The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #601  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:12 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,306
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 precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:12 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee-Z View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:19 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
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.
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:28 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,522
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.....
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:29 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,538
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.
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:48 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
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. - Sorry, couldn't resist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:53 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by fandesacs2003 View Post
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.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:03 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
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!
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:17 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
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
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:20 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James
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.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:22 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
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'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:24 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,522
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.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:53 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
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"?
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:59 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
.

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?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 05-12-2013, 06:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 05-12-2013, 06:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
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".
Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 05-12-2013, 07:56 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,522
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?
__________________

__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
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
Precedence - Who Outranks Who? Huddo Royal Ceremony and Protocol 131 09-06-2016 07:50 PM
Queen Silvia's Family and Siblings - The Sommerlaths NJRedDevils King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia 49 07-22-2016 05:19 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2015 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style countess of wessex's fashion coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events current events thread danish royal family duchess of cambridge farah diba fashion and style fashion poll felipe vi grand duke jean greece infanta elena kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe and queen letizia king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander march 2016 member introduction national day norwegian royals opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince harry princess ingrid alexandra princess madeleine princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia maternity wear princess sofia pregnancy style queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen mathilde queen mathildes evening dresses queen mathildes style queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal royal fashion state visit sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge eveningwear the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats tiaras willem-alexander


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises