LHBTQ+ Royalty


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
QUOTE FROM WAYNE JAMES
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"). END QUOTE

Really pleased you are enjoying the debate. However, you should have the courtesy not to imply that the posters on this forum are wrong or telling you lies.
 
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?

The idea that the US is at the forefront in this discussion is an insult to countries that have legalized it completely, particularly the Netherlands which was the first.
 
Do you have ANY idea of how complicated it is to get consensus on issues of this magnitude in a country as complex as the United States? We are a country where people come from all over the world to assert rights which they could not attain in their own homelands. In America, our culture is to change and to adapt and adopt. Norway has less people than New York City. And practically all Norwegians, until very recently, looked alike, ate alike, and believed alike. New York is a microcosm of the world. So while we are decade "behind" Norway on the issue of same-sex marriage, the moment the United States approves it, the whole world will take notice. (And discussions like this will be of a time past). Like it or not, just as England once was the world power, today, it is America. Such is the world we live in. As we say in America, "Today for you, tomorrow for me." This issue of same-sex marriage is going to become truly international when it becomes law in the United States.
 
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").



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..

Ever hear of a guy called Edward VIII? Perhaps you know him better as the Duke of Windsor which is what he became after the government refused to give permission for him to marry a twice divorced woman? Abdication was the loophole that allowed him to have the marriage he wanted.
Ever hear of a country called The Netherlands? All members of their royal family must obtain approval of parliament in order to marry.

I am sorry but America is not usually at the forefront of social change, usually it is a follower and then tells the world how wonderful it is for granting its citizens such rights. As I have pointed out in prior posts America was not the first nation to abolish slavery, not the first nation to give women the vote, not the first nation to give LGBT citizens the right to marry, has yet to elect a woman head of state/government while many other nations have done so, has yet to have an openly gay cabinet secretary while many other nations have done so, has yet to elect and openly gay head of government or state (Iceland and Belgium have done so). Other countries will no doubt look at their laws after SCOTUS, but in the western developed world America is already far behind when it comes to LGBT legal rights so perhaps it is more accurate to say that America should be looking at the rest of the world on this issue.
 
Last edited:
This issue of same-sex marriage is going to become truly international when it becomes law in the United States.

It already is an international issue, with same sex marriage being legal in much of Europe, parts of Latin America, Canada, NZ, South Africa etc. You guys are just late coming to the party and now apparently intending to tell us how to deal with the issue and how you lead the way which is BS. As usual America is a follower when it comes to granting LGBT rights.
 
Well, now there is some truth to what WJ says... when gays can marry in Alabama and Kentucky how can a European nation possibly deny their monarch/future monarch the same.....:p
 
:previous: Oh yes, this discussion is amusing. :)

I commend you for your pride in your country but USA is not necessarily a pioneer in regards to social and sexual changes.
Denmark was the first country to allow same-sex registered partnerships some, what is it, 20 years ago? Something that not even all US states allow today. Didn't California revoke that right a couple of years ago?
We are perfectly capable of having debates and initiate and carry out reforms in the rest of the world as well, if you'll permit me to say so. ;)

Anyway, you apparantly believe that if same-sex marriages is allowed in a given country the population will automatically out of kindness and tolerance accept same-sex marriages on all levels. Call me a cynic but I don't believe that for one moment.
If there would be a referendum in USA for allowing same sex marriages, would you be sure to win? What does the opinion polls say?

You are obviously most informed about the British monarchy. Let me point out that there are quite a number of monarchies around, in countries of often very different cultures.

As for getting a political consent. I can't speak for other countries but in my country the Law of Succession states very clearly that the Parliament must approve marriages within the royal family. That is usually a formality, because if the Parliament does not approve, it will never be an issue.
The Monarch cannot on her own approve a marriage. - That is of course to prevent unfortunate marriages or even a foreign take-over.

As for your statement of 20 % of the population being gay, I'm a little sceptical. That's one in five! Surely you are also counting bisexuals and people who have flirted with homosexuality? Then the figure would be more credible.

Finally, monarchs have the right to marry whomever they want, but they do not have the right to remain a monarch if they do.
You can't sack a civil servant for marrying a same sex partner, but you can sack a king.
 
Last edited:
Do you have ANY idea of how complicated it is to get consensus on issues of this magnitude in a country as complex as the United States? We are a country where people come from all over the world to assert rights which they could not attain in their own homelands. In America, our culture is to change and to adapt and adopt. Norway has less people than New York City. And practically all Norwegians, until very recently, looked alike, ate alike, and believed alike. New York is a microcosm of the world. So while we are decade "behind" Norway on the issue of same-sex marriage, the moment the United States approves it, the whole world will take notice. (And discussions like this will be of a time past). Like it or not, just as England once was the world power, today, it is America.

I thought it was China. :ermm: - Sorry, couldn't resist. :p

Such is the world we live in. As we say in America, "Today for you, tomorrow for me." This issue of same-sex marriage is going to become truly international when it becomes law in the United States.

Eeh, as NGalitzine pointed out, at least half the countries in the western world has or is in the process of implementing same-sex marriages.
I guess they got tired of waiting for USA to take the lead....

Again Wayne James, I understand your pride in your country but you really need to take a look at what is going on in the rest of the world. Not least within your favorite topic, gay rights.
 
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?
This wasn't meant to be an issue in itself but just a response to the statement by a member that there were no current gay monarchs.

Both are mentioned in this thread; they are currently reigning; they are not married; religions are other than Christian; there is no "confirmation" but it appears to be an accepted fact, and, perhaps surprisingly, no big deal.
 
Let's wait and see what happens in the Unites States when the US Supreme Court makes its ruling at the end of June/beginning of July. If it rules in favor of same-sex marriage across the land, the whole world will take notice. At the moment--despite all the advances made on the issue in other countries such as Holland and Spain-- for many other countries in the world, this issue, at best, is in its infancy. But once same-sex marriage is embraced by the entire United States, Hollywood, the music industry, diplomacy, corporations, sports heroes, politicians, etc., will ignite a discussion on a much broader scale. And it is that kitchen table-type familiarity of this issue that will make the issue "real" for people all over the world. Imagine.... French people are rioting in the streets over the recently passed gay marriage legislation. English people are saying that they don't want their royals in gay marriages any time soon. In Argentina, gay marriage is now legal, but many Argentineans don't exercise their right to same-sex marriage for fear of social backlash.... When gay marriage becomes law in America, however, the "problem" will then shift to those who oppose it. And who will be hurt? No one: people who believe that the only valid institution of marriage is a heterosexual one will be free to have heterosexual marriage. And for those who see it otherwise, they will be free to do otherwise. In America, we bring about social change from the GROUND up. It is more thorough, more complete, and more effective that way. We don't pass laws that people are afraid to implement. We are not going to be in a position like much of Europe, where its citizenry is saying that gay marriage laws were imposed upon them, top-down. So in the U.S., we take our time to build grassroots support. We discuss difficult issues face to face. Then we make our move. But when we move, oh what a move it is!
 
In the 1960s, as young schoolboy, I read everything I possibly could about the Civil Rights Movement. In the 1970s, I was in countless debates on the issue of Abortion Rights; in the early 1980s, I engaged my university friends on the issue of the Equal Rights Amendment; and in the 21st century, I welcome discussions on Marriage Equality. What can I say? I am a man of my times.... No harm in that, is there? And if I ever marry one of your royals, I will be sure to invite you to the royal wedding. LOL (I can just hear you now: "Yet another cross for Old England to bear....") LOL
 
Wayne James said:
As for the other member who states that any discussion about same-sex royal weddings is "premature," his position is, at best, uninformed.
That would be me.
I may be many things, but uninformed I am not. Nor do I misquote. What I wrote was "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." The first part is fact, the second is my opinion. You may disagree with the opinion, but the fact stands.

Speaking of facts, I would respectfully suggest that your knowledge of LGBT issues does not make you equally knowledgeable in matters concerning European royalty. For example, you may care to acquaint yourself with the Royal Marriages Act 1772 which does indeed lay down the circumstances in which the Parliament may disapprove a proposed royal marriage.
 
If it rules in favor of same-sex marriage across the land, the whole world will take notice.

In exactly what way will the whole world take notice? You might think America is all high and mighty but it doesn't dictate to the rest of the world.

English people are saying that they don't want their royals in gay marriages any time soon.!

Which English people are saying this? Could you provide any evidence to back up your 'fact'?

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.
.

As I said, as far as I am aware. Any royal outside Europe doesn't really come under my radar.
 
Last edited:
In America, we bring about social change from the GROUND up. It is more thorough, more complete, and more effective that way. We don't pass laws that people are afraid to implement. We are not going to be in a position like much of Europe, where its citizenry is saying that gay marriage laws were imposed upon them, top-down. So in the U.S., we take our time to build grassroots support. We discuss difficult issues face to face. Then we make our move. But when we move, oh what a move it is!

Sorry Wayne, but if America gets same sex marriage as a result of a Supreme Court ruling that will be the ultimate top down imposition. Unless you are going to have state by state refrerendums, since marriage in your country is a states issue, this social change will not be ground up.

As it stands now most of the western developed world is far more advanced on this social change than the US so has little to learn from your experience or methods.

You also still confuse the issue of acceptance of same sex marriage by and for the general population with the general populations acceptance of such a marriage for their monarch/president. They are 2 very different issues.

As I said before when you get a LGBT candidate running for the presidency on a GOP or Democratic ticket and he campaigns with his same sex spouse then we can discuss how our societies have accepted a gay monarch and a gay president. Frankly I would be very surprised if Europe did not have a LGBT monarch and spouse decades before America has a LGBT President and First Spouse maybe even before you get around to electing a woman as president. Still it will be many years before we can know since all our monarchs and all but one of our heirs are married. The only unmarried heir is a 10 year old girl so maybe you can lay all your hopes for a gay monarch on her.
 
Wayne James, while I appreciate your enthusiasm for the U.S. you seem to assume that civil rights are implemented through grass roots support here. Not so. We are not a democracy, we don't go to the polls and vote on civil rights. I believe that this is the reason that the Prop 8 case is before the Supreme Court (I don't follow the gay marriage issue here in the U.S with regularity). We are a republic; which means that the rights of the few are not dictated by the many - they are dictated by our constitution. This is why the rights of gays to marry is generally upheld by our courts. So if in fact the Supreme Court rules in the summer that banning gay marriage violates the Equal Protection clause, there will be Americans who will be vehemently opposed to the ruling, and there will be gay couples who live in the backwaters who will still be afraid to come out and marry. (I personally believe that the Supreme Court will address the issue on much narrower grounds).

I know I'm way off topic here. But my point is that Americans are not any better than any other group of people on the planet and at times we are a bit behind the times on social issues. A Supreme Court ruling will not suddenly pave the way for a gay royal couple somewhere else to marry and reign, although it will be one more stepping stone towards worldwide acceptance, and it will be a stepping stone.
 
I have never read the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, but I am certain that if Parliament were to ever withhold its approval of a royal marriage, there would be a way for that royal to marry--without abdicating. I am sure even a mediocre lawyer would be able to find the necessary loophole or provision which allows for the marriage to take place.

I have lived and traveled all over the world. And I feel confident in saying that on matters of race relations, women's rights, and gay rights, America is head and shoulders above the other nations of the world. American culture is by its very definition an inclusive culture. Inclusion is our legacy. And it is that undeniable fact which informs our approach to social change. When we change, we change "for real." And when we change, we change for the better.

But to return to issue at hand: Why does Marriage Equality for ALL people frighten you so? Is it the word "Marriage"? Or is it the word "Equality"?
 
Last edited:
.

But to return to issue at hand: Why does Marriage Equality for ALL people frighten you so? Is it the word "Marriage"? Or is it the word "Equality"?

To whom are you speaking to? I assume it's not anyone who's replied to you in this thread because we've all stated our opinions quite clearly.

Perhaps before we answer your questions, you answer some of ours? Or don't you have answers?
 
I have never read the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, but I am certain that if Parliament were to ever withhold its approval of a royal marriage, there would be a way for that royal to marry--without abdicating. I am sure even a mediocre lawyer would be able to find the necessary loophole or provision which allows for the marriage to take place.

I have lived and traveled all over the world. And I feel confident in saying that on matters of race relations, women's rights, and gay rights, America is head and shoulders above the other nations of the world. American culture is by its very definition an inclusive culture. Inclusion is our legacy. And it is that undeniable fact which informs our approach to social change. When we change, we change "for real." And when we change, we change for the better.

But to return to issue at hand: Why does Marriage Equality for ALL people frighten you so? Is it the word "Marriage"? Or is it the word "Equality"?

1) it is always best to have read the document of which you speak before speaking with such certainty and since this is a forum about all of Europes royal famiulies and not just the BRf you should probably read the marriage requirements for all those families as well. As has already been pointed out approval of parliament for all royal marriages is required in both The Netherlands and Denmark.
2) Please provide concrete examples of how America is head and shoulders above the world, especially the developed world, on race relations, womens rights, and especially gay rights. I get that you are American and that Americans seem to have it bred in that they are the best on the world but if you have really traveled and lived abroad and kept your eyes open you should at least have begin to doubt some of what you had bred in as a child.
3) Why do you think same sex marriage scares any of us. I haven't read one post which objected to the idea of same sex marriage. You still seem to willfully ignore the difference between what people might easily accept for themselves or a family member and what they "may" have difficulty in accepting for their head of state.
 
I would expect someone who says they are a lawyer and former Senator to answer specific questions with detailed and specific answers. I do not expect answers such as " I havent read it but" or "Trust me, I know".
There does not seem to be much point in continuing a discussion since you seem unable or unwilling to hold up your end of the conversation and have a fall back position that basically is "We are American therefore we know better than everyone else".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ish
I just read about the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 on Wikipedia (yes, okay, I know it's Wikipedia, but still....) acc. to Wiki, consent under the Act has never been formally withheld. I see a bit of a conundrum here.

Is gay marriage legal yet in Britain? Let's assume it is, or that it soon will be. The Act covers consent for a rather large group of people. If someone in the line, whether in Britain or somewhere else where gay marriage is legal, applied for consent, what is the sovereign to do? Is denial of this consent not a political statement of which British sovereigns are generally disinclined to make?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just read about the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 on Wikipedia (yes, okay, I know it's Wikipedia, but still....) acc. to Wiki, consent under the Act has never been formally withheld. I see a bit of a conundrum here.

It may not have been formally withheld, but the marriages of George III's children were often considered invalid due to consent never having been given - hence why the children of William IV and the Duke of Sussex were illegitimate. The lack of consent can also be seen as an issue in the abdication crisis.

Is gay marriage legal yet in Britain? Let's assume it is, or that it soon will be. The Act covers consent for a rather large group of people. If someone in the line, whether in Britain or somewhere else where gay marriage is legal, applied for consent, what is the sovereign to do? Is denial of this consent not a political statement of which British sovereigns are generally disinclined to make?

Same sex marriage is not yet legal in Britain, although same sex civil partnerships are and they're making progress on the marriage part. I think the tricky thing in the British sense is the relationship between the monarch and the CoE - it may become legal for same sex marriages to happen in Britain, but if the church opposes it then it's tricky for the monarch, who is the nominal head of the church to consent to a marriage that the church does not bless.

If you look at the abdication crisis, a huge part of the reason why Edward VII could not remain king and marry Wallis was because the church would not bless a marriage between the king and a divorcee (a great irony, if you ask me, given how the church came into existence). Fast forward to 2005, and part of the reason why Charles was able to marry Camilla while remaining in the line of succession is because the church was willing to bless the marriage, despite the future monarch's bride being a divorced woman (Charles being a divorced man doesn't come into play due to Diana's death).

If a member of the BRF wished to partake in a same sex marriage (post legalization), then it would be really tricky for the Queen to consent to it in opposition to the church. If said member was someone lower on the ladder - say the Duke of Kent - then there would be no real problem, because the likelihood of him inheriting would be so small. But say William and Catherine had never married, and William had come out as gay? Would he have been given permission to marry a man, in stark contrast to the church's stance? Would the monarch be able to be head of the church if he is in a marriage that is not valid in the eyes of the church? Not with the precedent of Edward VII.
 
Same sex marriage is not yet legal in Britain, although same sex civil partnerships are and they're making progress on the marriage part. I think the tricky thing in the British sense is the relationship between the monarch and the CoE - it may become legal for same sex marriages to happen in Britain, but if the church opposes it then it's tricky for the monarch, who is the nominal head of the church to consent to a marriage that the church does not bless.

The CofE strongly opposes the whole idea of same sex marriages, and the proposed legislation specifically will bar the CofE from performing same sex marriages. As you pointed out this would complicate the issue of a same sex royal marriage especially for the monarch or heir apparent.
 
I had not thought of the CoE complicating matter, but its position would complicate matters even further.

Had Edward VIII chosen to marry Wallis, instead of just abdicating, there would have been a crisis. People of today are not quite so willing to give up their positions. What if the British heir was simply unwilling to give up his/her place in the line of succession and was determined to push the issue, forcing the sovereign's hand. What a conundrum indeed.

What would happen, theoretically? Is it not a political stance on the part of the sovereign, or would she have an out by denying consent upon religious grounds?
 
I had not thought of the CoE complicating matter, but its position would complicate matters even further.

Had Edward VIII chosen to marry Wallis, instead of just abdicating, there would have been a crisis. People of today are not quite so willing to give up their positions. What if the British heir was simply unwilling to give up his/her place in the line of succession and was determined to push the issue, forcing the sovereign's hand. What a conundrum indeed.

What would happen, theoretically? Is it not a political stance on the part of the sovereign, or would she have an out by denying consent upon religious grounds?

In the case of the heir apparent wishing a same sex marriage I suppose the monarch could do what QEII did in the 60s when her cousin Lord Harewood asked for permission to remarry. Instead of taking the decision herself (divorce & remarriage being a tricky issue for the CofE) she asked the government for advice. She gave her consent based on the constitutional advice of her government. Any controversy that might have arisen would have been blamed on the government, not on the monarch/Supreme Governor of the CofE.
How it would be handled for the monarch wishing a same sex marriage I dont know, but I expect the relevent governments would still have to give consent and right now they do not all allow such marriages.
 
I think if the British monarch or heir was gay one of 4 things would happen:
1. He/she would remain in the closet and possibly have a hetero marriage
2. He/she would remain unmarried and it would be an open secret. The heir would be his/her eldest sibling (or nephew/niece)
3. The CoE would be forced to re-evaluate its position on the issue
4. There would be a divide between the monarchy and the CoE

As neither the Queen, Charles, nor William appears to be homosexual and they've all chosen to be in heterosexual marriages, we're not likely to see a gay heir until at the earliest William's child, which kind of gives the church some time to catch up on it's attitude. Unless the Queen, Charles, or William were to suddenly come out....

Somehow, I can't see that happening. In the Queen's case, I think her age and preference for privacy in matters of her personal life (plus her avoidance of scandal) would be a big factor. For Charles, in the unlikely event that he did come out, probably wouldn't survive as heir the scandal. I don't think the world is ready for a twice divorced gay monarch (as he would be if he came out). Even William's marriage would act against him in the event that he came out...
 
I had not thought of the CoE complicating matter, but its position would complicate matters even further.

Had Edward VIII chosen to marry Wallis, instead of just abdicating, there would have been a crisis. People of today are not quite so willing to give up their positions. What if the British heir was simply unwilling to give up his/her place in the line of succession and was determined to push the issue, forcing the sovereign's hand. What a conundrum indeed.

What would happen, theoretically? Is it not a political stance on the part of the sovereign, or would she have an out by denying consent upon religious grounds?

Theoretically, I think an abdication would happen - that or the individual would end up not rocking the boat, so to speak.

I don't think people today cling to their positions any more than people of yesterday did. Edward certainly tried to have his cake and eat it, so to speak, and the entire War of the Roses was fought between people trying to cling to something they thought they were entitled to.

I do think that the Firm loathes scandal, and I don't think any member of the Firm ever wants to be at the centre of one. I think if Charles had been told that he could chose between one day being king and marrying Camilla he would have either not married Camilla or renounce his succession rights, simple as that. It would have been handled as privately as possible, with the discussions being unofficial and not revealed to the public until it had to be.

I think the same would happen were a heir to come out and wish to marry someone of the same sex (in a Britain where same sex marriage is legal). It would be discussed in private and unofficially until the answer is come to, then it would be revealed to the public.

We have seen cases of people having to change for the Firm - Catherine was confirmed prior to her marriage, Autumn converted to CoE) - we've seen people give up things for the Firm - Edward and Sophie both tried to have private jobs - and we've seen people give up their place in the succession - Prince Michael, as well as the Duke of Kent's children.
 
I think if the British monarch or heir was gay one of 4 things would happen:
1. He/she would remain in the closet and possibly have a hetero marriage...
I would hope it never comes to option 1.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good points, Ish!

I too hope it would never come to Option 1; it ruins the lives of so many people.

I too agree that in Britain at least, a living gay heir is unlikely, and the thought of the Queen suddenly coming out, divorcing Phillip and trying to marry a woman make me just :ROFLMAO:. And the media's reactions! :eek: The only good thing is that the DM would probably spontaneously combust.

I believe that all European adult heirs are happily married so this is truly hypothetical in Europe.
 
I would hope it never comes to option 1.

1 has happened before, as has 2. There's a lot of talk about this hypothetical monarch being the first gay one, but it's happened before.

William II is widely believed to have been gay and falls into 2. Edward II and James I both fall into 1. Anne is a tricky one - I'm not sure if she was straight and got slandered by a fallen "friend" or if she was 1. Likewise, Richard I and William III are sometimes put into 1.

Some of the problem there, though lies in the fact that understandings of and definitions of sexuality change over time. It was always expected that the monarch marry and have children (and those who didn't often fall into the questionable sexuality category), but mistresses and favourites were also expected - and sometimes the two were combined. Thus a monarch would have a wife and children, but might also be dallying with a man on the side.
 
I too agree that in Britain at least, a living gay heir is unlikely, and the thought of the Queen suddenly coming out, divorcing Phillip and trying to marry a woman make me just :ROFLMAO:. And the media's reactions! :eek: The only good thing is that the DM would probably spontaneously combust.

Well, damn.

Now I almost want the Queen to come out, divorce Philip, and announce her intention to fly to Canada and marry a woman.

I think another thing is that monarchies tend to be extremely protective of the privacy of it's children. So, say Baby Cambridge is gay. The chance of us finding out in the next 18 years is rather slim - I mean, did we hear about anyone any of the Wales or Yorks dated when they were underage? The only thing I can think of is Harry saying at one point that he had a crush on the Spice Girls. So, really, even if at age 6 Baby Cambridge goes "mum, dad, I like boys" we as the public won't likely hear about it until Baby Cambridge is an adult.
 
Back
Top Bottom