The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #621  
Old 05-12-2013, 08:15 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 05-12-2013, 08:32 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 05-12-2013, 08:44 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,523
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?
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 05-12-2013, 08:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 05-12-2013, 08:59 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,900
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...
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 05-12-2013, 09:29 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 05-12-2013, 09:35 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
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.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 05-12-2013, 09:47 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,523
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 . And the media's reactions! 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.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 05-12-2013, 09:48 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 05-12-2013, 09:59 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
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 . And the media's reactions! 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.
Reply With Quote
  #631  
Old 05-12-2013, 10:05 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
I know 1 has happened before. I hope that in this day and age a monarch would not choose option 1. IMO it could be so disastrous especially if children were born. It's not a pleasant sight .
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 05-13-2013, 12:09 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
The type of people who say, "I am all for gay marriage--but not in the monarchy," sound very similar to the type of people who say, "I am all for interracial marriage-- but not in my family." Regarding interracial marriages, we have all heard the excuses: it is not good for the children; society isn't ready for it yet; give it time..... And now, we are hearing all the "justifications" as to why gay marriage might be good for the populace but not good for the monarchy and royals.....

When it is all said and done, it is called "Discrimination." And no culture, no history, no heritage justifies discrimination. When people are treated differently, there must be a valid reason for that disparity in treatment. And I am yet to read one, single, solitary, valid reason as to why a gay monarch should NOT be able to marry the person whom he/she loves. (I have heard "justifications" and "reasons," but none of them outweigh a person's right to private happiness).
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 05-13-2013, 12:33 AM
Princess Pillow's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Rome, United States
Posts: 23
I for one, look forward to the day when a gay royal is simply old and comfortable news.
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 05-13-2013, 01:06 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
A monarch essentially gives up the right to private happiness to become the servant of the people. If their private happiness leads them in a direction that is contrary to their peoples wishes they have 2 options,,,,give up that which is their private happiness or give up the throne.
However I dont think any of us have said gay marriage within any royal family could not happen, but we have pointed out that while same sex marriages may be legal they might still present problems in a royal family. That seems perfectly logical given the nature of monarchy. Heck, it would seem perfectly normal in a republic as well. I dont expect to see a same sex couple in the White House any time soon, despite the rumours about Barack and Michelle.
In the UK we only have one single male royal who seems very hetero in his tastes and you are really too old for him. Putting aside the whole gay issue, your political past in the USVI is perhaps a bit too colorful and would provide too many tales for the DM for you to really fit in with our Royal Family. Perhaps you should set your sites on Monaco since their standards are not quite so high and scandal not quite so bothersome although same sex marriage is not yet legal there. If there is anything to the idea that heredity might play a role in homosexuality well Prince Rainiers father, Prince Pierre, was gay and Grace's uncle George Kelly was gay so that might increase the odds of a gay Grimaldi-Casiraghi-Ducruet. Your USVI expense audit shows you have a liking for Mediterranean locales so Monaco might really be your best bet to marry a royal.
Reply With Quote
  #635  
Old 05-13-2013, 01:13 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Pillow View Post
I for one, look forward to the day when a gay royal is simply old and comfortable news.
I look forward to a gay first family in the White House but doubt that I will live that long. Still waiting to see first woman elected to the US presidency. Heck still waiting for same sex marriage to be legal in all 50 US states and recognized by the US Federal government.
Reply With Quote
  #636  
Old 05-13-2013, 02:25 AM
Princess Pillow's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Rome, United States
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
I look forward to a gay first family in the White House but doubt that I will live that long. Still waiting to see first woman elected to the US presidency. Heck still waiting for same sex marriage to be legal in all 50 US states and recognized by the US Federal government.

Wow, NGalitzine for you a Canadian/British resident to be so interested in my nation's politics is cool. I guess this is truly an International Forum great! Thank you
Reply With Quote
  #637  
Old 05-13-2013, 04:48 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,777
Ok, lets get back to basics. What's good for the public is good for the royal family I say. The royal family has the same legal rights as anyone else - and the monarch even more so.
The general issue concerning a gay heir to the throne seems to be acceptence. Ten years ago, the concept of the Prince of Wales marrying Camilla was hard to imagine, yet it happened. The government of the day saw no legal bar to a civil marriage on account of it being legal for everyone. The same would apply for a gay marriage (or as the case would be at the moment, a royal civil partnership). There could be no legal objection to the heir to throne entering into a civil partnership.
That in mind, what would the nation think? The nation would accept it - one reason being that the British Public would not accept a situation where an heir to the throne (or anyone else for that matter) would have to give up their rights on account of their sexuality.
The only fly in the ointment as I see it is the Church of England. However, in reality, the Church would have to accept it or be disestablished. The government would make the Church accept it especially if the heir in question were a practising Christian. If the Church wished to disestablish itself, then disestablished it will become.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #638  
Old 05-13-2013, 05:20 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,540
I disagree.

By the time Prince Charles wanted to marry Camilla, divorce was a common thing that had been normal since the 60's - for ordinary people. I.e. the working class and the middleclass, where many remained in loveless marriages because "one simply don't divorce".

Same-sex marriages is still very much a novelty. And a large segment of the population in any country are, if not opposed to it, then at least sceptical and hesitant about it.
It needs to become a well established and accepted thing among the population in the general then the royals can follow suit.
The reaction in the general public has to change from a current: "There goes His Majesty the Fairy and his Queenie. Good grief"! To a for royals more normal: "There goes the king and his consort. - Oh, those shoes look awful". - You get my meaning? That takes a little time.

It all boils down to allowing people to getting used to gay marriages and let them learn for themselves that it really isn't such a big deal.
But if you shove a major change like same-sex marriages within an institution like a monarchy, down the throats of the general public, then there will be a backlash.
Reply With Quote
  #639  
Old 05-13-2013, 05:47 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
The type of people who say, "I am all for gay marriage--but not in the monarchy," sound very similar to the type of people who say, "I am all for interracial marriage-- but not in my family." Regarding interracial marriages, we have all heard the excuses: it is not good for the children; society isn't ready for it yet; give it time..... And now, we are hearing all the "justifications" as to why gay marriage might be good for the populace but not good for the monarchy and royals.....

When it is all said and done, it is called "Discrimination." And no culture, no history, no heritage justifies discrimination. When people are treated differently, there must be a valid reason for that disparity in treatment. And I am yet to read one, single, solitary, valid reason as to why a gay monarch should NOT be able to marry the person whom he/she loves. (I have heard "justifications" and "reasons," but none of them outweigh a person's right to private happiness).
Yeah, yeah, when you run out of arguments you can always yell racism or discrimination. - Sorry, that don't work anymore.

You have been presented with pages up and pages down with arguments and explanations but you are not listening.
Try listen and try to understand what a monarchy is all about and what it means to people. You know precious little as it is now.

So far your attitude is pretty millitant and that does more harm for gay rights than good.
As a gay rights activist surely you know that acceptance don't come from day to day and why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that this also applies to monarchs?
Reply With Quote
  #640  
Old 05-13-2013, 07:16 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,341
I've been following this thread for the past few days and find the discussion very interesting. I'd like to take a stab at your question if I may.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post

Answer this question honestly:
Would the American people accept, embrace and elect a gay candidate, living openly with a gay partner (soon spouse) at the next election for president?
We assume here that his qualifications and politics is no different than if he was married to a woman.
Although the public worldwide is gradually coming to accept and perhaps even embrace those in same sex marriages, I really don't see an openly gay candidate for the office of President succeeding. If campaigns were run solely on the platforms of what the candidate hopes to accomplish during his term of office I would think there was a chance but IMO, political campaigns have turned mudslinging into an art form. Its more about how bad the other guy is. Being openly gay in this kind of environment is like giving the opposing camp and the moral majority a nuclear bomb to play with.

Acceptance is a slow process and social norms evolve as time passes. For many, it may be all well and good that same sex marriages are legal as long as it doesn't affect them. When it comes down to their own Head of State or Monarch that represents them, its a whole different kettle of fish.

Speaking as an old goat who grew up in the 50s and 60s, I am very pleased at the strides human consciousness has made in my lifetime to embrace human differences and inclinations. We're not there yet but heading in the right direction.
__________________

__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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 hat best outfit blatnik brunei catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events current events thread danish royal family death duarte duchess of cambridge fashion poll felipe vi game grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe and queen letizia king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander member introduction national day normandy norwegian royals opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard 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 style queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima gowns queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania in belgium queen rania in new york 2016 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 wreathoflaurels


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 04:19 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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