The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #541  
Old 11-20-2012, 06:42 AM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,384
Thinks for much easier now ; they don't have to marry and then return to their partner. What an awful life a lot of Princesses had.
I was thinking to the Duke Franz of Bavaria who is invited with his partner.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 11-20-2012, 07:15 AM
buckbeakbabie's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ireland, Ireland
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
With regard to the Church's attitude towards marriage of same-sex couples, for me the question cannot be addressed until I can be sure of the Church's attitude towards straight couple's marrying in civil ceremonies (as opposed to marrying in church) and of straight couples marrying in church but not actually being religious themselves. Is it a "proper" marriage under the eyes of the Church to be married in a church if you're not a practicing Christian and never go to Church again? Is a civil marriage recognised as marriage by the church if you marry in a registry office?
I do hope this is not deemed to be too religious an issue for this thread or forum! It's a sensitive subject for religious folk gay and straight!
That I don't know, I'm not an expert on the CoE. (Not yet. It's on my list of things I need to know before I can write this book). I was just repeating some of the debates I've heard on the radio.

I hope so too. I'm not passing judgement on the beliefs or saying whether I think they're right or wrong. Just discussing what the beliefs are. Don't want to cause controversy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maria-olivia View Post
Thinks for much easier now ; they don't have to marry and then return to their partner. What an awful life a lot of Princesses had.
I was thinking to the Duke Franz of Bavaria who is invited with his partner.
That is very true, if they can be out, which as this thread shows isn't always an option.

But I was more referring to the difficulty even straight royals have maintaining a private life and letting their hair down a bit. The Duke of Kent in particular was far, far more scandalous than Prince Harry - he had a drug addiction in the 20s on top of the bisexuality and cross-dressing. But the press back then was an entirely different beast. Today, poor Harry has his private moments splashed all over the internet...
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 11-20-2012, 12:22 PM
Andolini's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 749
Very true. Here in the United States, I see a similar trend - in the past reporters respected Presidents far more than they do now - never photographing FDR's leg braces, keeping JFK's infidelities on the down low, and now, in this new world of "reality tv", a President or any politician really cannot make one single move without the press getting all over it. It's too bad. I do not really care about any President's infidelities AS LONG as it does not interfere with national security.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 02-02-2013, 04:56 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
I'm not sure whether this should go here, or in the Questions of Titles thread, but I just had a theoretical question, and wanted some opinions. If Harry were gay, or say one of William's sons is gay and he (or in the case of Harry, Charles) were king, do you think the male partner would receive a title upon marriage? Would they use a lesser title of the royal son? Like Harry would be Duke of Clarence and his partner would be Earl of Wherever? Or do you think they Harry would be given two Dukedoms, say Clarence and Avondale, and one would use Clarence and the other would use Avondale, but their children (permitting new LP's are passed to say that surrugate children are royal) would be of Clarence and Avondale? I know it's kinda out there, but I'm just curious what people think would happen.
I would think that should Prince Harry come out as gay, the following would happen:

(Supposing that QEII is still Queen)

- He would carry his title of Prince of the United Kingdom and the husband/partner would be given a lower title (Earl of whotsit or Count of things). Any child born of surrogacy from the match would not receive or inherit a title as it would be born out of legitimate wedlock (even though, as a believer in surrogacy, I feel it would be monumentally unfair).

(Supposing Charles or William is King)

- Harry would more than likely receive a royal dukedom as a son/brother of the reigning monarch. I would not speculate on what the partner would be called, considering the spouse of a duke is usually a duchess and there can be only one Duke of something. The natural thing would be for the partner to be given a courtesy title of some kind (see above). Again, children born of the match would not receive titles unless given by the monarch and would not be in the line of succession).

All of this is supposition though, as there is no precedent in modern history for a homosexual partner of a prince and what the title conferred would perhaps be. As for children born of surrogacy, unless the laws regarding legitimacy are changed, it would be unlikely that they would be accepted as peers/peeresses based on royal connection.

On a sidenote, I believe that most of the northern European monarchies would be open to the idea of a gay prince/princess. As long as there is another heir (meaning brother/sister), I don't believe it would matter much to them what the kids get up to in the bedroom.

Also, there are two current monarchs believed to be gay. Sultan Qaboos of Oman and King Norodom Sihamoni of Cambodia (his father apparently as good as outed him when he said that: "Sihamoni loves women as sisters.")
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 05-11-2013, 08:06 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
Same-sex marriage is quickly gaining acceptance as a fundamental right in the Western world. And once recognized as such, everyone--royals and the nobility included--will live his/her life accordingly. To the extent that same-sex marriage is incompatible with progeny, the principles governing succession, which have long been established, will take effect. It is as simple and as complicated as that. What's the point in being "King" if you can't be as free as everyone else in your own land.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #546  
Old 05-11-2013, 09:55 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,472
Well, I believe it will be at least a couple of generations before a wider segment of the population in practically all western monarchies will accept a monarch marrying the same sex as himself/herself.

Monarchy is in its very nature a conservative and tradition-bound institution. While they can be progressive in their outlook and in regards to the topics and people they deal with, the royals themselves must be careful about not being too progressive themselves. If not many core-monarchists will turn their back on them.

And royals are not free. They are more than anyone else bound by the position they were born into. Even for lesser royals leaving that position can be very problematic.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 05-11-2013, 10:32 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
In 1967, the United States Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, held that no state in the United States could maintain laws which prohibited the intermarrying of the races. There was a time when racism was the "problem" of the person being discriminated against. Today, however (and thankfully so), racism is the problem of the racist. The same is rapidly becoming true with marriage equality. Today, many people are offended by the notion of gay marriage. But tomorrow, it is the opponent of gay marriage who will be regarded as the person with "the problem."

The nobility and the aristocracy are as free as they want to be. They have long ago abandoned the "requirement" of marrying other nobles; they routinely divorce; they bear children out of wedlock; etc. In other words, they acknowledge that blood--even theirs-- is red, not blue. In this day and age, it would be ridiculous for a monarch to abdicate because of homosexuality. He or she simply could rule, knowing that upon his/her death/abdication, the throne would pass to the heir to the throne. The system of succession is well-established precedent. Why depart at this juncture? Progeny has never been a requirement of monarchy.

The nature of man is to be free. And any tradition which infringes upon that natural right is suspect. So again, if a ruler can't inspire his people to express their God-given selves--as exhibited by his own approach to his life-- then he is not fit to rule.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 05-11-2013, 11:44 AM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,354
Because of the conservative nature of royalty, a monarch who is gay will probably have to go the route of heterosexual marriage and children first unless the rules are changed. Don't think this will change anytime soon at least not in my lifetime. Mostly likely then the monarch will divorce their partner and then come out to the public.

I don't think in any monarchy that it's actually stated that if you're gay that you can't be a monarch.

Will be interesting when this happens what the reaction of the country and the world will be. If they've had the traditional marriage and children, the fact that they are gay can't be held or used against their children although some might questioned why they took their route.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 05-11-2013, 12:04 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
Marriage and progeny are not prerequisites to inheriting the throne. In 2013, anyone who does not realize that homosexuality is a reality--even within royal and noble families--is misinformed or in denial. Birth order is what determines who will sit on the throne, not heterosexuality (or sexuality, for that matter). So if a gay person ascends to the throne, then he/she should rule. And if same-sex marriage is legal in his/her country, then he/she should be able to marry someone of the same sex. And upon his demise or abdication, the throne would simply pass to the next-in-line. The system of succession has long been established. And it has been applied to childless monarchs since the beginning of the concept of monarchy. So what is the issue? Most decent people would prefer to see a monarch live a happy life with the love of his/her life than to live a lie. And if the throne thereafter must be occupied by a brother, sister, niece, nephew, or cousin, then so be it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 05-11-2013, 12:27 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,472
While royals in general can get away, to some extent, with children out of wedlock, mistresses, divorce and being gay it's something quite different with monarchs.
On the contrary monarchs nowadays, and CP's as well, more than before have to set a "moral" example. Then can get away with considerably less than what they could just two generations ago.
They have to walk a very narrow path.

I cannot imagine a homosexual royal with a homosexual spouse, within the next two generations. It will have to take a lesser royal to be a trailblazer first, before a such monarch might be accepted.

Monarchy is so much about feelings and much less so about rights.
It's about conservative values. It's also about religious values as most monarchs are practicing Christians, some are even head of the state church in their countries.

Give it time. We will eventually see a gay monarch some time in the future. But not for the next couple of generations.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #551  
Old 05-11-2013, 12:51 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
There is nothing inherently "immoral" about homosexuality. It is a birthright as much as heterosexuality is a birthright--it, too, is a gift from God (or nature, the universe, genetics, or from whatever else one wants to credit with having bestowed the gift). And anyone who denies God's gift is likely to retard his progress on Earth. A person's sexuality is too fundamental a characteristic to be bridled and stifled. A person's sexuality is a major component of a person's self. And to deny it is counterproductive to the person and to humanity. We are all created as we are for a reason. And when we deny that creation, we deny humanity of the gift which we were born to bestow upon humanity.

Long gone is the day when people ACTUALLY believed that the aristocracy was inherently superior--thank God. Everyone KNOWS that if our bloodlines are traced back far enough, we all end up with a caveman ancestor. So who are we kidding? THIS is the generation of the gay revolution--not two generations from now. And anyone of THIS generation who can't appreciate the equal rights of the homosexual is "on the wrong side of history." To tell a gay monarch, "Wait for two more generations" (until you are dead) before you live your life the way God made you is tantamount to telling Black people in the middle of the 1800s, "Wait two more generations for freedom," or telling them in the 1950s, "Wait two more generations for the end of segregation." Human rights should not have to wait until people who already enjoy those rights are willing to share them. Human rights have to be demanded whenever they are sought--because they are inalienable in the first place.

And to the extent that monarchs should set example, then a gay monarch should set the example by living as a gay person. After all, gay people are people within his/her realm too. Perhaps then, and only then, will this ridiculous notion that there is something "flawed" about being gay end.

Life is TOO short to tell people to wait two generations. And life is too short to tell people that they must live a lie to satisfy other people. NO ONE should have to live a life--for any reason.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 05-11-2013, 02:03 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
An ideal start for the first gay monarch..

For the first gay monarch (whenever that happens), marriage and surrogate children will all be a bit too much, both for him and the people, to deal with.
I personally would like a monarch who doesnt declare himself openly gay, but has a partner,who is totally kept away from all official business, and has a career of his own..people will automatically come to know, and will eventually accept him. And that monarch will totally be surrounded, assisted and represented by his siblings and their children, who will eventually take over that monarch.
That will be the ideal start for gay monarchs.
Too much spotlight on partner, unstable relatioships, public display of affections, surrogate children, activism about gay laws, eventually turning The Mall into an an LGBT carnival during all Balcony Appearances-----all these things will only backfire damaging the monarch personally, rather than winning people's support..
__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 05-11-2013, 02:15 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
It is not the viewpoint of the royal or even their family that might keep a royal closeted, it is the more important viewpoint of the citizens of their nation that counts. What may be legal for their citizens might still not be accepted by all the citizens of their nation and those citizens might be even less accepting of their monarch marrying a person of the same sex. Since monarchy is all about continuity the monarch might feel it better to remain officially closeted and keep his or her life partner a private matter until such time as the majority of people in the country came to support and accept same sex marriages.
What the courts make legal still takes a long time to be acceptable in public life. People hold all sorts of prejudices they may not publically speak about. In the US for example divorce has long been a fact of life, but until Reagan a divorced President was not acceptable. Divorce derailed Nelson Rockefellers campaign in the 60s. Today it is still news when a publically known person, especially a politician, comes out. It is still the view of the GOP that homosexuality is not acceptable and certainly not gay marriage. Even if SCOTUS were to rule that gay marriage should be legal it will take many years for that to gain general acceptance, probably generational change. It would be no different for a monarch coming out and marrying, it might be legal but it still might not be acceptable to their people and quite possibly to their official church.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 05-11-2013, 02:29 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
Yup. There is always a difference between having a law, and having people's acceptance. Thats why I am saying the first such monarch should definitely lie low, regarding his private life.
That partner should forget plans to become a whatever-Consort. I am personally not in favour of the monarch having surrogate babies. There will be too much mess..and all the fuss about the "mother of the future King"..(we already had enough of that didnt we?)..The throne should simply pass to the monarch's sibling and his children. It will be cool..The people would already be used to them well, as they would be representing the King everywhere all their lives..
And I am not telling they should be closeted or have a secret partner. Its just that their partners should be totally a private citizen, with a low-profile, and zero attention-gaining stunts..Thats very difficult to find such long-term partner, especially in "that"world..But...we have to see
__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #555  
Old 05-11-2013, 02:42 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post

And to the extent that monarchs should set example, then a gay monarch should set the example by living as a gay person. After all, gay people are people within him/her realm too. Perhaps then, and only then, will this ridiculous notion that there is something "flawed" about being gay will end.
A Gay Monarch in any country is going to do absolutely nothing to stop people viewing the LGBT community as flawed. There will always be people who believe being gay is wrong.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #556  
Old 05-11-2013, 03:01 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
Actually the gay monarch should never associalte himself with LGBT community. Just imagine 1000s of activists turning up and the whole Mall turning pink for Trooping the Colour balcony Appearance... What better thingto antagonise monarchy from conservatives
It will be left to become discrete universal knowledge.He will never speak about his lifestyle, and The Buckingham Palace will proudly, as ever, "shall not comment on His Majesty's private life". There will be no explanations/denials/clarifications..As simple as that
__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 05-11-2013, 03:41 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
Yup. There is always a difference between having a law, and having people's acceptance. Thats why I am saying the first such monarch should definitely lie low, regarding his private life.
That partner should forget plans to become a whatever-Consort. I am personally not in favour of the monarch having surrogate babies. There will be too much mess..and all the fuss about the "mother of the future King"..(we already had enough of that didnt we?)..The throne should simply pass to the monarch's sibling and his children. It will be cool..The people would already be used to them well, as they would be representing the King everywhere all their lives..
And I am not telling they should be closeted or have a secret partner. Its just that their partners should be totally a private citizen, with a low-profile, and zero attention-gaining stunts..Thats very difficult to find such long-term partner, especially in "that"world..But...we have to see
I don't know about surrogate children, but within the British system adopted children cannot inherit a peerage. Likewise, as they wouldn't be the heirs of the body of Sophie of Hanover, they wouldn't be in the line of succession. For the peerage, however, adopted children are able to use the courtesy titles used by the younger children of a peer, and presumably the adopted child (or male-line grandchild) of a monarch would also be given the titles, if not the inheritance and succession rights, of any other child or male-line grandchild of the monarch.

I doubt the partner of an openly gay member of a royal family - be they the monarch or not - would simply fade into the background. In a country where same sex marriage is legal, they would likely be granted the same rights and titles as any other spouse of a monarch of that gender. In a country where same sex marriage is not legal, the monarch having a long term, same sex partner might actually help to encourage legislature that allows for same sex marriage. Until such a time, though, they would probably fill a similar role to what the girlfriends and boyfriends of royals fill - not doing any engagements on their own, but certainly accompanying their significant other on engagements where they are able to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post

A Gay Monarch in any country is going to do absolutely nothing to stop people viewing the LGBT community as flawed. There will always be people who believe being gay is wrong.
This, sadly, is true, and expands beyond just homosexuality. There will always be people who believe that being *insert difference* is wrong. It's a fundamental flaw in humans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
Actually the gay monarch should never associalte himself with LGBT community. Just imagine 1000s of activists turning up and the whole Mall turning pink for Trooping the Colour balcony Appearance... What better thingto antagonise monarchy from conservatives
It will be left to become discrete universal knowledge.He will never speak about his lifestyle, and The Buckingham Palace will proudly, as ever, "shall not comment on His Majesty's private life". There will be no explanations/denials/clarifications..As simple as that
Why shouldn't a gay monarch be able to be open? This is the 21st century. If the Prince of Wales can be open about having had an affair, be seen in public with his mistress, and then later marry said mistress, why can't a monarch be openly gay? Sure, people will have a problem with it, and some will go one to support republican movements, but at the same time others will embrace the monarchy and monarchism because of it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #558  
Old 05-11-2013, 04:52 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
The concepts of "monarchy," "aristocracy," and "nobility" are socio-political, man-made constructs which, incidentally, have been dismissed as "vestiges of a bygone era" by many modern societies. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is, like it or not, a natural construct which has existed from the beginning of humanity.

Strategically, cogent arguments can certainly be offered in support of the "gradual introduction of the concept of gay monarchy." But that step-by-step approach seems troublingly similar to the arguments offered to end Apartheid gradually. Either people have a right to marry whomever they choose or they don't. And if they have that right--which I firmly believe they do--then that right is as much the right of a monarch as it is of his/her subjects.

The comments regarding "unstable relationships," "public displays of affection," "surrogate children," avid support of "gay activism," and "LGBT carnivals at balcony appearances" are suggestive of the types of prejudices that have long been directed to minority groups. Those arguments sound like the same arguments which would be offered if a European royal decided to marry a Black person. It is a "There goes the neighborhood..." mentality. Gay marriages, from what we have seen thus far, is no more unstable than traditional marriage--not even amongst the most revered royal families: Princess Margaret--divorced; Princess Anne--divorced; Prince Charles--divorced. Unstable relationships? Let's be fair here..... And so what if two married people have public displays of affection? A royal wedding isn't a wedding until the newlyweds emerge onto the balcony and kiss in front of their subjects. So why shouldn't that be the case with a same-sex royal couple? A monarch, if nothing else, should have good taste. And it is to be assumed that he/she and his/her spouse would conduct themselves with the requisite dignity in public and in private. (If we can't trust nobles to be tasteful, then the concept of nobility is a bigger farce than it already is). And who said anything about children? There are lots of married people--gay and straight--that don't want children, period (surrogate, adopted, or otherwise). It is the monarch who is the monarch; not his/her children. So why are may-never-be-born children being factored into the discussion? Only legitimate children may inherit a throne in most countries. So surrogate children would not qualify. Nor will adopted children. The throne would pass to the next-in-line, based on the laws of succession--a la Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Her indirect route to the British throne didn't seem to harm anyone.

Laws don't drop out the sky.... They come from the people. And if the people want gay marriage for themselves, it would be ridiculous for them not to want it for their monarch. After all, he/she is not only bound by the laws of the land, he/she must live them and uphold them. And to the extent that people have higher standards for their monarchs than for themselves, those people need to revisit that logic. Monarchs are regular humans like everyone else. They bleed; they have morning breath; they use the toilet. Besides, monarchs do a great job of reminding their subjects that they are just as human as everyone else. (There is no need to illustrate here since their human tendencies are well documented--oftentimes in gory details).

But perhaps the most troublesome argument is the one which suggests that a gay monarch should marry someone of the opposite sex, but live a clandestine life with someone of the same sex. That option was addressed and dismissed centuries ago by the great bard: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." People--fake spouses, hidden lovers, children--all have emotions which are scarred, oftentimes beyond repair, by such deceitful existences. How could such a life produce anything good?

The world is changing; it is becoming more tolerant and less bigoted. And it is about time. It also is about time that monarchs lead, even if just symbolically. (Otherwise, what are they being publicly supported to do?) So who better to expedite the social change, which is inevitable, than a monarch? After all, people are happy to see them set fashion trends. Why can't they also set social trends?

So let the activists, all dressed in pink, converge on the square. Pink is just a color like any other color, no more valid, no less valid. (Would it seem less intrusive if the activists all showed up wearing beige?)

Gay marriage is becoming a reality each day, whether some people like it or not. The people against it have family members who are gay. Some of the most vocal objectors are themselves gay. Everyone has a fundamental right to leave the home of his mother and father and align himself with another person in order to face this harsh world in which we live. Who are we to tell anyone--monarch or otherwise--that he/she does not have a basic, fundamental, human right to have someone pick him/her up if he/she slips and falls in the bathtub, or to be brought a cup of hot tea on a sick bed? Everyone deserves to live his/her life. And everyone has a right to share his/her life.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 05-11-2013, 05:01 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
The concepts of "monarchy," "aristocracy," and "nobility" are socio-political, man-made constructs which, incidentally, have been dismissed as "vestiges of a bygone era" by many modern societies. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is, like it or not, a natural construct which has existed from the beginning of humanity.


Everyone deserves to live his/her life. And everyone has a right to share his/her life.
I've understood your point of view, but if the religion of a heir is Catholic, Muslim or another? Then, the Church (or other institution) could be very much against such a monarch, despite all his other achievements, what he will be supposed to do in such a situation?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 05-11-2013, 06:04 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
I guess most of your post is a reply to my previous posts.But let me clarify one thing to you. I was not speaking about gay royalty in general. I specifically mentioned and even titled my post that this is about how the first gay monarch should bring in the things.Please keep that in mind.I will be putting in my views at relevant points.
Please dont see this as a FOR GAY MONARCH vs AGAINST GAY MONARCH..
I am just arguing ON THE APPROACH OF ESTABLISHING A GAY MONARCH..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
Strategically, cogent arguments can certainly be offered in support of the "gradual introduction of the concept of gay monarchy." But that step-by-step approach seems troublingly similar to the arguments offered to end Apartheid gradually.
I am sorry I dont know much about Apartheid struggle. But I am a firm believer that any change in society has to come in a qqiet, gradual, progressive manner. Right from small customs to major Revolutions they took decades to build-up. You may see things like Bloody Sunday, assasination of Archduke, Pearl harborbombing etc. as one-day-history-twisters, but just dig deep there is a lot under. So this is also same. It cant happen in just one go. The first one has to slowly bring in things..


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
The comments regarding "unstable relationships," "public displays of affection," "surrogate children," avid support of "gay activism," and "LGBT carnivals at balcony appearances" are suggestive of the types of prejudices that have long been directed to minority groups. Those arguments sound like the same arguments which would be offered if a European royal decided to marry a Black person. It is a "There goes the neighborhood..." mentality.
This is what I meant above, gradual transition. First you have to warm up to the public that a King having a gay partner is cool, not a playboy King who spends each day in nightclub with a different boyfriend. People should recognise that ya he is a good king, let him do whatever he wants with his life.Marriage is the next step. And then come all others..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
Gay marriages, from what we have seen thus far, is no more unstable than traditional marriage--not even amongst the most revered royal families: Princess Margaret--divorced; Princess Anne--divorced; Prince Charles--divorced. Unstable relationships? Let's be fair here......
Unstable relationships ARE costly among royals. Not lesser ones, but the monarchs and would-be-ones. Prince Charles had to pay a very heavy price . Even today he is striving to get the public to forget the past. And all his other counterparts have taken utmost care in that issue henceforth. Queen Juliana struggled a lot to keep all her dirty marriage linen under wraps. Queen Sofia lived with her husband's infidelities for decades. If you see carefully, (IIRC) post WW II, no reigning monarch has divorced. And there are hardly any chances anyone of even the next generation would do so..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
The throne would pass to the next-in-line, based on the laws of succession--a la Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Her indirect route to the British throne didn't seem to harm anyone.
I agree perfectly with you on this one. In fact, wasnt I the one who suggested this should be the way the crown passed..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post

But perhaps the most troublesome argument is the one which suggests that a gay monarch should marry someone of the opposite sex, but live a clandestine life with someone of the same sex. That option was addressed and dismissed centuries ago by the great bard: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." People--fake spouses, hidden lovers, children--all have emotions which are scarred, oftentimes beyond repair, by such deceitful existences. How could such a life produce anything good?
Unfortunately you misunderstood me. I said King should just keep quiet and not speak about his sexuality and all gay stuff publicly, but people should be let to know, by various ways, that he has a gay partner. I didnt mean he should have an arm-candy wife and another closet life-partner

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
The world is changing; it is becoming more tolerant and less bigoted. And it is about time. It also is about time that monarchs lead, even if just symbolically. (Otherwise, what are they being publicly supported to do?) So who better to expedite the social change, which is inevitable, than a monarch? After all, people are happy to see them set fashion trends. Why can't they also set social trends?
Social trends are not fashion trends. And if you observe royalty, there never actually set social trends. They do not change the society. They infact change after the society, behind the society. And they do so, only not to look archaic or out-of-touch. Never expect royals to be social trend-setters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
So let the activists, all dressed in pink, converge on the square. Pink is just a color like any other color, no more valid, no less valid. (Would it seem less intrusive if the activists all showed up wearing beige?)
Well, I would rather ask some British straight royal-watcher if he would love a sea of LGBT activists in whatever colour fll in the Mall (not square) at the first Trooping balcony appearnce of the first gay monarch..Please note the firsts..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
Gay marriage is becoming a reality each day, whether some people like it or not. The people against it have family members who are gay. Some of the most vocal objectors are themselves gay.
See, you yourself told the extent of hypocrisy and doublespeak in our society. And sadly their voice still has power. So to convince the common man, slowly and gradually to get their acceptance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
Monarchs are regular humans like everyone else. They bleed; they have morning breath; they use the toilet. Besides, monarchs do a great job of reminding their subjects that they are just as human as everyone else.
Sorry for coming out of freedom rights books and living in real world.
Are royals regular human beings? No they are freeloaders/reptiles/leeches/shop-mannequins.
Do they have brains? No they arent supposed to..
Do they have hearts? No they arent supposed to..
Can they speak their minds? Never. How dare they?
Should they have privacy? No way. They are living off my money..Their every moment is mine.
Then what are they supposed to do? Just smile, and adorn the latest fashions and tiaras and necklaces and entertain us. And once we are too bored, make a scandal and give us our money' worth.Nothing more than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
Who are we to tell anyone--monarch or otherwise--that he/she does not have a basic, fundamental, human right to have someone pick him/her up if he/she slips and falls in the bathtub, or to be brought a cup of hot tea on a sick bed? Everyone deserves to live his/her life. And everyone has a right to share his/her life.
No one can/will take away that fundamental right. They can always have their partner to do all those things.

PS: I would be happiest to see a gay King and his husband on the balcony. But thats not going to happen as simply as we want. We need to be patient and let things go as gradually as they should..We are already in a great transition phase. Just give it some more time. Too much screaming wont do any good..
__________________

__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Queen Silvia's Family and Siblings - The Sommerlaths NJRedDevils King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia 44 07-25-2014 01:50 AM
Precedence - Who Outranks Who? Huddo Royal Ceremony and Protocol 90 06-12-2013 05:56 PM




Popular Tags
belgium carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:39 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]