Talk:Henry Benedict Stuart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


While Henry may have claimed to be "a Prince of England and of Scotland, Duke of York", he was not recognised as such by anyone other than Jacobites. The article should probably be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

He was, and is, recognised as a Prince by the British Royal Family, see for example [1]. DrKiernan 08:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


When someone is named as Cardinal, it is mentioned in their name; for example Thomas Cardinal Wolsey. Correct me if I am wrong.

This is a style in the formal sense, meaning a format for a person's name and title. Checking eight English-language dioceses headed by cardinals, I found them split 50-50 between 'John Cardinal Smith' and 'Cardinal John Smith.' The in-the-middle style appears more formal (or in some views, more traditional), and is probably more common, but if Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles uses the title-first format (as he does on the archidiocesan web site), it would seem rude to tell him he's wrong. — OtherDave 16:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What does that have to do with this article? I think this one should probably be at Henry Stuart, Cardinal-Duke of York, as this is how he is known. john k 20:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I was simply replying to the anonymous comment above. Cardinal Henry Stuart is not incorrect; neither is Henry Cardinal Stuart. The disambiguation page for "Henry Stuart" offers the choice of "Henry Benedict Stuart, known as Cardinal Duke of York and King Henry IX. "Cardinal Duke of York" goes directly to Henry's page. — OtherDave 11:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Both titles are, in fact, incorrect, because he was called "Cardinal York," not "Cardinal Stuart". john k 16:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that either "Henry Cardinal" or "Cardinal Henry" is incorrect. Both forms of address for cardinals are common, accepted, and longstanding. Even the Hanoverian King George acknowledged Henry as a cardinal, though certainly not as duke of York. It seems reasonable that many people called (and call) him Cardinal Stuart.
(I'm not objecting to the article title, by the way; this is just discussion.)
I had not (as a Canadian-born descendant of ardent Jacobites) ever seen the phrase "Cardinal York," but after reading your comment I see it's easy enough to find on UK-based web sites (like the Royal Collection), so I've learned something from you.
By the way, in Wikipedia "Cardinal York" already redirects to this page, so people searching that way will end up in the right place.
OtherDave 14:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Should we assume that the diarist that was sicted here is trustworthy on th equestion of Cardinal's sexuality (homosexuality). I know that is being stated as a fact by some, but are we dealing with reliable sources here, whose agenda wasn't to discredit a Pretender in the eyes of the Protestant British people. Anchorite 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thrale certainly was in no position to know anything except gossip, as she was only a casual visitor to Rome. I'd like to see some citations for respectable academic opinion on this. The material given doesn't seem to really justify the positive statements made. Many of the cardinals had mistresses; is it possible that any who did not were liable to be presumed to be pooftahs without further discussion? Roger Pearse 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talkcontribs)

The sources cited are wider than Thrale, and include Gorani and Moroni. But that should not mean that we should dismiss Thrale as any means unreliable. Incidentally I find the deragotary language that Roger Pearse has used above derogatory and distasteful. Wikipedia is a forum for proper intellectual debate, and not to demean and insult. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The favourite ploy of trying to convince the world that everybody really is gay but in denial, by historical revisionism of famously iconic people, is such a tenuous facade. Your activism, if it had place at any encyclopedia, would not be one so respected at Britannia, but only here at the completely vulnerable and groundless Wikipedia. Thanks for proving to academia worldwide, just why they cannot trust Wikipedia. If you really want people to accept your "lifestyle" this is not the proper way to gain tolerance. Sceptik (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Another thing is, please do not go out of your way to interpret appearances to make them fit your agenda. That is the problem here, above all. So much tangential and unrevealing information seems to be needed to compound together what may seem "dirty" to some, while completely unremarkable and lacking notability for inclusion. It is the type of value placed on random, assorted details which are of no absolute consquence, but to those trying to read between the lines and make assumptions as to their ultimate meaning. I know editors get away with this behaviour all the time on Wikipedia, but it is an activity which is hardly commendable. In fact, this approach to sources and their weight per "media spin" is only making the truth a much more difficult attribute to access, in a fog of allegations. Nobody trusts those who rely on salacious fancy as actual truth, unless of course, they are what the general population calls unpleasant names, for lack of a better euphemism. In fact, the additions to what was a perfectly good article, are what the vast majority expect of tabloids. Is Wikipedia a tabloid or encyclopedia? Can the editor who wished to include this unverifiable conclusion about the person, tell the difference? Sceptik (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I must say it has been most delightful reading through your patronising, ill-informed and frankly insulting comments. And really how DARE you condescend to me that I should be looking to seek your 'tolerance'!! TOLERANCE! If I did indeed need a judgement on my 'lifestyle' or was seeking 'tolerance' then believe me I wouldn't bother to come to you. But putting my own life aside - which you seem to think worthy of repeated comment and degradation - I would, if I may, rather focus on the article itself. I don't believe there was anything in the text that can be perceived as 'dirty' or salacious. I covered information on an important aspect of Stuart's life - an aspect which contemporaries commented on and well documented. It really is unfortunate if any of the information presented personally offends you (it's clearly hit a nerve), but really the point of wikipedia is to present as much relevant information as possible and allow readers to draw conclusions - provided it is well supported and referenced. I'm quite happy to improve and tidy the article and agree we could do with condensing the text a little, but I really do object to censorship on grounds of prudery. But didn't you know, in reality all Catholic clergy are essentially heterosexual and all cardinals absolutely celibate - and that anyone who presents information to the contrary must be wicked or stupid? Or and thanks ever so much for tolerating someone like me and allowing me to present my point of view. That is very magnanimous of you. I guess it's by doing this that we can gradually earn your tolerance and respect, and be allowed to 'practice' or 'lifestyle'. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the homosexual inclinations of Cardinal York are well documentated and there is no reason to hide it but I'd be more careful in referring as unquestionable fact that he was an active homosexual, particularly in his later life. Nicholas Schofield, Roman Miscellany: The English in Rome, 1550-2000, 2002, p. 98, quotes the same contemporary reports that mentioned in the article about his homosexuality but adds that "we should not read too much into such reports for equally clear in contemporary sources is York's proper and virtuous nature and horror of all impropriety." I think that we are simply unable to establish with certainity whether the Cardinal had ever phisycal homosexual relationships. Fact that he manifestaed such inclinations do not mean authomatically that he succumbed to his lusts. Possibly his case is similar to that of Michelangelo, who, according to Robin Richmond, Michelangelo & the Creation of the Sistine Chapel, Random House 1992, conducted an ascetic life in spite of his homosexual love to Michele Cavalieri. Generally, I'd recomend to rewrite this fragment for less categorical CarlosPn (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2008 (CET)

Thanks CarlosPn, I think that's a helpful comment. I'm inclined to agree with you that it's unlikely that he was sexually active - I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he abided by standards of clerical celibacy. I think the model of Michelangelo is a good one. I agree with you that we should re-write the text a little to bring that out, and if needs be trim. I'm happy to have a go at this. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the re-write. The language is a lot more modern-sounding now, and reads more like an encyclopedia should. Coemgenus 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let the masses draw their own conclusions, without adding "hints" of your own spin on the issue, as if it were WP:NPOV presentation. Everybody will think what they like, regardless of how one (or a group of like-minded people) in particular perceives events of history, as "meaning" this or that, between the lines. Do not use suggestive language, which is tabloid fodder. Sceptik (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the details of his congenial professional associations need not be separated from other events in his life. Those other people were in his life for obvious reasons, in times and circumstances perfectly understandable in a neutral manner. Readers don't often know who were the friends of famous people, because the spotlight tends to isolate them in the limelight. Sceptik (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptik - I'm reluctant really to get into a discussion with you as you've chosen from the start to be personally abusive to me ( - I've already been called a 'pooftah' by another contributor to this debate). You have repeatedly removed the text on personal relationships without any proper justification other than that you believe it to be public relations spin. You have not engaged on the sources but instead chosen to accuse me of 'activism' and keep referring to some sort of gay 'conspiracy'. This is not a place to push your own personal views and prejudices. What I have added is consistent with wikipedia rules. If you have a legitimate argument to make about a textual reference then please do so, but don't be so presumputuous to assume that you can cover it all up because you don't like the issue being discussed. This is not allowed. You know no more or less about Henry Stuart than I do - but at least I have had the courtesy to draw on academic sources to improve the article. Incidentally your English grammar is hard to understand so I'm not 100% sure about the arguments you are trying to make. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your entire purpose here is personal; e.g. related to your personal issues and your feelings about it, therefore, you are being entirely irrational about the last Stuart claimant as a fantasy, you wish to identify with as "legitimate", comparing as your own troubles, such flights of fancy, wearing on your sleeve that only reflects your own little reality and that of those gays who believe and push this agenda, this revisionist point of view, without proof, that most people were gay in history, but that everybody is covering it up. You're the one drinking this conspiratorial kool aid and trying to get everybody else to believe in the internet meme through this medium of Wikipedia. You damn well know that Britannica and Encarta would have none of this, but you know Wikipedia has lower standards and seek to exploit a weakness by appealing to paranoid emotions. Sceptik (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fragment about personal life of Cardinal after its rewriting wasn't an activism by any way. It was reliable and well documentated account about accusations that were actually and not without circumstantial evidences produced against Stuart during his lifetime and had some consequences also for his public life (vide Lercari's incident). I see no reason for hiding these facts. It is not a matter of "gay activism", but simply of historical true. My personal opinions about homosexualism and "gay movement" would be probably considered "extremely homophobic" by many people but it doesn't really matter in this case. CarlosPn (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2008 (CET)

My issue was with providing a separate paragraph or section on this, but if we are to do so, it should explain other personal relationships than the paranoid conspiracies. What of his father and mother? What of his childhood friends? What of his dealings with the Pope? What of his Jacobites? What of his REAL LIFE? You can see why having a separate part of this article, just to showcase an unhinged and unproven allegation ONLY broadcasted on the internet, in only Wikipedia, among all the general encyclopedias, is a rather wrong thing. Because of WP:WEIGHT, there is no reason to bloat the allegation and give it a spot to shine by itself. I previously (before your last edit) integrated notes of Henry's close connections with certain people in his professional life, elsewhere in the article, where relevant to events in his life which naturally would feature them as participants in whatever he was doing as a member of the Church. That is the proper course of action, since we cannot really go into depth about them, being that it is about Benedict and not others, who apparently do not have their own Wikipedia articles. Besides, the only material we have been given by the conspiracy theorist Contaldo, is a gay conspiracy about them, extrapolating upon neutral sources about Henry and these other people, which do not emphatically consider Henry to have been gay. Contaldo's perception and that of people in his social stratum of the LGBTQ, are the ones making this allegation to buttress their own interests, but the assertions are not made in the biographies or statements of him in his own life, or by those for centuries until today, when Contaldo and ilk, want to revise the understanding of the data, with their own view. If they keep it up, every biography on Wikipedia will have a gay section, even though Britannica and Encarta do not, nor would schools and universities change their mind about the truth of Wikipedia. They would simply all laugh at the fringe ideas being pumped out of this project, whether for the reasons of it being a gay think tank, or promoter of other propagandas. However, if they do get away with this even more, then there is no reason to waste our time here. The only thing I really find helpful about Wikipedia, is that it has an article for just about any topic one could think of, but it doesn't mean they are reliable or worthy to hold as gospel. Aside from that, Wikimedia Commons is probably the only wiki with which I have no real objections to. Sceptik (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Sceptik, it's nice to see that your comments become more constructive. Maybe you're right that there's no need of separete section. But I can't agree with you that we've got to do with "conspiracy theory" - evidences for the homosexual inclinations of Stuart are very strong and it's not true that the sources mentioned in the article are "neutral" about it. Thrale's account "Old Cardinal York kept a catamite publicly at Rome" is a clear and direct accusation. Particularly Moroni's account of the relations of Stuart with Lercari indicated that it was something more than friendship (f.e. "meetings in the arranged places" and so on). The conflict of Cardinal with his father in 1752 is hard to explain without mentioning about the allegations of homosexuality. You should know that Gaetano Moroni wasn't "gay activist" but a Catholic writer, who served two popes - Gregory XVI and Pius IX. Maybe Stuart's later friendship with Angelo Cesarini should not be described in the context of these allegations, since there's no direct evidences of its improper character, it could be easy explained in the neutral way and had no "public" consequences as in the case of Lercari. I think that it should be a matter for the discussion. CarlosPn (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2008 (CET)

I've been mentioning Wikipedia guidelines and bylaws in most of my communications relevant to this article, but you two apparently haven't noticed, preferring to "stick to your guns" and hold out on your convinced beliefs in the matter, even if compromising the quality of the article, by breaking the rules. "Meetings in the arranged places" does not signify anything but a "get together" of friends, which happens between straight people, male or female, all the time! How was/is anybody certain they were not gambling or playing chess, talking about "old times" or gossip, or being philosophical colleagues? Making inferences or assumptions, are what we are not supposed to do, as editors. Anyways, if pederasty (unknown "catamite") was involved in the Church at this period, that is a different type of relationship than what has been suggested and even if this person was associated with Henry, it does not mean they specifically, had a "romance" together, nor does it follow that just because somebody makes offhand comments in gossip, of a negative nature, that the statements are truer than any tabloid. Aristocrats and royals always had trouble (and still do) with their parents, much more than peasant or burgess classes, because of the nature of power, responsibility and privilege and this often leads to scandals, real or imagined--compare problems in the British royal family today: some have accused Prince Charles of having a sexual encounter with another man, but this is not taken seriously and Wikipedia should not, in the same vein as Britannica or Encarta, confirm conspiratorial gossip as if truth.
It is not hard to see that Henry was not holding himself up to the desired prestigiousness and legitimacy which James wished of his Jacobite court (it was an ultimately hollow establishment in exile), in the sense of being carried on respectably and professionally by his second son, who was not apparently devoted to the Jacobite cause, as he was to their new Continental scenario of the Papal establishment where they were in exile. Come on and tell me you are not aware of the harshness in wealthy families? Of course, this rigidity is as well known in the paupers, who have to work for everything they have, where children don't have the inheritances or objects of worth that the wealthy children demand out of their parents and often enough do get, but with added responsibility--we know children don't want to hear about conducting themselves appropriately, but would rather waste their inheritance or make their parents fix all the problems they create. I guess you two are not versed in the intense father/son conflicts which dominated the House of Hanover, between all of the King Georges and even between Queen Victoria and son Prince Bertie (future King Edward VII), or the antipathy between George V and the future Duke of Windsor, who married Wallis Simpson at the cost of the Crown? Reread my statements on this discussion above and you'll see what I mean, about coming to conclusions by taking things out of context and bloating their meaning, against undue weight as well as the case of tendentious editing by ideologues to get their message across on Wikipedia and not taking credence in logical fallacies about unsubstantiated claims. In any case, I am unopposed to discussing associates of famous people, where appropriate, within the scope of other events of their lives.
So what if Caesarini or anybody else, like Lercari, connected on good terms with the Prince, getting affluence out of his efforts, which in and of itself, has not been proven? It's not necessarily sexual, nor can anybody, even the sources you've relied upon, confirm this was the case. Remember the rich family thing--stern fathers don't want their hard earnt, or well inherited affluence, to be given off to worthless courtiers who flatter in the hopes of sharing a glory which does not belong to them. That is the conventional approach to the father/son conflict between James and Henry--Henry being put off to the side, all alone from the fame and glory reserved to his brother Charles. Henry thought he could buy friends and attention, if he did in fact give out some of the family wealth to other Church administrators like Lercari or Caesarini. Another thing is, Caesarini apparently had a much longer connection with Henry than Lercari, thus further making the claim that the Lercari "scenario" was just gossip, since it seems that Caesarini was not treated in the same, libelous manner by the writers in these sources. Why accommodate stereotypes and assumptions, that aristocrats have "deviant" sexual lifestyles? Is that Wikipedia's purpose? It may have been the mindset of Henry's contemporaries, but not fit for our readership here. Since you mentioned Gaetano Moroni, you should know that the Papacy refused to recognise Henry's claim to succeed to the Throne after his older brother Charles failed in 1745. How do you know such a personal attack on Henry by a Papal scribe was not politically motivated? The Pope disowned the Jacobites, just like the French did, when they had become burdensome to support. It is clear proof that the French and Italians (nor the Spaniards, for that matter!) had no sincere interest in helping the Jacobites "save" the British Isles, which was a failed experiment known to everybody as the Spanish Armada. The French and Italians instead, wished to put pressure on the British, simply by hosting the Jacobites. At the time of this "accusation", the Jacobite Risings had clearly become worthless and would do nothing to revert the new institutional framework of the UK that had been underway for half a century. Besides, an attack on Henry by the Pope would only serve to keep him in line with Papal wishes and do his bidding, rather than march off in grand fashion, to a victorious reconquest of reclamation elsewhere than the Papal States, a place the Pope completely dominated and required everybody (especially cardinals) to have no options other than in his kind of fealty.
How also, are any of these speculations worthy? They were not among the many years of information on this article, but only recently have been introduced, here in February, 2008 by an avowed gay propagandist, who has likewise inserted homosexuality into various other biographical articles, which were not homosexually oriented beforehand--compare User:Haiduc's prancing rampages across the Wikipedia, adding homosexual spins on everything (without anything constructive to add, outside this agenda) where it has been rumoured and indeed, that is what the gay wikiproject does--it is their repertoire (one of which, is the subject of James I's purported homosexuality, all of which being their most dedicated work, mostly because the King James Version of the Bible has been used most vociferously to point out the sin of homosexuality). They either openly, like Haiduc, declare their POV agenda, or quietly, like User:Contaldo80, hope that nobody sees what they are doing. "Oh, by the way, this guy was gay, because so and so themselves speculated. It's true, you have to be a homo-hater and must be secretly a self-hating homo yourself to boot!" See red herring: appeal to authority. What it comes down to, is such advocates being caught red handed in the cookie jar, then denying/hiding it in the open by believing this will be the wool over the eyes' of others who admit to seeing through the smokescreen of lies, these propagandists attacking the sceptics and violating WP:NPA, but simultaneously claim to be aggrieved and that they themselves are the victims. Mind games? Please! Sceptik (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've simply tried to find some middle course on the subject. I didn't want to involve on any side in the conflict between you and Contaldo. I can only advise you to read the sources mentioned in the article. And please do not discredit Moroni as historian without any serious grounds. He had no reasons to produce calumnies against Henry. It's true that Papacy refused to recognise Stuart's claims to the throne but Cardinal Stuart had great merits to the Holy See, particularly during Napoleonic period. Moroni's article about Cardinal generally reveals him very posivtively. I see no reason to distrust his account of the conflict between Cardinal and his father in 1752. But generally, I want to retire from that discussion and writing of this article. I'm going to realize other projects in the wikipedia, much more interesting for me than "intimate life of Cardinal York" CarlosPn (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2008 (CET)

(talk) - what a lot of hot air! I really can't follow much of your rambling argument other than to note that you continue to label me as a propagandist and seek to insult me personally. As if hoping that you can dismiss me from contributing objectively and therefore have the issue taken completely out of the wikipedia article. It is absolutely legitimate for me to contribute to LGBT issues on wikipedia pages provided that contributions are consistent with rules; that they cite and references properly; and that they are robust enough to counter concerns over neutrality and objectivity. What I contribute is nobody's business but my own - and I'll kindly thank you to keep your own nose out of it.

You may want to note that the issue of Benedict Stuart's alleged homosexuality is covered in the Dictionary of National Biography published by the University of Oxford in 2004 (26 volumes). This is a reputable academic source and no less worthy than the Britannica. In this Rosalind Marshall (a noted academic on 16th, 17th and 18th century British history) notes that the evidence for Stuart's homosexuality cannot be conclusively proved either way; but accepts that some historians have commented on the issue (including Andrew Lang) and believes there are grounds for the claim.

Now get off your high-horse and stop pontificating about this, that and the other. I don't want to listen to your tedious cant about gay conspiracy theories etc, etc. Focus on the text itself - improve it if needs be by quoting sources that argue Stuart wasn't homosexual; or look at the quality of the sources used. But stay focused and stop assuming everyone is out to pull the wool over your eyes. Contribute constructively. Listen and you might just learn something. But if you keep directing personal insults to me, rather than discussing objectively on the text, then I will report this.

Can I also note that you have contributed absolutely nothing to this article, other than repeatedly removing the section on relationships. This strikes me as a rather unhealthy fixation. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No academics go about denying homosexuality of distinguished and respectable people like this article's namesake. The charge of homosexuality claims lays with those such as you and those you mention, who plaster their revisionism over and rub such greater people than yourselves in the mud, all for the notoreity of doing so. I'm pretty sure you would be the type to go up to such people like Fred Phelps or George W. Bush, or John Ashcroft, or Pope Benedict XVI and call them homosexuals to their faces, just because of the thrill of calling them hypocrites for opposing homosexuality, which Stuart doubtlessly did himself. Churchmen are so vulnerable to this crap you spread around. Keep your diseases to yourself, thank you very much. Sceptik (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant - now we get to it. I'm "diseased"! You clearly have personal issues and I don't think wikipedia is the place to work them through. It's meant to be an academic resource and you haven't shown any academic skill at all. Besides which I frequently find it hard to understand what you're saying - I'm guessing English isn't your first language? I'm now going to have to report you as you've been consistently personal abusive - when frankly there is no call to do so. Your personal ignorance of historical issues is of such naivity that it is frankly intolerable. Keep your politics and personal opinions to yourself for what they're worth - they're of no interest to me or the other readers of wikipedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptik, your allegations of a gay conspiracy and your personal abuse towards Contaldo80 seems to suggest to me that you're clearly pushing a point of view which is neither historically justified nor compatible with the normal standards of civility on Wikipedia. You're prepared to assert that Cardinal Stuart opposed homosexuality without any source to suggest this, whilst expecting us not to document the possiblity that he might have practiced it, despite the existence of sources to support this view. This is not history as I recognise it; it is politics, and an ugly brand at that. Please stop maiking disruptive edits to this article, and refrain from abusing the other editors. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Henry-an English nobleman?[edit]

Born in Rome to a Polish mother and a half-Italian (and part French) father, Henry can hardly be described as an 'English nobleman' In truth there was very little English-or Scottish-blood in his veins. The only royal title he ever used, incidentally, was Henry IX, not 'Henry IX and I'. I know there were no 'King Henrys' of Scotland (well, actually, there was one) but this very modern national sensitivity towards issues of royal title should not be allowed to pollute the historical record. Rcpaterson 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

LGBT Category[edit]

I think there is some confusion about this category on the discussion page. It does not mean an article subject is LGBT - it means it is of potential interest to those studying LGBT issues. It is not for individual contributors to decide whether or not this page is in the scope of the Wiki LGBT project - it is only for members of that project to decide whether there is sufficient interest in the article to have it flagged under the category. So please don't delete it hoping the issue will just go away. Because it won't. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT Sceptik (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WEIGHT applies to articles. If the WikiProject is interested in the article, it has every right to put a banner on the talk-page. Please don't remove it without talking to the project. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the second place I come to where the focus is on sexuality. Why does everyone focus somuch on this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolinda (talkcontribs) 04:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure there is an excessive focus on the cardinal's sexuality. But if you feel there is, be bold and add more about his religious career, or his place in royal and noble politics, to try and balance it out. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Contributor Bolinda has spent the past few days systematically going through my personal contributions page and editing each and every one of them - bordering on harassment. The reason, therefore, why so many pages focus on issues of sexuality for Bolinda is because Bolinda has only accessed my pages, unaware that I am contributing to WikiProject LGBT on issues of sexuality. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed several mentions by the people remotely acquainted with the cardinal that suggest he was homosexual, and though I have never seen any good reason to include these allegation, I see that a whole "Personal Life" section was created here out of basically nothing, I have not seen any REASON to put a LGBT tag on the article. I never knew that someone is automatically what a three people say that someone is.Anchorite (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to see them as 'allegations' as if Stuart was some sort of a criminal. It's just an issue of biography no different from anything else - no reason not to include and I disagree that the text has been created out of nothing. It is well argued and properly sourced. Let's get a sense of balance; sexuality is normal part of a person's character. If you are able to quote any sources that argue that Stuart wasn't homosexual then certainly happy to see these and include them in the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I love it, Contaldo: you have not answered my question, but went ahead and criticised my choice of ONE word. A rumour by one person repeated twice by someone else is NOTHING. Roumors aren't FACTS. Pope Paul VI was rumoured to be homosexual, he publicly denied being one, and as far as reason and facts concern - he shouldn't be ever tagged LGBT until we find factual evidence to the contrary. As far as I am concerned, both Paul VI and HB Stuart may well have been homosexual, but I, being reasonable and rational person, refused to jump to the conclusions based on RUMOURS ( a rumour mentioned in a book of a XVIIIc. traveller is only a rumour, albeit a "well documented" one). Please, for the love of reason, not ideologies or politics, stick to facts, and you will be a more successfull encyclopaedian. PS: I know I wasted my time typing all this. Anchorite (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to be a bit clearer when you ask a question. It's not obvious from above, I'm afraid.
Despite your inference that I'm trying to be ideological or political or indeed irrational - which I find quite insulting - I do not think I'm being unreasonable here. It's a fact (regrettably) that homosexual men and women are fairly "invisible" in history. That's due to a number of reasons - disapproval by contemporaries; fear of persecution or execution; and a different conception of sexuality. That means that a historian has to read a bit between the lines in order to tease the issue out.
That doesn't mean, I agree, that the issue should be made up out of thin air. But it does mean a recognition that there is no way of obtaining some sort of irrefutable proof; but instead to examine the issue in the historical context and draw parallels. In the same way that it's hard to prove what a person's religious beliefs actually were. That does not stop us, nevertheless, from categorising them as "catholic" or "protestant" for example. A lot of people have a problem with the classification labels - but I see them as a guide to people who are interested in a subject to look for similar articles of interest. I've never seen them as categorical of absolute labels. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I must confess to getting a bit fed up with this same discussion. The category label is a tool to classify and guide wiki readers - it is not the final word! The text also would support such a general categorisation - Stuart is less likely to be a heterosexual person from Italy than a LGBT one if reports are to be believed. Can we also be clear please that being homosexual (or LGBT) does not mean that one needs to be sexually active. Nevertheless in a spirit of generosity I have suggested a broader label Contaldo80 (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Henry Benedict Maria Clement Stuart, Cardinal York by Antonio David.jpg[edit]

Henry Benedict Maria Clement Stuart, Cardinal York by Antonio David.jpg

Recently the file File:Henry Benedict Maria Clement Stuart, Cardinal York by Antonio David.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. It shows him as a child, circa 1729-1732. Dcoetzee 09:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is great - should definately be used. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Henry Benedict Stuart (11 March 1725

Henry Benedict Maria Clement Thomas Francis Xavier Stuart was born in exile at Rome on 6 March 1725

Which one should I believe?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Touch for the King's Evil?[edit]

There is a single unexplained line saying that he was the Last to Touch for the King's Evil... but with no exploitation as to what the heck this refers to. Please elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Titles in Pretence[edit]

If he was a Cardinal how could he also be considered the pretender to the throne? Wouldn't accepting church office constitute a forfeit of all claim to secular titles? Emperor001 (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Look at Cardinal-King Henry of Portugal and James Francis Edward's great-uncle, Rinaldo d'Este. Both were Cardinals and inherited thrones, so the same would work for pretenders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)