Since this is a topic about Grand Duke Ernst's sexuality, my own opinion is that it's absolutely correct to discuss sexuality as it was perceived at that time as well as it is perceived today.
And again speaking for myself, with regards to the matter of Ernie and Ducky's marital breakup I am reluctant to take a side. Both were wronged by this marriage. Neither, it seems, understood the matter of homosexuality (or any kind of sexuality) before they married. Neither seemed to adequately communicate with the other. But this is not unsual. Many couples these days still have difficulty in adequately communicating the smallest of matters, let alone concerns about sexuality.
Just from what I've read, I do not think I would have particularly liked Ducky. On the other hand, consider that women through the ages have been devastated by the moral shock of a husband's infidelity and the economic consequences if abandonment results. (And yes, sometimes men have been the wronged party, but until recently women were legally and socially very much at the mercy of men.) Imagine, then, how devastating to realize your husband has not only been unfaithful . . . but with someone of the opposite sex, which--to your way of thinking--is against everything you understand and hold to be "right." For this reason I cannot condemn Ducky. Having a husband who did not have sexual interest in her must have been frustrating, to say the very least. And then, what a humiliation factor. No wonder she jumped into an adulterous affiar with Kyril. Given the same circumstances, I certainly would have done so.
Also, while that "stable boy in the palace" may not sound quite right, consider too that where there's a will, there's a way, and anything is possible. Anyone remember a Merchant/Ivory film from 15+ years ago called Maurice? In that film the groundskeeper climbs up into the landowner's room by way of either a tree or a trellis . . . which one, I'm sorry to say that I don't remember!
