Talk:Philippe I, Duke of Orléans

message: 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)
thread_title: Older

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Birth and Death Data 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Finally !!!  Frania W. (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Miscarriages

message: "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)
thread_title:  Grammatically incorrect sentence 

message: 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 :
# 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.
# Philippe Charles d'Orléans, duc de Valois (°16 juillet 1664 †8 décembre 1666), mort en bas âge.
# 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 :
# Alexandre Louis d'Orléans, duc de Valois (°1673 †1676), mort en bas âge.
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title: On lengthy sections on his children

message: Son second mariage, le 21 décembre 1671 avec la princesse Palatine, Élisabeth Charlotte Wittelsbach von Pfalz, avec qui il eut :
# Alexandre Louis d'Orléans, duc de Valois (°1673 †1676), mort en bas âge.
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title: Avec la Palatine

message: 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)
thread_title:  The First? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unhistorical and Anachronistic: The use of a Particular Restrictive Sexual Label in This Context

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Succession in infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Portrayal in media