Talk:Prince Eugene of Savoy/Archive 3

Unproven claim of LGBT/Gay

The article never used the word "homosexual" or "gay". Zero claim to back up the tags "LGBT", "Gay nobility" or whatsoever. NO PROOF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.156.165 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to make this clear. I've read the entire article. No mention of his being "homosexual". The word doesn't even occur in the article, nor does the word "gay". I know about his relationship to Countess Batthyany, but the lack of sexual attraction between them and the Platonic nature of this relation, does not mean he was gay. If you jump to this conclusion you are either (1) Doing original research (Wikipedia: OR/NOR), or (2) you are projecting your fantasy onto Eugene of Savoy. There could be many reasons why Eugene of Savoy never had an affair with a woman, psychological or physiological, just to mention two likely ones. The article itself mentions that Eugene of Savoy was not attractive, rather ugly looking. "Certainly Eugene's appearance was not impressive — "He was never good-looking …" wrote the Duchess of Orléans, "It is true that his eyes are not ugly, but his nose ruins his face; he has two large teeth which are visible at all times."[7]" That's a woman telling you, he was not attractive. Therefore, stop tagging him gay, LGBT, etc. 84.0.156.165 (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

So first you remove a section that is entirely about Eugene's homosexuality and then you justify your removal of the categories by claiming that the article does not mention he was homosexual. Do you take the rest of us for idiots? Surtsicna (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to put forward some material.

This is the original quote from Elizabeth Charlotte (with, unfortunately, the original ortography):

"Die marquise de Richlieu kan gar woll allein mitt mansleütte herumb fahren; sie ist, waß man hir honte beüe heist. Man hatt mir gesagt, sie were kupfferig worden, welches woll sein konte, den sie seüfft braff. Ich glaub nicht, daß ihr vetter, printz Eugene, viel nach ihr fragt; er incommodirt sich nicht mitt damen, ein par schonne pagen weren beßer sein sach." Ref.: ORLEANS, Elisabeth Charlotte Herzogin von: Briefe aus den Jahren 1676–1722 / HOLLAND, Wilhelm Ludwig (Hrsg.). Bd. 2 : 1707–1715. Hildesheim : Georg Olms Verlag, 1988. – Nachdruck der Ausgabe Stuttgart und Tübingen 1867. – S. 196

The releavant passage is the last sentence (my comments in (/slantbrackets/): "... he does not incommode himself (/scil. "trouble himself" or "bother himself"/) with ladies, a couple of pretty pages would rather be something for him." To me, at least, this wording seems to lack the character of actual description, if not assertion, which the presentation of this passage in the article gives the impression of.

Another quote, from volume 5 of the above:

"Ich kene ihn gar woll, habe ihn offt geplagt, wie er noch ein kindt; da hatt man gewolt, daß er geistlich werden solte, war wie ein abbé gekleydt. Ich habe ihn doch allezeit versichert, daß er es nicht bleiben würde, wie auch geschehen. Wie er den geistlichen habit quittirte , hießen ihn die jungen leütte nur madame Simone undt madame lansiene; den man pretentirte, daß er offt bey den jungen leutten die dame agirte." - "I know him full well, have often abused (/scil. teased, pestered/) him, while he was still a child; at the time one wanted him to become a clerical, was dressed like an abbot. But have always asserted that he would not remain one, as also happened. As he doffed the clerical habit, the young people called him only madame Simone and Madame Lansiene; because one put forward that among young people he often acted the woman."

Idk, but this reads like mere gossip to me. Or more teasing, perhaps. Then there is another small historical detail: Eugen may, at least in his early life, have had a solid financial motive for his bachelorhood: Since 1688 he had been the lay abbot of the abbeys of Santa Maria di Casanova and San Michele della Chiusa, a position that required that he be unmarried.

Make of it what you will. It matters not whether Eugen was homosexual or not, but there seems to be more hearsy and rumours than actual evidence, and that may matter to the article. T 88.91.200.88 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

Aeengath - you have completely changed the section about Eugene's sexuality from something that supposes he was probably homosexual, to downplaying that considerably. This is a significant change to material in the article that has been long standing. As such I would like to apply WP:BRD. I'm happy to consider how we bring balance and nuance to the article but less keen to for it to be re-written according to one person's views. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Contaldo80: , I have added to the section after researching about his private life for the past two months, everything is sourced, reversing it makes no sense. Since Eugene never publicly described his sexual orientation and left no records that could give us information about it, I changed the name of the section from “sexual orientation” to “private life”. It has never been my intention to downplay speculations that he was probably homosexual it is still there even though it would be more appropriate, in my opinion, to describe facts about his life that could indicate his orientation instead of sticking a label on him… more important, speculations are not solid evidences and they need to be placed in the context of the time. Ambiguous letters from Chopin to another man for exemple may give clues about his sexual orientation but there is nothing from Eugene except gossips from his arch enemies the French (that Eugene had humiliated on the battlefield) and the fact that he never married! Eugene lived to be 72, those stories seem to date back from his early teenage years in France, before Louis XIV basically banished him (the Duchess of Orléans who wrote those "incriminating" letters was also the sister in law and an intimate of the King). Finally, you seem to imply a lack of NPOV by writing that the material was added according to one person's views well that one stings a bit since I am doing exactly the opposite by researching material to bring balance, I hope maybe a look at my past edits will convince you. Aeengath (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

References