more do you need???

Frania W. (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Gallery
It looks odd to have a separate heading for a 'gallery' - this doesn't seem to add anything to the article. Fine for pictures to be included but no need for own heading Contaldo80 (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources and citations
This article lacks primary sources. The biography by Nancy Barker is good; however, Mitford's monograph The Sun King is largely anecdotal.

There are significant lacunae in this article, i.e. there is not mention of the Philippe's participation in the Battle of Cassel (1677), which was lauded at the time.

Bibliographic references do not follow any recognizable standard and need to be edited to an appropriate bibliographic standard. Also, there is a link to a reference to a Google book, yet there is no title or author given. The bibliographic link to the Château de Saint-Cloud is invalid; accordingly, new sourcing is needed.

The general style of the article needs editing with some sections rewritten. Also, the caption of the family portrait, called the Olympe royal contains inaccurate information: the work is oil on canvas, not a mural; it was commissioned by Louis XIV, not by Philippe; and, the date of the work is 1670. The artist was Jean Nocret.

--E. Lighthart (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I took out a few sentences under legacy because it wasn't about his legacy at all. I hope this is ok since its not just a small revision.Bolinda (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I, for one,would like to be apprised of the resources which support that Philippe I's mother and Cardinal Mazzarin encouraged him to be effeminate and a homosexual. This seems highly implausible and even if true, should be documented rather fully, instead of being established based on a vague allusion to Dumas, a novelist. There is a lack of information concerning the sexually charged nature of the royal court. Whether we like it or not, sexuality played a very important role in this particular lineage - from the excesses of the grandfather and his sister, to the debauching of the legal father (Louis XIII) by said grandfather through exposure to orgies, to the ensuing pathological asexuality of Louis XIII, and the subsequent cuckolding of the king, and the "inevitable" homosexuality and blatant effeminacy of Philippe, we must realize that sexuality played a powerful part in the forming of this dynasty. All are convinced that Louis XIII was not Philippe I's father, since that asexual personage only had sexual relations with Anne of Austria on very few occasions and even took years to consummate their marriage. Although the parentage may never be established, many believe Louis XIV and Philippe I's father to be Mazzarin himself, as he was Anne of Austria's lover. So, whoever is most active in authoring this article, please step forward with some references and resources. NB I have often contributed to articles, or made comments. Returning later, I have remarked that while my articles stand, all of my comments have been deleted from the Wikipedia database and are nowhere to be found. Please have the decency to not delete or alter my comments. Thank you. VaniNY


 * Suggest you start with the references cited in the text and examine whether you think they are robust enough or if we need to add more. Can't help you on the second point about comments being deleted - doubt that contributors to this article are to blame. In doesn't help that you don't sign the comments you make. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought that Wikipedia was an online encyclopedia, not a gossip-laden data base. It would be so nice to stop wanting to base most articles of French royalty on what was happening below their belt.  Are these supposed to be historical or pornographic articles ?
 * Some of VaniNY's assertions are as unbased, or rather based on gossip, such as *the debauching of the legal father (Louis XIII) by said grandfather through exposure to orgies...*; *All are convinced that Louis XIII was not Philippe I's father, since that asexual personage only had sexual relations with Anne of Austria on very few occasions...* Who are *all*? Ditto *many believe Louis XIV and Philippe I's father to be Mazzarin himself...* There are always many to believe this or that in the course of History.  For instance, many believe that Hitler escaped to S. America in 1945. Does this make it true that Hitler escaped to S. America?
 * My suggestion is that VaniNY follow Contaldo's suggestions.
 * Frania W. (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Birth and Death Data
There is a conflict in the two birth dates listed in the article. Was he born on July 21st or September 21st?
 * All sources I've seen say 21 September.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Miscarriages
Is it necessary to mention all of Henrietta Anne's miscarriages in his list of children? It looks unprofessional and should be removed. What do other editors say?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed them as article already mentions her four miscarriages which is sufficient.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with your change, Jeanne. Having each one listed did seem rather tedious. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally !!! Frania W. (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh bonjour Frania! Yes, the list of miscarriages looked awful. I also think his death shouldn't be mentioned immediately after his birth, but rather at the bottom of the page in a separate section. Comments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bonjour Jeanne & Kansas Bear! You are right about his death being mentioned so early.  As for miscarriages, unless they were of historical importance in the life of a couple, I see no reason to have them in the list of bambinos.  Frania W. (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Grammatically incorrect sentence
"Liselotte acted as a mother to Philippe's children by Minette and maintained correspondence with the two their last days. Marie Louise however would always be Philippe's favourite child."

Um... HUH? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

On lengthy sections on his children
Comparing the short novels for each in en:wiki to more concise treatment of his children in fr:wiki
 * == Descendance ==

Avec Henriette d'Angleterre
Il se marie le 31 mars 1661 avec sa cousine germaine Henriette d'Angleterre avec qui il eut :
 * 1) Marie Louise d'Orléans (°27 mars 1662 †12 février 1689), devient reine des Espagnes et des Indes en épousant Charles II de Habsbourg. Ils n'eurent pas de descendance à cause de l'état de Charles.
 * 2) Philippe Charles d'Orléans, duc de Valois (°16 juillet 1664 †8 décembre 1666), mort en bas âge.
 * 3) Anne Marie d'Orléans (°27 août 1669 †26 août 1728) épouse le 10 avril 1684 Victor-Amédée II de Savoie et devient ainsi reine de Sardaigne. Elle hérita par sa mère de l'aînesse de la succession royale britannique (succession jacobite), qu'elle transmit à sa descendance dans la maison de Savoie. De cette ligne sont donc issus nombre de princes italiens et espagnols.

Avec la Palatine
Son second mariage, le 21 décembre 1671 avec la princesse Palatine, Élisabeth Charlotte Wittelsbach von Pfalz, avec qui il eut :
 * 1) Alexandre Louis d'Orléans, duc de Valois (°1673 †1676), mort en bas âge.
 * 2) Philippe d'Orléans (°2 août 1674 †1723), duc de Chartres, puis, ayant hérité des titres de son père, duc d'Orléans, et régent de France à la mort de son oncle Louis XIV. De cette ligne sont issus (entre autres) Philippe Égalité, le roi Louis-Philippe et tous les prétendants orléanistes au trône de France.
 * 3) Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans (°13 septembre 1676 †1744), devint duchesse de Lorraine et de Bar en épousant le duc Léopold Ier puis régente des deux duchés de 1729 à 1737. Ils  furent les parents de François Ier, empereur du Saint-Empire, et donc les grands-parents paternels de la reine Marie-Antoinette (°1755 †1793). De cette ligne sont aussi issus Napoléon II, fils de Napoléon Ier et de l'archiduchesse Marie-Louise d'Autriche ainsi que tous les Habsbourg-Lorraine.

--Frania W. (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I was bold enough to remove two entire sections that completely ignored the subject of the article. I did not wish to meddle with the section about "Philippe's marriage" because I did not have enough patience to understand who are all the Philippes mentioned there. Unfortunatly, articles about Bourbons and their relatives are very prone to trivial and irrelevant information. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The First?
The ordinal seems to be mentioned only in the title of the article. The lead calls him Philippe de France and the infobox simply Philippe. If he was Philippe Ire, why are we ignoring that? If he wasn't, why is the ordinal part of the title of the article? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual?
I might sound naive, but how could he be homosexual if he married two women and fathered children by both? Doesn't that make him bisexual? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A bisexual is one who "likes" both, which his father Louis XIII may have been, not to say probably was. On the other hand, Philippe d'Orléans liked only men, which would make him a homosexual; however, as the king of France's only brother, he could not die without leaving posterity, so he had to have children, whether he liked women or not: he accordingly "fulfilled his marital duties" to both his wives, the first one, Madame Lucifer (his nickname for her), whom he disliked wholeheartedly from the start, the second whom he grew to like as a friend. Unless we know him to have had mistresses, it would be difficult to classify him as a bisexual.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes sense but I still fail to realise how a homosexual man could bring himself to have sexual intercourse with two women enough times to father seven children. Perhaps his wives satisfied his need for women, while he sought paramours for male love. This is all speculation on our part, of course. How do biographies describe him? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I was adding the following to my comment above, we had an edit conflict
 * - remember that all marriages of royal family members & high nobility were nothing but political moves, i.e. arranged/forced marriages where love & sexual inclination had no part -
 * All books & articles I have read on him describe him as a "homosexual"; I have never seen ""bisexual". According to la Palatine herself, it was quite a job to get him to fulfill his marital duties, and it was with relief that they decided "d'un commun accord" to stop sharing a bed, but I have no time to look up her correspondence on the subject.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It would be nice to have that explanation in the article to avoid confusing readers. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But the explanation should be succinct so as not to get into another spill such as was done with Louis XVI phimosis which filled 1/4 of his article.
 * I really have no time right now to do it. I trust you can do it.
 * P.S. In French texts, he is described as "un homosexuel notoire".
 * --Frania W. (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This biography of Louis XIII calls Philippe "bisexual, with a powerful inclination towards ineffectual relations with men". But the rest of the paragraph is even more interesting; the author suggests that Anne encouraged Louis XIV to be masculine and Philippe to be feminine so that Philippe would not pose threat to Louis XIV like Gaston had posed threat to Louis XIII. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem is that labels such as bisexual and homosexual are relatively modern. People would not have recognised such descriptions in the 16th and 17th century. Instead more common terms include sodomite. I do not think it unusual, however, for a man who is essentially attracted to men to bring himself to have sexual intercourse with a woman when required. This was the standard practice for hundred of years - for many men there was little alternative or choice but to do so (otherwise face death, being ostracised, or ridicule). I also think we need to be careful about using "masculine" and "femminine" as terms to describes sexuality. One does not need to be effeminate or femmine to be attracted to the same sex. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Problem is that labels such as bisexual and homosexual are relatively modern. People would not have recognised such descriptions in the 16th and 17th century." Many words we use today would not have been recognised by people who lived in the 16th and 17th century. The article is written for 21st-century people, not for those who died centuries ago. "One does not need to be effeminate or femmine to be attracted to the same sex." Of course not. But Philippe was effeminate and was attracted to the same sex. The question is whether (or how much) he was also attracted to the opposite sex. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He was not attracted to the opposed sex, which was not the case of the greatest love of his life, the Chevalier de Lorraine, who went both way.
 * He had a total of seven children with two different wives, and there is not a single mistress to be found - no bastard child, which would be the key to the enigma.
 * Again, I would not call him a "bisexual", but would go with the description of "homosexuel notoire".
 * --Frania W. (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What does the "notoire" bit translate as? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "notorious", "of common knowledge", "well-known"
 * --Frania W. (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "I still fail to realise how a homosexual man could bring himself to have sexual intercourse with two women enough times to father seven children."

Well, that's royal duty for you. Think about all the married royal couples throughout the ages, very few of them genuinely loved or were even attracted to each other. I'm pretty sure their task of having to have sex with each other when they did not feel anything for one another was just as hard as a gay man having to bring himself to have sex with a woman that he was not attracted to in a sexual way. But they did it solely for the purpose of procreation, not recreation. It was part of the "job", if you will. Besides, when Phillipe felt he had fulfilled his "duty", he made his wives sleep in a separate bed. Pretty obvious that the dude didn't enjoy having sexual relations with women. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unhistorical and Anachronistic: The use of a Particular Restrictive Sexual Label in This Context
We must distinguish between homosexual behaviour and the homosexual category. The binary and narrow labels of heterosexual vs. homosexual are 19th century creations. Sexual acts and there meaning to the person and society depend to a great extent, upon specific historical problems and outlooks of a culture.The homosexual how we perceive it today, as a inherent sexual category/condition/identity, is a legal and medical construction that did not exist prior to 1869. I do not say that homosexual behaviour and connected personality traits did not exist in 18th century France, but it did not have the content and meaning that the quite newly coined term has today.


 * Anachronism - is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of persons, events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. The most common type of anachronism is an object misplaced in time.
 * For example (Ancient Greece):
 * Ancient Greece is often cited as an example of a civilization in which homosexuality was accepted as normal, even encouraged. This is not quite true. All males were expected to make love to women, to marry, and to sire a family, whether or they had a male lover or not. Moreover, love and sex between adult males was thought to be a bit ridiculous. The norm was for an adult male to have a relationship that lasted several years with an adolescent boy. When the boy reached maturity, he, then, was also expected to take a young lover. (Erich Goode, Deviant Behavior, p.193-194) https://www.pearsonhighered.com/product/Goode-Deviant-Behavior-9th-Edition/9780205748075.html, https://www.routledge.com/Deviant-Behavior-10th-Edition/Goode/p/book/9780205899661
 * “As is well known, to define it simply as a “homosexual relationship” (as was customary in the past) would be to falsify reality, attributing to the Greeks a concept which did not exist in their world. Today, it is generally accepted among scholars that an adult man in ancient Greece could with, little or no risk of social disapproval, express sexual desire for another male, so as long as the desired male was an adolescent (pais), whom the adult loved within the context of the socially codified and positively valued relationship which we call pederastic. This kind of relationship took place, then, between and “active” adult and a “passive” boy, though by “activity” and “passivity”- this is an important aspect of the question-the Greeks understood not necessarily and not only sexual roles, but also and above all intellectual and moral roles.” (Andrew Lear and Eva Cantarella, Images of Ancient Greek Pederasty Boys Were Their Gods, p. 1-2) https://www.amazon.com/Images-Ancient-Greek-Pederasty-Classical/dp/0415564042
 * “In Ancient Greece, homosexuality was described as pederasty, and was an integral part of life of the polis because it was a culture that allowed the norm to function. It therefore did not preclude relations with women, which was based on the reproductive order, and was based upon the division between an active principle and passive principle: a free man and a slave, a boy and a mature man and so on. Its function was, in other words, initiatory. Only the men had the right to practice pederasty, and the hierarchy precluded any equality between the partners. But a homosexual who refused to have anything to do with women was regarded as abnormal because he infringed the rules of the polis and the family institution.” (Elisabeth Roudinesco, Our Dark Side A History of Perversion, p. 33) https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/our-dark-side-a-history-of-perversion/409986.article
 * For example (Modern History):
 * “It is important to note that the late nineteenth-century medical conception of homosexuality was constructed in France without the benefit of the word homosexual. Claude Courouve has shown that the word (homosexualitat) was neologism coined by a German-speaking doctor, K.M. Benkert in 1869. The term circulated in German medical circles for a number of years and did not become current in French as homosexualite until the late 1890s.Until that time, and many years afterward, French doctors discussed male same-sex love in ways that built on older words or medical models. Before coining the word invert in 1882, the two favored words were pederasty and sodomy. Pederasty seems to have been regularly used to refer to the seduction of boys by adult males, and was a staple term of forensic medicine, but by the end of the century was used occasionally in connection with adult homosexuality, provoking objections from etymological purists like Andre Gide. Sodomy had an imprecise and old-fashioned biblical quality that made it more popular in literature than science. Once invert began to be applied to adult males, sodomy was used more exclusively to refer to bestiality. The term uranist or urning, coined by the German jurist Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs in the early 1860s never caught on in French, nor did the concept of the third sex, which was popular among German sex reformers.” (Robert Nye, Masculinity and Male Codes of Honor in Modern France, p. 108) http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520215108, https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/users/robert-nye
 * “The sexological ‘discovery’ of the homosexual in the late nineteen century is therefore obviously a crucial moment. It gave a name, an aetiology, and potentially the embryos of an identity. It marked off a special homosexual type of person, with distinctive physiognomy, tastes and potentialities. Did, therefore, the sexologists create the homosexual? This certainly seems to be the position of some historians. Michel Foucault and Lillian Faderman appear at times to argue, in an unusual alliance, that it was the categorisation of the sexologists that made ‘the homosexual’ and ‘the lesbian’ possible. Building on Ulrichs belief that homosexuals were a third sex, a woman’s soul in a man’s body, Westphal was able to invent the ‘contrary sexual feeling’ Ellis the ‘invert’ defined by a congenital anomaly, and Hirschfeld the ‘intermediate sex’; the sexologists definitions, embodied in medical interventions, ‘created’ the homosexual. Until sexology gave them a label, there was only the half-life of an amorphous sense of self. The homosexual identity as we know it is therefore a production of social categorisation, whose fundamental aim and effect was regulation and control. To name was to imprison.” (Jeffrey Weeks, Sexuality and Its Discontents Meanings, Myths and Modern Sexualities, p. 92-93).
 * “The word homosexuality did not exist prior to 1869, when it appeared in a pamphlet that took the form of an open letter to the German minister of justice (the German word is homosexualitat). A new penal code for the North German Federation was being drafted, and a debate had arisen over whether to retain the section of the Prussian criminal code which made sexual contact between persons of the same gender a crime. The pamphlet’s author, Karl Maria Kertbeny (1824-82), was one of several writers and jurists who were beginning to develop the concept of sexual orientation. This idea-that some individuals’ sexual attraction for members of the same sex was an inherent and an unchanging aspect of their personality -was radically new. Thousands of years of record history and the rise and fall of sophisticated and complex societies occurred before homosexuality existed as a word or even as an idea.” (Francis Mark Mondimore, A Natural History of Homosexuality, p.3) https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/natural-history-homosexuality
 * The categories we create and how we think about these categories are fundamentally important—and are often open to misinterpretation. (Charlene L. Muehlenhard, Categories and sexuality Pages 101-107) https://www.jstor.org/stable/3813594?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
 * Mind Your Words — They Have Meaning!... or may just obscure! Doctoral historian (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Succession in infobox
There has been some dispute about considering the dukedom a form of royal office for the Dukes of Orléans. As a result, we have infoboxes that look like this...

I think it would be more correct to have it listed as a title, as I do not consider the dukedom a separate fief, but rather a peerage under the king of France. We don't have this sort of treatment for Charles, Prince of Wales.

What do you guys think? Векочел (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that having the succession info box makes it easier for readers to know who there predecessor and successor were and it also makes it easier to know how Louis Philippe I was related to The House of Bourbon. But I’ll respect the consensus.  Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 21:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to believe that these two situations are different. The title of Prince of Wales is granted to an heir apparent, but the Dukedom of Orléans (for much of its history) has been a hereditary title passed down from father to son, making it a little more tricky to handle. During the Middle Ages/early Renaissance, the duchy was attached to territorial holdings, but as time went on, it became more of a courtesy title more than anything else. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sexuality in lead
The lead currently contains the sentence, “Although Philippe was open about his bisexuality and freely acted effeminately, he married twice and fathered several children.” This is problematic in a couple ways. First, neither the article nor the cited source makes any mention of bisexuality, open or otherwise. The article does state Philippe was open about his male lovers, and may have had a mistress. Inferring a sexual orientation from that is dubious.

Second, there is no reason to juxtapose Philippe’s sexuality (whether we make claims about bisexuality or use more supported language about having male lovers) with his marriages and children. The Mitford source this is cited to says, “In spite of being one of history’s most famous sodomites, Monsieur had two wives, a mistress, and eleven legitimate children…” While Mitford obviously found it humorous for “a sodomite” to marry and father children, it seems unnecessary to incorporate that prejudice into this article by drawing a contrast between his sexuality and his progeny the way the current text does.--Trystan (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You must remember that sexuality was not defined in the same way as it is now. Because Philippe never outright stated himself to be a homosexual, we really don't know his true sexuality. The best label we can use for the purposes of this article is "bisexual," seeing as he indeed had male lovers but also married to two women and had at least eleven legitimate offspring. As for your other concern, I wouldn't call it "prejudice." By principle, a man having a preference for male lovers would make it challenging to have multiple children, no? However, I do concede that it is not very encyclopedic, so I have reworded it Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "By principle, a man having a preference for male lovers would make it challenging to have multiple children, no?" Not at all, as this subject and many other examples of men in history with male lovers who had children demonstrate. However, I think your rewording takes care of this aspect. Thanks.
 * "The best label we can use for the purposes of this article is 'bisexual'" The best label would be none at all. The body of the article does not attempt to anachronistically impose either a gay or bisexual orientation on the subject, but appropriately describes same-sex and opposite-sex activity without inferring an orientation. The lead should not do so either. It can just say he was married twice, fathered six children, and had several male lovers.--Trystan (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I misunderstood you before. I have changed the lead to read: "Philippe was open about his preference for male lovers and freely acted effeminately, and he married twice and fathered several children." However, this sentence feels very wordy/chunky to me, but I cannot think of a way to cleanly split it without having the lead sound awkward. Any ideas? Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've taken a pass at improving the flow of the paragraph. Please feel free to revise or revert.--Trystan (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Portrayal in media
The very famous movie The Man in the Iron Mask (1998 film) is missing from the list. Aminabzz (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)