LHBTQ+ Royalty


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Does anyone know what the various rules regarding the inheritance of peerages when surrogate/donor children are involved? I.E. if the Earl of X is married to the Countess of X and they have a son, Hon. Y, is Y able to inherit the Earldom if he was born via a surrogate, but using his father's swimmers?

The child is the child of the mother that carries it. So if a surrogate is used and the fertilised egg stays in the womb, that child would inherit nothing. It could then be adopted by Earl and Countess but then adoption rules take over. Query would be if the fertilised egg was implanted in the Countess' womb, where would that stand legally.

Perhaps in this case it comes down to the birth certificate.
 
That's a long speech, Wayne James :)

However, you still don't address the core issue: It's all about feelings.

This is not about rights, or the law being changed or what is politically correct.
This is about the irrational double standard the vast majority of people who are in favour of a monarchy has about their monarch or future monarch. (And elected presidents too for that matter).
I say again, people (including myself) are very conservative in regards to the person who is going to represent their country. Even more so when it's a monarch.

No one here has said that there will not or cannot be a homosexual monarch and that this monarch will have a same-sex consort. What I and other have said is: give it time. It won't happen tomorrow.

Let's turn the question around.
Wayne James, look into yourself and ask yourself whether you in honesty would accept that the next president of USA, the foremost representative of your country, is one of this:
A) An open transvestite, also when on the job?
B) A woman who proudly sports tattoos up and down her arms?
C) Have piecings in the face, for whatever reason?
D) Is a open believer in tarot cards and astrology and often consult this when pondering a question?
E) Who is an open sadist/masochist?
F) Who has more than one spouse? (Some religions allow several wives).
G) Who is a polyteist?
H) Who is a naturist (with plenty of photographic evidence)?
- And so on.

There are many people who fit into the descriptions of one or more of the above and they are all allowed to by law. But would you want this in your head of state?
You need not answer. But look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you would tolerate any of the above in your head of state.
I would have huge problems accepting any in the monarch of my country.

The progress of a country and the tolerance of people is not measured in the acceptance of a homosexual head of state, it's more complicated than that.
 
Last edited:
Mh, aside from option D, nothing else has to do with the job. So what is the point?

Over here, the 3 most wellknown/powerful politicans are:
1. A woman - Angela Merkel, Chancellor
2. An openly gay man - Guido Westerwelle, Foreign Minister
3. A disabled man in a wheelchair - Wolfgang Schäuble Federal Minister of Finance
And it's not that germany is doing any better or worse because of this.
And people don't judge them because of what they are in their personal life.
Maybe this is because germans in general have become rather tolerant due to what we were guilty /are responsible for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mh, aside from option D, nothing else has to do with the job. So what is the point?

The private life and the appearance of a head of state is extremely important.
Why else would royals and politicians care so much about their image?

Imagine King XX showing up to a gala dinner in evening dress and tiara. Because that is a part of his identity and the way he feels comfortable. Anyway it's his right, there is nothing wrong with being a transvestite and those who disapprove are oldfashioned and intolerant. - But, what would you think? Would you accept it or say: "Okay, this is getting too far".

As for politicians consulting the stars or cards (option D), well beforehand all kings/leaders did that all the time, in fact they were expected to consult atrologers and oracles. Why not now?


ADDED:
Over here, the 3 most wellknown/powerful politicans are:
1. A woman - Angela Merkel, Chancellor
2. An openly gay man - Guido Westerwelle, Foreign Minister
3. A disabled man in a wheelchair - Wolfgang Schäuble Federal Minister of Finance
And it's not that germany is doing any better or worse because of this.
And people don't judge them because of what they are in their personal life.
Maybe this is because germans in general have become rather tolerant due to what we were guilty /are responsible for.

1. There have been female monarchs around for thousands of years. No problem. - Female presidents however is a novelty.
2. Iceland IIRC has a lesbian president. However, politicians and monarchs represent very different institutions. That's the key point.
3. A monarch in a wheelchair is hardly a problem with the current roles of royals. However, should a deaf and blind monarch abdicate? It's a question of how severe the disabillity is.

Let me make it clear from a personal point of view.
I don't care who people marry. As long as it's consentual. - (One particular ridicules argument against same-sex marriages is: what next? Should people be allowed to marry animals? Animals cannot give their consent, so that argument is beyond silly.)
Perhaps my own children will turn out to be homosexual or transexual (they haven't so far showed any indication in that respect but for the sake of argument). I will admit it will take a little getting use to seeing my son or daughter kiss someone of the same sex or seeing my son in dress and make-up. But it'll hardly rock the boat and as long as they are happy I'm happy.
However, I also freely admit that this tolerance does not extend to the foremost representative of my country. I.e. my monarch and her family. That's where the double standard kicks in. - Does that make me a hypocrite? Intolerant? Or just human?

Again, legislation about sexual tolerance is not a measure of how progressive a country or a population is.
Example: Incest is allowed in a number of countries. Would you accept a king (or president) whose spouse is his sister? And that they have children?
After all the Pharaos married their siblings. And the aristocracy beforehand were borderline incesteous, so why not now?
 
Last edited:
The private life and the appearance of a head of state is extremely important.
Why else would royals and politicians care so much about their image?
Being a politican is a job, you get voted or not. The fact that PR people try to make politicans seem more like royals is due to zeitgeist and nothing else.

I don't think you can compare that to be born to be a king/queen. It's apples and oranges.

Personally, I don't care what a politican is doing in her/his free time. I would love Olivia Jones http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivia_Jones as head of state, she is intelligent and wellspoken and her being a transvestite would not harm anyone.

See Amanda LePore, she is crazy 8in the best sense of the word), and she is also a fine example of someone who followed a path without ever hesitating, doing what she felt was the right thing. Which is a valued quality for a politican.
 
Last edited:
I guess it all boils down to 'as long as the person is mentally capable of leading the country', for me all of the items mentioned above (sexual orientation, gender, color) have nothing to do with the mental capacity of a person... but i'm sure there are people on this world who would disagree

Personally, i would only have a problem with a head of state who is excessively aggresive or violent, but there have been plenty of those in the past..
 
Thank you for your interesting comments.

I am in total agreement that the concept of gay royals will become more acceptable with time. My point, however, is that in countries where marriage equality is currently the law, it should be acceptable NOW for gay royals to marry people of the same sex. People should not be required to put off living their lives until after they are dead.

In a free society, that which is not specifically proscribed by law is permissible by law. And in free societies, people are not authorized to impose their private morality onto other people. It is well-established in civilized Western societies that discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation--as is the case with discrimination based on race, color, or gender, for example--is wrong and should not be tolerated. It is as simple as that. And if we truly believe that discrimination on the bases identified above is wrong, then we should regard discrimination against a gay royal because of his decision to marry someone of the same sex as wrong.

When I board an airplane, I don't care whether the captain is gay or straight, has tattoos or not, is vegetarian or meat-eater, is male or female, is tall or short, or is Christian or Muslim. My only concern is that the captain be a qualified airplane pilot and that the airplane be in good operating order. Likewise, I could care less if my president has tattoos, has pierced ears, or has kinky sex withinin the confines of his bedroom. None of that is any business of mine, and none of that has any bearing on his ability to serve as president. What I look for in a president is his or her ability to lead the country. And to the extent that he or she does not look or act the way I do, so what? What does a tattoo have to do with the price of rice in China? Who died and made me God? When did my outlook on life become more "correct" or "valid" than someone else's? Who made me arbiter of morality?

People who insist that royals should conduct themselves in a "certain, particular manner" which is above and beyond that expected of "other," "normal" people have misplaced expectations, for royals (along with the rest of the aristocracy) are the one remaining group of people who do absolutely nothing (other than being born) to become who they are. Why expect "superior" behavior from people who were handed their status upon a platter? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I prefer to expect "superior" behavior from people who have achieved their status by their own doing. The concept of the aristocracy makes as much sense as assuming that the daughter of Whitney Houston would become a great singer because her mother was a great singer, or that the offspring of Usain Bolt would also become great sprinters....

I expect a prince to be knowledgeable of falconry, or to be proficient in the sports of fencing and dressage and archery. I expect a prince to know which fork to use at the dinner table or how to place his dinner napkin onto his lap. But I do not look to monarchy for my moral instruction. (And over the years, we have learned that it is problematic to expect morality from even clergy).

And it is precisely for that reason that many modern societies have chosen the path of secularism--knowing that whenever we mix government and politics with religion and morality, we are heading down a slippery slope. What "the Bible says" is a private, personal matter--not one to be imposed upon society at-large--unless, of course, one lives in a religious state.

The English monarch is the head of the Church of England. But perhaps it is time that the British people reconsider that concept. Comingling religion and matters of state may make sense when societies are homogenous--when everyone, for the most part, shares the same cultural heritage, looks alike, acts alike, thinks alike, and believes alike. But in complex, cosmopolitan societies, the concept of the state religion is particularly problematic--unless, of course, the indigenous, majority culture intends to impose its point of view upon the newcomer, the minority, the non-traditional....

Again, I am for people being able to attain their fundamental rights within THEIR lifetimes--not two or three generations later. Fundamental Rights are inalienable rights. And no one has the right to deny another person of those rights. The right to claim one's sexuality and to marry in a manner consistent with that sexuality is too basic, too fundamental, a right for other people--in a free society--to be able to dictate how those rights should be expressed. So if people don't want their gay male monarchs to wear evening gowns and tiaras, then they should revisit the concept of monarchy. In other words, if people want their leaders to act and look and behave in certain "accepted" and "acceptable" ways, then they should elect their leaders by popular vote--not have a system of leadership which is determined by birth, where there is NO TELLING how the leader will turn out.

Likewise, regarding having a "non-traditional" monarch representing a country on diplomatic missions, the same response applies: You get what you get when your system of leadership is based on birth, not on qualification. But that said, countries which do not acknowledge the Human Rights of the monarch at issue should not be engaged diplomatically. Gay Rights are Human Rights. And violations of Human Rights should not be tolerated--nationally or internationally.

I firmly believe that the issue of gay rights will become a non-issue within the next decade or two--just as race and gender are each day becoming non-issues. But just think of how much more quickly that day would become if even a prince has the courage to stand up for his rights. (Think of what Prince Albert of Monaco would have done for race relations had he had the courage to marry his black lover instead of bearing a child with her out of wedlock). Of course, there will always be bigots and the "intoleratti".... But the good thing is that unlike the past, where the bigot was the norm, the current path of human tolerance suggests that the bigot is quickly becoming the exception. Thank God. And kudos to the Human Spirit.
 
I am in total agreement that the concept of gay royals will become more acceptable with time. My point, however, is that in countries where marriage equality is currently the law, it should be acceptable NOW for gay royals to marry people of the same sex. People should not be required to put off living their lives until after they are dead.

You are too impatient. You cannot expect people, even in countries were same-sex marriages are allowed to conform to your values overnight.

In a free society, that which is not specifically proscribed by law is permissible by law. And in free societies, people are not authorized to impose their private morality onto other people. It is well-established in civilized Western societies that discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation--as is the case with discrimination based on race, color, or gender, for example--is wrong and should not be tolerated. It is as simple as that. And if we truly believe that discrimination on the bases identified above is wrong, then we should regard discrimination against a gay royal because of his decision to marry someone of the same sex as wrong.
Aren't you imposing your moral and sexual values on people who do not agree with you or have a more nuanced view?
It's not black and white. A monarch is the foremost representative of a country, based on history, tradition and the very nature of a monarchy. Sorry, but there are rules a monarch has to follow. Alternatively he/she can abdicate.


When I board an airplane, I don't care whether the captain is gay or straight, has tattoos or not, is vegetarian or meat-eater, is male or female, is tall or short, or is Christian or Muslim. My only concern is that the captain be a qualified airplane pilot and that the airplane be in good operating order. Likewise, I could care less if my president has tattoos, has pierced ears, or has kinky sex withinin the confines of his bedroom. None of that is any business of mine, and none of that has any bearing on his ability to serve as president. What I look for in a president is his or her ability to lead the country. And to the extent that he or she does not look or act the way I do, so what? What does a tattoo have to do with the price of rice in China? Who died and made me God? When did my outlook on life become more "correct" or "valid" than someone else's? Who made me arbiter of morality?
The pilot does not represent you or your country. The pilot does however represent his/her company and if he doesn't follow the guidelines of that company he'll get the boot.
You say you don't care about your presidents appearance?
Okay. Imagine President Obama showing up to an international summit in a dress and make-up? Because we can agree that there is nothing wrong with being a transvestite and he has a basic right to wear a dress, right?
You may have no problems with that, but I can assure you that most of your fellow Americans will object to that. The rest of the world will certainly find it - interesting.
Or Mrs. Obama going on a state visit, with tatoos up and down her arms and legs, fully visible. - Considering the critisism Michelle Obama has been subjected to for much less than this, I can imagine there would be something of an outcry, also from Americans who voted for Obama.

People who insist that royals should conduct themselves in a "certain, particular manner" which is above and beyond that expected of "other," "normal" people have misplaced expectations, for royals (along with the rest of the aristocracy) are the one remaining group of people who do absolutely nothing (other than being born) to become who they are. Why expect "superior" behavior from people who were handed their status upon a platter? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I prefer to expect "superior" behavior from people who have achieved their status by their own doing. The concept of the aristocracy makes as much sense as assuming that the daughter of Whitney Houston would become a great singer because her mother was a great singer, or that the offspring of Usain Bolt would also become great sprinters....

Well, permit me to be frank. Then it's because you really don't understand how it is to live in a monarchy.
Nowadays royals are living role models. They personify a countrys history and culture, they are the living face of a country to the rest of the world but first and foremost they are a rallying point in times of change and in times of need. Which means that they have to be accepted by as wide as segment of the population as possible.
That's why appearance is so important.
The concept of royals being people who live a priviledged life without having to achieve anything is hopelessly oldfashioned. Royals nowadays have to work hard, especially on their image. - Or they'll be voted out of office and replaced with a republic.

Again, I am for people being able to attain their fundamental rights within THEIR lifetimes--not two or three generations later. Fundamental Rights are inalienable rights. And no one has the right to deny another person of those rights. The right to claim one's sexuality and to marry in a manner consistent with that sexuality is too basic, too fundamental, a right for other people--in a free society--to be able to dictate how those rights should be expressed.

Again, you are being too impatient.
The sexual rights argument are interesting.
- I love my sister, I have always loved my sister and she loves me, I want, ney, I demand the right to marry her and have children with her. Should I get that right?
It's legal in some countries and there is no particular danger for the children, unless the incest is systematic over several generations.

- I want to marry and have children with my fourteen year old niece and even though I'm a middleaged man myself she loves me, she says so herself. Until fairly recently that was legal in most countries and had been for thousands of years, it's still legal and indeed common in some countries. Will you deny us that right?

Would you like to see me as the head of state of your country and my wife, who is also my sister, as your first lady?
- Or is that going a little too far?
Be careful about judging a society on sexual rights.

Likewise, regarding having a "non-traditional" monarch representing a country on diplomatic missions, the same response applies: You get what you get when your system of leadership is based on birth, not on qualification. But that said, countries which do not acknowledge the Human Rights of the monarch at issue should not be engaged diplomatically. Gay Rights are Human Rights. And violations of Human Rights should not be tolerated--nationally or internationally.
Well, in that case you will have to sever the diplomatic ties with practically all monarchies. Because all monarchies I know have legislative guidelines to who can be a monarch and their rights and limitations.
You seem to misunderstand what it is to be a monarch. The monarch in European monarchies can do whatever their subjects can, but they cannot do it and at the same time expect to remain on the throne regardless. - That's up to their subjects.

A monarchy is a balance act, a deal if you will, between the monarch and the subjects.
"We, the people, acknowledge you to be our sovereign and grant you certain priviledges. In return we want the show to run according to our guidelines. If you won't you abdicate or get booted out of office".
Being a monarch nowadays is not a right, it's a priviledge, granted by the people. That's important to keep in mind.

All European monarchs have the right live with someone of the same sex, and often marry as well, but the monarchs do not have the rights to be a monarchs at the same time. That is up to their subjects, regardless of the legislation.
 
Last edited:
Again, you are being too impatient.
The sexual rights argument are interesting.
- I love my sister, I have always loved my sister and she loves me, I want, ney, I demand the right to marry her and have children with her. Should I get that right?
It's legal in some countries and there is no particular danger for the children, unless the incest is systematic over several generations.

- I want to marry and have children with my fourteen year old niece and even though I'm a middleaged man myself she loves me, she says so herself. Until fairly recently that was legal in most countries and had been for thousands of years, it's still legal and indeed common in some countries. Will you deny us that right?

Would you like to see me as the head of state of your country and my wife, who is also my sister, as your first lady?
- Or is that going a little too far?
Be careful about judging a society on sexual rights...
I am not understanding your analogy between homosexuality, incest and pedophilia? I'm actually finding it rather offensive... But I'm sure that wasn't your intent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess Wayne James need to spend a couple of weeks on TRF and go through all the discussions to have an understanding how people perceive the royals, and what is expected of them..
He seems to have very little idea of that.
He is seeing everything from the eye of a fundamental rights activist, from the far left end of even the American "freedom" way.
The points he is repeating over and over--"Society has accepted, so whats the problem".."Everyone has his own personal choice".."We should worry how the monarch leads us, not how he lives"..are all too good in a book of gay activism..But reality is much far and the journey is much slow... Rushing only makes things worse.
 
I'd like to think that a gay monarch in the year 2013 could marry his/her partner and have children with the partner who can inherit the throne. But reading through this thread has proven interesting. It suggests to me that for all of its claims of liberality, Europe might not be quite ready to accept a gay monarch, and therefore it not quite as liberal as it claims. (I limit my discussion to a Western monarchy because I think it's the only place where it would be possible in this day and age). It suggests to me that the concept of liberality is certainly nuanced, and I suppose it begs the question of just how liberal is a society with a monarchy in place.

I've just skimmed most of the discussion, but a few points (so apologies if I have misinterpreted anything):

1) The idea that royals are supposed to be role models and therefore might not be able to enter into a gay marriage and family does not sit well with me. Entering into a loving marriage, raising a family in that loving marriage is what role models should do, IMO. Nothing more conservative than marriage and family, and here the royal would be perpetuating that concept. I don't accept the notion that something "more" is expected of royals because it suggests that gay marriage is something a little less than heterosexual marriage.

2) There are subjects/citizens who won't accept the gay marriage, but there are plenty of such subjects/citizens who don't accept the concept of royalty anyway in a modern society. You need the majority to accept it.

3) I do understand the notion that royals must behave on a higher moral level than others. In that regard, I have far more of an issue of royals who don't pull their weight, who jump from one meaningless relationship to another, who engage in substance abuse (not singling out anyone in particular, just a few thoughts). A gay marriage is on equal moral grounds as a straight marriage. But a marriage involving infidelities, spousal abuse, etc, is not.
 
I am not understanding your analogy between homosexuality, incest and pedophilia? I'm actually finding it rather offensive... But I'm sure that wasn't your intent.

It certainly wasn't meant so. Provocative, yes, but not offensive.

I was to illustrate my point, merely putting things on the edge.

There are people, who in the name of sexual rights, advocate pedohillia and incest.
Wayne James was being very black and white in claiming that there should be no legal descrimination against any consentual sexual conduct.
I was trying to get Wayne James to realise that perhaps there are limits to his tolerance.
 
I guess Wayne James need to spend a couple of weeks on TRF and go through all the discussions to have an understanding how people perceive the royals, and what is expected of them..
He seems to have very little idea of that.
He is seeing everything from the eye of a fundamental rights activist, from the far left end of even the American "freedom" way.
The points he is repeating over and over--"Society has accepted, so whats the problem".."Everyone has his own personal choice".."We should worry how the monarch leads us, not how he lives"..are all too good in a book of gay activism..But reality is much far and the journey is much slow... Rushing only makes things worse.

This a forum so it's quite obvious that many users will have different opinions and views. Personal jabs at members who's opinions differ from yours is unnecessary.
 
I'd like to think that a gay monarch in the year 2013 could marry his/her partner and have children with the partner who can inherit the throne. But reading through this thread has proven interesting. It suggests to me that for all of its claims of liberality, Europe might not be quite ready to accept a gay monarch, and therefore it not quite as liberal as it claims. (I limit my discussion to a Western monarchy because I think it's the only place where it would be possible in this day and age). It suggests to me that the concept of liberality is certainly nuanced, and I suppose it begs the question of just how liberal is a society with a monarchy in place.

Few countries, if any, are as liberal and tolerant as they claim and wish to be.
Europe is certainly much more tolerant than before - as long as we don't rush things.
People need time to adjust and getting used to changes.

I've just skimmed most of the discussion, but a few points (so apologies if I have misinterpreted anything):

1) The idea that royals are supposed to be role models and therefore might not be able to enter into a gay marriage and family does not sit well with me. Entering into a loving marriage, raising a family in that loving marriage is what role models should do, IMO. Nothing more conservative than marriage and family, and here the royal would be perpetuating that concept. I don't accept the notion that something "more" is expected of royals because it suggests that gay marriage is something a little less than heterosexual marriage.

Gay marriage is not less worthy.
Monarchy is a conservative institution in itself, even though it often has a very liberal outlook. But it is subject to the scrutiny and approval of the people
When DK introduced registered partnerships for homosexuals, QMII was one of the first monarchs who as a matter of course invited a minister and his spouse. - In fact that was the way he was officially "outed". It created some attention at the time, but it didn't cause any outcry and hardly any raised eyebrows among the public.
So the monarchy can be conservative, liberal and role models at the same time.
With the current baby-boom among CP's here in Europe one or two of the children will statistically speaking be homosexual. The royal families will deal with that when the time comes, but there will inevitably be some controversy. It'll pass.
And at some point a CP will be homosexual and he/she will face the problems then and they are likely to be overcome. - But not now. That's too soon.
It all depends on the acceptance of the people and now in 2013, it's still too soon.

2) There are subjects/citizens who won't accept the gay marriage, but there are plenty of such subjects/citizens who don't accept the concept of royalty anyway in a modern society. You need the majority to accept it.

Those who object to royalty will use a same-sex-marriage monarch as an argument to abolish the monarchy. If you are against the monarchy out of principle, the sexual orientation of the monarch is secondary.
What matters is what those who are in favour of the monarchy thinks. And again, they (we/I) tend to be conservative.

3) I do understand the notion that royals must behave on a higher moral level than others. In that regard, I have far more of an issue of royals who don't pull their weight, who jump from one meaningless relationship to another, who engage in substance abuse (not singling out anyone in particular, just a few thoughts). A gay marriage is on equal moral grounds as a straight marriage. But a marriage involving infidelities, spousal abuse, etc, is not.

And the royals get a lot of heat for, basically behaving like many of their subjects. There are I don't know how many threads on this forum alone where even minor discretions by royals are disected and critisised.
Royals nowadays can get away with much, much less than their great-grandparents.
The view on royals has simply become much more conservative.
 
Last edited:
I am always amazed at how it is generally the man sitting at the banquet table, partaking in the great feast, who tells the beggar at his feet, "Have patience, my good servant. Have patience. Food will come in due time....."

I am not imposing my morality on anyone. I am simply stating, in plain English, that everyone--including royals and aristocrats--is entitled to his own morality, provided that that morality does not contravene the law of the land. The FACT is, whether you like it or not, that a monarch in ANY COUNTRY which allows for same-sex marriage, can marry someone of the same sex. Same-sex marriage is law in Spain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, etc. And if ANY of those monarchs, royals, or aristocrats wanted to marry someone of the same sex (even if they had to divorce their present spouses first), they could do it. THAT is the law, whether you like it or not. And rightfully so... And had the law makers wanted it to be otherwise, they would have written the law otherwise. For example, some laws are written such that no church or religious entity would have to perform same-sex marriages if such marriages are contrary to the tenets of the religion. But I am aware of NO marriage equality law which EXCLUDES monarchs, royals, or aristocrats. Such laws do not exist because such laws would be clearly discriminatory. No, I don't live in a monarchy. We, thank God, gave that system of government up years ago for a system based on merit. But that doesn't mean that I don't know discrimination against a royal or a monarch when I see it. I don't have to live in the South Pole to know that it is cold there. The law makers of Spain, for example, could have passed a law which reads: "Same-sex marriage is permissible in Spain--but it is not available to monarchs and royals." They could easily have done that. But they didn't. And for good reason. Good law makers have long learned that laws should apply equally to all people within a realm.

My point about the pilot goes towards my point of people being able to do whatever or be whoever they want to be, provided that they don't break the law, harm themselves, or harm others in the process. How does someone else's gay marriage harm you? How does someone else's heterosexual marriage benefit you? How does someone's personal taste in clothing harm or benefit you? If President Obama donned an evening gown and sported a tattoo, it would not affect me one way or the other. My personal preference for how HE should dress SHOULD not supersede HIS personal preference for how HE should dress. My "recourse" in such an instance would be to vote against him (or not for him) in the following election. But it would never cross my mind to think that I have a right to tell an adult how he should dress, what markings he should apply to his skin, or with whom he should engage in sex or marriage. I was not raised that way. We have laws in America regarding appropriate dress. As long as the president is in compliance with those laws, then he can wear whatever he chooses to wear. That is the American way. And thank God.

Freedoms have limits. Everyone knows that. There are laws against incest, child abuse, pedophilia, underage marriage, etc. Equating those aberrant practices with the right, pursuant to law, of two consenting adults of the same sex to marry is absurd.

Monarchies are inherently problematic. Any system of government based on birthright is inherently problematic. Whenever you allow people with NO qualification--other than birth--to be "the living face of a country...a rallying point in times of change...," you have a problem. I don't select my barber because his father was a barber. I select my barber based on his ability to cut hair.

If you don't want your monarchs and your royals to engage in same-sex marriage, tell your lawmakers to carve out that exception in the legislation. Otherwise, the royals have the right to do it, just like you, your children, your friends, and your colleagues. And if they married pursuant to law, no one, not even you, would insist upon abdication. After all, you would have no right to do so. How can you fault a king for following the laws of his land?
 
Wayne, you continue to miss the essential point about a monarchy. Monarchy is about emotion and tradition and continuity. What may be perfectly legal in civil law becomes much more emotional and complicated when it comes to the monarch/symbol of the nation. It can be even more complicated when the church is involved. While civil marriage may be legal not all churchs will perform a same sex marriage and in many countries the monarchy is closely tied with the church even if unlike the UK the monarch is not head of the church. In some countries the government would also have to approve the marriage which could result is a quite devisive debate in parliament depending on the party in power.

Change takes time. Society does not adapt to change so quickly even though the laws are in place. Think back to what a big deal it was to elect the first RC President, and there had never been any laws to prevent it just peoples own biases and prejudices. Divorce had long been legal but it was still much discussed when Betty Ford was first lady and it became known that she had been previously married and divorced. When Reagan was elected it was much commented on that he was the first divorced President. think back to your election primaries over the last decade, lots of stories about the multiple marriages and divorces of people like Gingrich and McCain. Is ine divorce acceptable but 2 or 3 or 4 not acceptable?

How long has it been since the emancipation of the slaves (not counting Mississippi which just passed the amendment this year) and how many years after that did it take Americans to elect a black President? How long ago did American given women universal sufferage and yet a woman has still not been elected President. It would be naive to suggest that in all these decades there has never been a black person capable of being POTUS yet American had not reached a point where that was possible until 2008, and even today may not have reached a point where a woman could be elected POTUS or even be at the top of the ticket in an election but I am sure there must have been many qualified women along the way.

It may not be rational but people tend to have an idealized image of their monarch/president as representing a better version of themselves and their nation so as has been said before what may be legal and acceptable for the general population may not be deemed acceptable by the general population for their monarch or head of state. Law and rational have little to do with it, it all comes down to time and generational change.

Perhaps you should contact HRH the Duke of Bavaria who is openly gay and does bring his partner to some functions to get his views on the subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ish
Wayne James said:
Who are we to tell anyone--monarch or otherwise--that he/she does not have a basic, fundamental, human right...
I don't believe "we" are telling anyone they don't have human rights. Members are instead suggesting that if there was a gay Monarch, he (or she) would be unlikely to publicly disclose the fact. Just as heterosexual royals are reticent in publicly discussing their sex lives, sexual preferences and unofficial partners, there is no reason to believe that homosexual royals would be any different.

As there is no currently-known gay reigning monarch or gay heir to a throne within the European Gotha, the campaign to have them exercise their human rights in marrying a person of the same sex may be a touch premature.
 
Last edited:
No. In the British Royal Family, a member has to have the monarch's consent to marry.

The FACT is, whether you like it or not, that a monarch in ANY COUNTRY which allows for same-sex marriage, can marry someone of the same sex.
 
Very well put, NGalitzine.

Wayne James, you are basically stamping your feet right now.

On one hand you are apparantly against monarchy or alternatively don't understand it and on the other hand you insist that a monarchy should conform to your values and views.
Same sex marriages has, as far as I know, not yet been implemented in USA. It is being implemented in Europe and yet, you demand that we, who currently have a debate about it and are getting used to gay marriages must comply with your views and that we wrong (even suggesting we are bad) if we don't go all out right now, preferably yesterday.
No one want someone else to impose their values. It will lead to a backlash.
Is it really too much to ask that you allow people to have time to get used to it and learn that the world doesn't end if gay couples marry.

Heads of states in free countries live on the acceptance of the people.
Elected heads of state who are not accepted get voted out.
But the stakes are higher for monarchs. If they lose the acceptance of the people, then the monarchy itself is in serious danger. That's an entire form of government, that in the case of my country has exited for 1.200 years.

I understand you have no problems with your president becoming the laughingstock of the world if he should show up at a summit in drag. Because that's what will happen, now in 2013. Not to mention the embarrasment he will cause I don't know how many millions of your fellow Americans.

I come from a small country and we can't afford that luxury. If our head of state is too unconventional when going on say statevisits we risk losing billions on trade.
This is bloody serious and that's why our royal's appearance is so important.
We can't have a monarch whom half the population has problems taking serious or worse think is an embarrassement.

As for the monarchs rights. The monarch can stand hand in hand with his gay partner quoting the lawbooks until he turns blue in the face. If the people don't accept his way of life he's out, one way or another.

If you come to me and say: "I demand that you tolerate my way of life"! My reaction will be: "Get lost! - At least have the curtesy to let me get to know you and then, if I think you deserve it, I'll respect you, embrace and also support you. But don't force me".
 
Last edited:
Currently we won't have a Gay monarch anywhere in the world as far as I am aware.
There are at least two current monarchs who are gay.
Unsurprisingly, neither is "out", but it's no secret and their people appear to be quite unfussed about their sexual preference.
.
 
Last edited:
A monarchy is many things, some good, and some bad. To reduce the concept of monarchy to a common denominator called "emotion" is, in my opinion, overly simplistic. People are not naïve. They already know that monarchs, royals, and aristocrats are just like everyone else. And if they truly expected the monarchy to
exist on some plane above the rest of humanity, they would have, long ago, gotten rid of all monarchies since the historical record is rife with well-documented instances of royals who behave (or misbehave) just like normal people--and sometimes more so. And it is those precise instances which endear the monarchy to the people. People love their monarchs and royals because they know that they are real people. It was Princess Diana's vulnerability and her humanity that endeared her to the British people and to the world. People love royals and aristocrats because they can relate to them. Everyone saw a British royal sucking the toes of her paramour; everyone saw another British royal parading naked at a party; everyone saw yet another one having an affair in broad daylight. And after the proverbial eight days of "outrage," and "conniptions," all was well again. That is how it is, and that is how it will always be. People have love-hate relationships with their dogs, their bosses, their children, their lovers, their popes, and their monarchs.

So why is it that the same people who are so willing to accept nudity, divorce, affairs, financial scandals, and who knows what else, be so against same-sex marriage? The answer is: They are not. More people are in favor of same-sex marriage--including that of royals and monarchs--than you may think. They are in support same-sex marriage because they know that it is a Human Right. At the end of the day, people are good.

So to a large extent, you argue my point: All those years between Emancipation and the first black president; and all the time that passed between Womens' Suffrage and women routinely holding political office; and all those years between the Sexual Revolution and Marriage Equality were wasted years. Just think of how much further along society would have been had more people been brave enough to step forward --then and there--and demand their rights once they were granted by law. The "time" you speak of is not some component of natural law or the natural order of things. The "time" you speak of is the result of cowardice. It is like a bull not knowing that he cannot be restrained by the rope that binds him by the neck.

Anyway, all of this will be resolved when England passes its same-sex statute shortly. Trust me when I tell you that it won't be long thereafter that monarchs, royals, and aristocrats will be coming forward to exercise their right to marry whomever they love. And England will become a better place for it.
 
There are at least two current monarchs who are gay.
Unsurprisingly, neither is "out", but their people appear to be quite unfussed about their sexual preference.

Question, who are the two?
 
Anyway, all of this will be resolved when England passes its same-sex statute shortly. Trust me when I tell you that it won't be long thereafter that monarchs, royals, and aristocrats will be coming forward to exercise their right to marry whomever they love. And England will become a better place for it.
Exactly which monarchs and royals will be queuing up to have same-sex marriages and how will they make England a better place? Prefacing an assertion with "Trust me" does not necessarily give it greater credibility.

Most assuredly, neither of the two gay monarchs I referred to earlier will be "coming forward" to get married to the man of their choice in England.
 
Bit off-topic but i just had a thought: you know those the stories of royal or nobles houses were an ancestor made a will that has very strict specifications concerning marriage of the heirs...? the specifications often include race, religion etc...but do you think any of these ancestors could have ever imagined that gender needed to be specified :)
 
There are at least two current monarchs who are gay.
Unsurprisingly, neither is "out", but it's no secret and their people appear to be quite unfussed about their sexual preference.
.

Exactly. this is what I was saying from the beginning. The people know those two, the world knows, nothing is said or done publicly, but just things go on. So far so good. This should be the way a gay monarch (again, first time one) should be in any country..Europe/Asia/even Antarctica..
But apparently, Wayne James wants him to also have a string of relationships , some PDAs at night-clubs as well as on the Balcony and being heralded by a sea of pink/biege-clad LGBT activists wherever he goes..All this right at the beginning..No that cannot and should not happpen..
 
There are at least two current monarchs who are gay.
Unsurprisingly, neither is "out", but it's no secret and their people appear to be quite unfussed about their sexual preference.
.

I have an idea about the first, who is also married, but who is the second one?
Is he married? any clue? is it a reigning monarch?
 
So to a large extent, you argue my point: All those years between Emancipation and the first black president; and all the time that passed between Womens' Suffrage and women routinely holding political office; and all those years between the Sexual Revolution and Marriage Equality were wasted years. Just think of how much further along society would have been had more people been brave enough to step forward --then and there--and demand their rights once they were granted by law. The "time" you speak of is not some component of natural law or the natural order of things. The "time" you speak of is the result of cowardice. It is like a bull not knowing that he cannot be restrained by the rope that binds him by the neck.

QUOTE]

It is not cowardince for societies to take the time to adjust to new realities.
In another post you said Americans would accept and warmly embrace a SCOTUS ruling in favour of same sex marriage. You must be incredibly naive if you really believe that a SCOTUS ruling automatically changes peoples viewpoints.
Brown V Board of Education did not overnight change peoples views on segregation. As recently as last week I read a story about a southern high school that is scheduled to hold its first desegregated prom and the local protests still calling for a white only prom. The State governor did not feel able to comment on this issue even in 2013.
Roe V Wade is still hotly debated in the US and state and federal politicians still work to overturn the ruling.
You seem to lecture those of us who live in countries which allow same sex marriage on how we must behave and deal with our monarchy while proclaiming America as a country of freedoms etc. The US is a great country but I am sorry it cannot really lecture us all about the exercise and granting of freedoms. America was not the first nation to abolish slavery, it was not the first to give women the right to vote, it has yet to grant full rights to its LGBT citizens, it has yet to elect a woman head of state/government while many other nations have done so including Muslim nations, it has yet to have an openly gay head of state /governmemnt or even a gay cabinet secretary while both Iceland and Belgium have had LGBT heads of goivernment.
Societies, including America, take the time they need to adapt to change even after the laws are in place. For your arguement of course, there will need to be an LGBT heir or monarch before we will know how society will react. Stomping your feet and demanding action today or yesterday or tomorrow does not change this.
Perhaps you might seek out an LGBT candidate for the presidency and then let us know how those wise Americans have accepted and warmly embraced the idea of gay president and First Spouse in the White House. Of course you first need to get over the hurdle of how SCOTUS might rule, how wide or narrow their ruling might be, and then the required changes in state and federal laws regarding same sex marriages.
 
It is a pity I did not learn of the existence of this site before just a couple of days ago. I like the engagement (pardon the pun).

The member's point (whether based in fact or not) that a monarch must give consent to a royal wedding clearly is of no consequence when it is the monarch him/herself who is getting married. Obviously, he or she would consent to his or her own royal wedding. (As for the member who asserts that Parliament/Houses of Lords/etc. must give approval of royal weddings, I would have to see that in official documentation to believe that. And even then, I am sure there would be a loophole to such a law. I can understand approval of the finances allocated to the wedding ceremony itself. But I do not believe that such approval would be necessary for obtaining the legal status of "married").

As for the other member who states that any discussion about same-sex royal weddings is "premature," his position is, at best, uninformed. How can you or I possibly know who is gay or not gay or who is planning on getting married or not unless we are specifically told THE TRUTH? Furthermore, we are engaging in a hypothetical discussion: Should a monarch or a royal be allowed to marry someone of the same sex in a country where same-sex marriage is permissible by law. That is the question.

Yes, there will become a time when gay marriage is so commonplace that it doesn't warrant discussion. Just like today, interracial marriage is a non-issue. But until then, when a gay person marries someone of the same sex, he in effect "announces" his homosexuality (or perhaps his bisexuality). There is no opportunity for the "reticence" to which the member refers. Just as a heterosexual "announces" his heterosexuality (or bisexuality) when he marries someone of the opposite sex, so does a homosexual "announce" his sexuality when he marries--unless, of course, they intend on engaging in sexless "marriages."

The United States is a huge country with over 300 million people who come from all over the world. We, thankfully, are not a homogenous, monolithic society. We attract the best of the best and the worst of the worst from all over the world. And that is precisely what makes us the greatest nation on Earth. Obtaining consensus on any issue in America is infinitely more complicated than obtaining agreement in most other countries of the world. But it is our diversity which is our greatest asset. In America, we are accustomed to open-minded debate. It is our way of life. We expect people to have differences of opinion, and we celebrate those differences knowing that at the end of the day, we will come to a common ground that is good for all. And as a result, it is WE Americans who are at the forefront of much of the social change which impacts the rest of the world. By the end of June or the beginning of July, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the issue of marriage equality. If the law passes and has applicability across the country, trust me when I tell you that the rest of the world will have to look very carefully at its same-sex marriage policies and laws. if the law does not pass, trust me when I tell you that Americans will go back to the drawing board to re-strategize so as to ensure equality for all who reside on American soil. All roads once led to Rome; once upon a time, the sun did set on the British Empire; and today, America is the Land of the Free and the land of the Brave. In America, we don't have to "ask" (as yet another member suggests) for Human Rights and Fundamental Rights. We demand them. We demand them because those rights are inalienable--no one should ever have been deprived of them in the first place. So it would be foolish of us to sit back and "wait" for someone to bestow upon us what is rightfully ours--by birth. In America, we don't bow and genuflect to humans. We bow and genuflect to God.

So I have no need to "campaign" for anything. I simply am engaging, as is my right, in a discussion, in a public forum, which I find interesting, relevant, and important. To that end, I state my positions and welcome others' positions. It is the American way. If 20% of the world's population is gay, then 20% of the world's aristocrats are gay. So trust me when I tell you that this issue of gay marriage is as real and immediate for them as it is for everyone else in the free world.
 
this was about the last thing that i was expecting.... you seriously think that the US is at the *forefront* of the same-sex-marriage discussion?
 
Back
Top Bottom