The Uranian, although quite invariably high strung and sensitive, is not by any means always an impractical dreamer. He is usually _a dreamer_, to be sure, but not infrequently he has the capacity to transform his dreams into actuality. He may even show extraordinary ability in the business world. While he is usually not militantly aggressive--war with its bloodshed, horrors and destruction is somewhat foreign to his temperament--there are exceptions. Some of the mighty military commanders of history have had a strong Uranian strain--among them may be mentioned Alexander the Great, Caesar, Charles XII of Sweden, Frederick II of Prussia, etc. When the capacity for high organizing ability and power of command is present, the potent bisexual disposition vouchsafes a temperament that arouses the enthusiasm and assures the personal attachment of the troops. All of this goes a long way to making a formidable commander--and in the olden days of personal combat, it was a well-nigh invincible one. Carpenter calculates that not less than ten per cent of the English kings--from the time of the Norman conquest to the present day--have shown a decidedly homogenic temperament. (This authority prefers to use the term _homogenic_, from two root words, both Greek, i. e., “homos,” same, and “genoc,” sex, instead of _homosexual_.) Three of these kings, namely, William Rufus, Edward II and James I were homosexual in a high degree--possibly enough so as to be classed as Urnings. Others, like William III, had a marked strain of the same temperament. Of these monarchs, William Rufus and William III, were in their different ways men of great courage and personal force. James I was not a creditable character--and while the term degenerate might be applicable to him--it would be equally fitting to several others of the royal line. It is also apparent that one of England’s greatest queens, Elizabeth, had a highly developed homosexual disposition, enough to bring out in no uncertain manner those characteristics that are usually associated with the masculine gender. She was inordinately resourceful, independent, assertive--and showed no particular erotic leanings toward the opposite sex. Referring to the common belief that a male who experiences love for his own sex must be despicable, degraded, depraved, vicious, and incapable of humane or generous sentiments, J. Addington Symonds (_A Problem of Modern Ethics_) remarks that “If Greek history did not contradict this supposition, a little patient enquiry into contemporary manners would suffice to remove it.”