Talk:Philippe I, Duke of Orléans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

I'm unable to find another source for the assertion that Henrette d'Angleterre was not poisoned, that this was "disproved". The statement needs to be supported. Rogermexico 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philippe I, duc d'Orléans

For the fortunate few that know anything about Philippe I, duc d’Orléans, the information is limited to two basic facts, he was Louis XIV brother and happened to be a flamboyant homosexual; unfortunately this sort of generalization devalues Philippe’s place in the annals of history. This particular Wikipedia article, Philippe I: Duke d’Orléans humanizes the legend and tries to re-shape the duke’s myth. Even though it is not one of the stated subjects in the article, gender bending becomes a recurrent theme within the life of this colorful and in a way, rebellious, character. The duke is portrayed as defiant of gender norms and seems to have traveled in and around feminine/masculine roles all through out his life with an ease that brings into question the supposed rigidity of such a system. In describing Philippe’s upbringing, the writer highlights the Bourbon relations between its members. The duke’s presence was not important due to the fact that Louis XIV enjoyed great health and was therefore expected to inherit the throne. The description of the duke as “heir to spare” denotes a place of unimportance among the household and alludes to the liberty and “unruliness” of his childhood. This apparent freedom enjoyed by the young duke allowed him the space needed to develop outside of the restrictive expectations that a dauphin was expected to uphold. It is hard to imagine Anne of Austria as a devoted and attentive mother, not only was it unfashionable but also out of character for a regent to display such signs of affection. In her shrewdness and ambition, both for herself and for her young son [Louis XIV], the queen took the time to break away from conventionalism and encourage Philippe’s ‘effeminacy’. One cannot help but be, if not shocked, surprised at the way that Queen Anne attempted to prevent a possible skirmish between the brothers for the throne of France; it is definitely less complicated than what Alexander Dumas suggests Anne of Austria actually did. The article claims that Philippe’s mother encouraged the young boy to indulge in what was thought to be a woman’s arena. He was persuaded to wear dresses, use makeup, and act in ways not usually associated to the male sex--urging the young boy to keep out of politics and army service. Philippe’s childhood seems to greatly support ideas of homosexuality as being a product of ones environment and Freud’s basic idea that ones character is shaped by our childhood experiences. However, the writer does not dwell on the fact that Philippe I, duc d’Orléans, was “different” from other males and in fact gives him a three-dimensional character. By highlighting the duke’s military achievements, such as 1677 victory at the Battle of Cassel and his military distinction during the War of Devolution, one sees Philippe’s refusal to fit within the allocated niche society had created for him. The writer describes him as having been “brave” and having been a “competent military leader”; characteristics not usually prescribed to effeminate males. If this description is not enough to convince the reader of Philippe’s competence, the claim that the Roi Soleil himself was jealous of his brother’s military achievements should be enough. Taking information from Nancy N. Barker’s book, Brother to the Sun King, the author describes Philippe as an avid art collector, a shrewd investor, a gambler, a lover, and a loyal subject. Therefore, one encounters a multi-layered individual, as most people tend to be, while at the same time re-shaping the popular conception held of the duke. He is even described as a good father, standing up to Louis XIV himself in order to defend his son—Philippe d’Orléans—argument that caused his sudden death in 1701. Even though the author of the article did not intend to portray Philippe as androgynous and as a social rebel, it is impossible to ignore this quality. Most of the aristocrats living at Versailles lived through the expectations of others [king]; in a way everyone played roles prescribed to them and were only happy to do so. Philippe, maybe because of the advantage he held as Monsieur (eldest brother to the king), refused to be pinned down and subsequently broke away with the gender stereotypes of the time. His effeminate nature and his choice of sexual partners, dress, and actions were never seen as impediments. He did what he wanted and seemed to have enjoyed the gender duality in which he lived in. He never completely abandoned the expectations that society had of him; however, he did go around them and manipulated the system. The lifestyle the duc d’Orléans led seems to suggest that as long as one fulfilled some of the requirements imposed by society, in this case marriage, procreation, and most importantly loyalty to the king, one could lead a sort of double life behind “semi” closed doors. His life seems to suggest that more than one individual lived in the “underground” of Versailles and that in fact the palace and some of the people in it were part of a sub-culture that history has tended to ignore. The relationship the duke had with his long time lover, Philip of Lorraine, and the interactions with his second wife, Elisabeth Charlotte, indicates the type of arrangements and duality many people in the palace experienced. The importance that the writer places on the duke’s mignons and the palace courtiers highlight the important roles these played in palace intrigue and relations. The suggestion that the duke’s first wife, Henrietta Anne Stuart, was poisoned by some of Philippe’s attendants exemplify the type of power and level of viciousness that existed within the palace walls. The show of Versailles allowed him to be himself and his character allowed him to be a main player. The article makes the great point of explaining the other life of Philippe, the duc d’Orléans. It does away with the popular notion that the duke was a sort of palace clown whose mere existence was somewhat pointless. The person that the reader encounters at the end of the article is a multi-layered, multi-faceted individual. He did not fit the standard gender norms of the time but nevertheless refused to be held back by such a “deficiency”. He represented a sub-culture whose voices were silenced by different aspects of society. In his gender bending he was able to find himself and he was able to show the triviality and the vulnerability of the gender institution. However, the writer of the article seems to express himself in a heterosexist manner when talking about the duke’s effeminacy. To some readers, the writer of the article might come off as being a subscriber to the standard gender norms. At certain points of the article he fails to realize that effeminate males do not equal female. He fails to realize that “effeminacy” happens to be just another aspect of male masculinity and that in fact male masculinity is multifaceted. However, one must acknowledge the fact that it is not a gender analysis of the duke’s life; it is simply a historical account of his life. The way that he writes the article, however, the issue of gender and gender bending becomes difficult to ignore. The article would be strongly enforced through an extensive discussion of gender and the ways in which the duke broke away with social expectations. If not incorporated into the article, then a link to gender discussion or other unconventional characters of the time would make a strong point. The writer primarily used Encyclopedia Britannica as a source of information for the article on Philippe I, the duc d’Orléans, making the information somewhat limited and biased from the start. This could also be an example of the popular ideas concerning the duke: dull, worthless, gay character. Maybe there are not many historical sources at hand for the purpose of writing about the duke. There needs to be an increase of literature and historical research into gender queer characters--such as the duc d’Orléans. The article serves the purpose of providing basic information to someone that would want to know the basics on Philippe’s life. However, it does a mediocre job in researching, extensively, the complexity and depth of the character. After all, not only was Philippe a special character when it came to gender bending and such, but he was the embodiment of the “golden age of the Roi Soleil”. Much like Marie Antoinette, his contribution to history has been oversimplified and largely ignored; depriving him of the credit history owes him.