4

He was the last of the Valois line. He became king illegally (according to some sources). He produced no children. He had "minions," a group of very close friends he pampered and showered with favors: some say they were more than just friends. He has been described as effeminate by historians and novelists alike. He had an aversion to women. He never entered his wife's bedroom. In his trilogy in which Henri figures as one of the major characters, Alexandre Dumas, Pere all but refers to him as homosexual.

enter image description here

Now suddenly historians reverse their opinion on him. According to them he had a stormy affair in Poland with a woman he loved. He also loved his wife with whom he had sexual intercourse practically every night. The canard about him being gay was concocted by his slanderers.

Why the sudden change?

Addendum (light-hearted: pay no heed): Upon popular demand, I removed the word "gay" from the title, since "there were no gays prior to the 20th Century." There were also no homosexuals prior to 1880, and no Sodomites prior to the advent of Christianity except among the Jews; and no Sodomites anywhere before Sodom. Maybe they were referred to, or referred to themselves, as "individuals of non-traditional sexual orientation" in ancient Egypt, I don't know. The question is not about such individuals as a group; it's about Henri III of the house of Valois, no more and no less.

  • 6
    Can You deliver these 'new' sources (historians that present reverse opinion)? – Marek Oleszczuk Dec 3 '15 at 10:15
  • 5
    (1) "gay" is not binary; it is perfectly possible that both statements are true. (2) Who cares? (3) sources. If you don't provide sources then discussion of the quality of their research and conclusions are pure speculation. – Mark C. Wallace Dec 3 '15 at 13:02
  • 3
    What historians? A link/reference or two would be quite helpful. – T.E.D. Dec 3 '15 at 14:08
  • 3
    "He was the last of the Valois line" and "He produced no children" are saying the same thing, and they are irrelevant because it is both possible to be straight and childless, and to be gay and have children. "He became king illegally" seems irrelevant. He allegedly had friends that were more than friends also could be true of a king who messed around but wasn't necessarily gay. "He has been described as effeminate" is irrelevant because gender expression and sexual orientation are two different things. – called2voyage Dec 3 '15 at 15:06
  • 6
    @MarkC.Wallace - Do I care if someone I meet socially today is gay? Not really. Do I care if a historical figure was? Most certainly yes. In a culture that didn't accept that at all, it makes a huge difference in a person's mentality and motivations, which is something I'm very interested in where a historical figure is concerned. – T.E.D. Dec 3 '15 at 15:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.