Talk:Sexuality of Frederick the Great

The "I am not that way inclined" letter
Copying the full discussion from the main page's Talk page, as it discusses a relevant quote that was removed shortly before this page was created, and after some research, I have come to a different conclusion. Lexid523 (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC):

The section "Sexual orientation" contains the statement "Frederick wrote: "Fortune has it in for me; she is a woman, and I am not that way inclined."[161]" The source given is the biography by Blanning. However, the letter quoted by Blanning reads the following in the (French) original: "La fortune m'a tourné le dos. Je devais m'y attendre; elle est femme, et je ne suis pas galant. Translating "je ne suis pas galant" as "I am not that way inclined" seems like a very imprecise translation; better would probably be something like "I am not chivalrous" or something similar. I think the section on sexual orientation provides some serious evidence, but the translation of the letter seems severely forced to fit into a (otherwise perhaps well attested) hypothesis. I am not an experienced editor, so I'm not sure how to move on from here. I can't find any authoritative English translation of the letter, and Blanning is in principle to be considered a reliable source I assume, him being a studied and published historian. However, the letter as cited by him is obviously a sloppy translation. I would suggest to simply remove the sentence with the letter, since the case seems dubious to me, but I would be very grateful for input from more experienced editors before proceeding. Please note that I am not bent on throwing out the section with the letter, but I think the article would be more accurate without it. --EpicBroccoli (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I see exactly what you mean, and that while there is overwhelming evidence for his homosexuality, this would damage the article, I also think the statement is slightly out of place, maybe it should've been moved to the middle of the subsequent body paragraph. I'll look into it and the validity of the excerpt, thanks for bringing this up. -- Chariotsacha (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Chariotsacha (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * While I agree it is worth removing from the page (at least for now), it probably bears further research. According to French Wiktionary, galant can have connotations with specific regard to relationships with women and (e.g. "one who seeks to please women") and "par extension" that which deals with matters of love (with "galant" poetry given as an example of this usage of the word). Not to mention the possibility that the word may have had other connotations at the time that were even more on-the-nose re: his sexuality. Lexid523 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * According to the Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, 9th edition (the official dictionary of the French language), (un) galant can also be a noun meaning "a man who is eager with/around women, who seeks to please, to seduce"; the 1762 edition (5 years after the letter in question) also gives the definition of "suitor" or "lover". And it is a quirk of French grammar that the indefinite article is dropped when the noun is the direct object of the verb être. Thus, it would be grammatically and cotemporally accurate to read je ne suis pas galant as "I am not a lover/suitor (of women)", making Blanning's translation more coy than imprecise. Though we can't know for sure whether he meant "galant" as an adjective or a noun, or which specific connotation of either he was going for (and it's entirely possibly he intended the ambiguity).


 * I'm going to restore the Blanning translation, but with an inline explanation of the ambiguity of the original phrase. Lexid523 (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Blanning makes his argument about Frederick's sexuality and how he expressed it in his writing quite well. However, I think this discussion of one particular quote by Blanning is problematic for a number of reasons.
 * The case that Frederick's writing has many such ambiguous expressions is made earlier in the discussion of La Jouissance. This one quote doesn't really seem to strong evidence. Clearly the interpretation is tendentious.
 * The need to justify Banning's interpretation in length supports the problem of its tendentiousness. And what the interpretation adds to the article doesn't seem to justify its length of the argument justifying the translation.
 * The context of the interpretation and its needed justification doesn't fit in the context of the article where it occurs. It doesn't follow from the preceding paragraph nor lead to the succeeding paragraph.
 * As you mention, Frederick wrote ambiguously, or perhaps poetically. Blanning chose the adjectival interpretation of galant and ironically, reduced its richness by interpeting galant in a limited modern way refering to sexuality: that way inclined.  There's no argument that the sexual component is part of the word. But as you point out, galant is much richer. Grammatically, it could be either a noun or adjective, both implying connotations from French court life, including, seduction, flattery, courteousness, amorous, fopishness and, of course gallant.
 * The context of the note does not support the idea that this a sexual confession. It was written as a response to a military defeat at Kolín.
 * It could be that Frederick's statement could just as much be a misogynistic statement of sexual power dynamics in that he is saying fortune has it in for him because he refuses to submissively pay court to the power of another woman (Who was taking sides against him with those other two women, Maria Theresa and Elizabeth of Russia?) Given Frederick's writing style and background, at least both of these meanings may be in in play. I certainly don't know. But I don't think the context of the translation, given the breadth syntactic, connotative, and contextual ambiguity, make it far from providing a clear statement of Frederick's sexual interests. Wtfiv (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that it's not the strongest "evidence" of his sexuality. However, the fact is that Blanning's translation is out there and is getting quoted in the (admittedly limited) corners of the internet where things like the sexual orientation of monarchs and other historical figures are discussed. Anybody hearing it for the first time and looking for verification is almost certainly going to come to Wikipedia first--and probably also last. If we don't address it at all, they'll leave with a flawed impression: either that it is a totally true quote and a strong translation, or that it's a quote of dubious provenance and he may not have said anything like that at all. Keeping the facts of the matter tucked away here on the talk page would be contrary to the whole point of Wikipedia. Lexid523 (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I still think it is a problematic translation adds very little additional about evidence of Frederick's sexuality. Its current placement disrupts the narrative of the article and detracts from the topic by shifting the focus to Blanning, particularly by explaining his rather creative translation.   Let's see if others weigh in. , any thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * While we wait for the others to chime in on the more substantive issues you raise, regarding the issue of its placement: like the rest of the article, it's (roughly) chronological. The previous paragraph addresses events that began in the 1750s (though the consequences weren't felt until the 1780s), and the subsequent paragraph is about statements his doctor made after his death. The Battle of Kolin happened in 1757, between those two events.
 * But while I'm here, I might as well say I also don't see a material distinction between dedicating a paragraph to dubious statements made by his doctor after his death and one dedicated to a dubious translation by a biographer. Yes, the former comes from someone who knew him personally and is technically more historical in the sense of primary documentation. However, both his doctor's statements and Blanner's translation are essentially just different forms of hearsay, attributing statements and/or sentiments to him after he was no longer around to correct them (not that he would have, but you get my point).
 * As for your point about his tendency towards ambiguity in his writing having already been addressed in the paragraph about La Jouissance, I think a) that's a really great point that b) actually strengthens the case for keeping and expanding on the discussion about this letter. For one, I would argue there's a significant distinction between a poem (a genre notorious for ambiguity, obscure metaphors, and creative license) written for fun and a personal letter written at a time of great distress. Even at a time when he had much bigger things on his plate, he still (maybe) made such a joke at his own expense that nevertheless skirts the edges of plausible deniability. To my mind, that not only reiterates the point made in the introduction about the centrality of his sexual orientation to his life (that he reacted to one of his greatest failures with the 18th century equivalent of "I'm too gay for this shit"), but also illustrates how aware he was that as a king, there was no such thing as private correspondence. If nothing else, it shows a pattern of ambiguity in his writing, as opposed to just one example. Lexid523 (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly won't argue for or against the inclusion of Zimmerman. I think it has been part of the article since around 2006. As an aside on Zimmerman, if the topic of Frederick is interesting to you, I'd recommend reading Zimmerman's work if you haven't already. The citations should link to it. It's quite entertaining in its own way, particularly his "interviews" with Frederick in his last days.
 * I think this issue highlights how this article could use an editor to clean it up, organize it and increase its quality.
 * I still think inclusion of Blanning's questionable translation ('galante' = "inclined that way") only weakens the article. Frederick's writings could easily be culled for a stronger example that makes the point less ambiguously.   Not only is the quote taken out of context and presented in the article outside of narrative (as opposed to chronological) context, it  may have the ironic effect of bringing the evidence into question by illustrating the lengths a biographer can go to make a point. Wtfiv (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All the so-called "evidence" in this article is garbage. I do not believe any of it. This whole page should be deleted. It solely serves to discredit my family. All the sources are either made up by Frenchmen or Englishmen. Names like Mitford among the proponents and Frederick the Great's homosexual fan Adolf Hitler hint at the origin of this discredidation campaign which persists to thus day in the self-proclaimed closest relative of Adolf Hitler Jürgen Ullmann, my step father and his extended family including, for example, his half brother Helmut Grubmüller and Grubmüller's son Marcus Hofrichter, all of which are indeed homosexual. To me personally, it is also clear that the familial relation of the Hitler family to the Rothschild family is a fact, because my step father and my mother wanted to force me to plead loyalty to those people in a disgusting Kabbalah ritual, which I declined. In particular, this referred to Philippine de Rothschild, which acted as Jewish godmother to my mother Ursula Sigrid Ullmann who was born as von Salviati. Philippine de Rothschild followed me on several occasions at different ages. I know that is was her because my grandmother disliked her and because I recognized her in photographs taken at different ages. She sided with them for financial reasons and to keep her criminal activities from the public. For her wrongdoing, my grandmother evicted her from her house, which ultimately cost my grandmother her life at my 17th birthday. The whole gay campaign is no more than a smear campaign to damage the House Hohenzollern. RTUllmann (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but such confused, silly conspiracy theories have no place here. - As far as User:Wtfiv's last contribution: I agree that the quote isn't the strongest, but it's not completely irrelevant either. @Kunst-Theodor, @Chariotsacha et al.: However, I'm not particularly happy with the opening title of the article. Why not the facts first, and then the quotes? In particular, the lurid Darget quote with the hemorrhoids, the Luc quote from Voltaire and the "ghastly smelling women" could also appear in a less prominent place, further back. It's too much tabloid... Equord (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Added a source in Further Reading
After reverting an anonymous IP edit on Frederick's sexuality on Frederick the Great, I did a check to see if there is any latest news on the topic, I found this interesting article in a student journal History in the Making. It's an undergraduate student journal from Australia with no direct university affiliation, which means its probably wouldn't meet most editor's WP:RS criteria. But the article struck me as having well-made, well-cited points on the latest issue bearing on the topic, it has references that may be worth pursuing. So, I thought I'd share it in this article. A future editor may find it useful. Wtfiv (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Updating this article
Thank you for letting me know that you added to this page. If you are interested, this page could use an editor to pull together all the evidence and the arguments. Wtfiv (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added some further details. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So did I. Equord (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Last paragraph
Is there a reason why the present last sentence of the article: "As if the warlike royal hero wanted to prove to his dead father that he was a tough guy." is informal? Unless it is a quote by the historian, it seems glaringly out of place. Chronikhiles (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Yeah I read the source that was cited for that last paragraph, and admittedly I had to use google translate so I didn't get the most accurate reading to be sure. But the last paragraph is directly referencing a paragraph from the article: "Historian Wolfgang Burgdorf believes that the paternal insults and his sexuality partly explain his daring policy as a king: As if warlike King Frederick II wanted to prove to his dead father that he was a hard man." Really the grammar and formatting in that entire paragraph needs to be revamped, it looks very informal right now Rockymountainhorror (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I updated that last paragraph, but I'm just now reading that the entire section seems super informal with the word choice and formatting. It has a prose, which is pretty bad for anyone looking for an objective view about Fredricks Sexuality, if anyone could please help with this that would be incredible Rockymountainhorror (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph is the conclusion of a historian (Wolfgang Burgdorf) who wrote a recent essay on the subject. It is quoted verbatim from a reputable source (Süddeutsche Zeitung). The source from which the newspaper quotes, is also stated in the article: Wolfgang Burgdorf, “Königliche Liebschaften: Friedrich der Große und seine Männer,” (Royal love affairs: Frederick the Great and his men) in Norman Domeier and Christian Mühling (eds.), Homosexualität am Hof: Praktiken und Diskurse vom Mittelalter bis heute (Homosexuality at Court: Practices and Discourses from the Middle Ages to Today), Frankfurt am Main and New York, 2020: Campus, p. 133. - I wonder what's supposed to be "informal" about it. "...wanted to prove to his dead father that he was a tough man"? (“Harter Mann” is better translated as “tough man”, so I corrected it.) This is a formulation of the historian's psychological conclusion, as put by the newspaper, that everyone can understand. Of course, it is explained more detailed in the essay. It is a good conclusion to the article because it cites a possible, contemporary answer to the question of the political consequences of Frederick's inclinations. These are far more important than the gossip and the actual reason this article exists. Equord (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)