The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #641  
Old 05-13-2013, 08:20 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
The question is a simple one: In a country where same-sex marriage is the law of the land, can a monarch of that land marry someone of the same sex? That is the question. The question is not whether YOU THINK it is appropriate or not. The question is not whether YOU THINK it would be good for the people or for the monarchy. The question is also not whether YOU THINK it is in keeping with the nature of monarchy or with tradition. The question is: CAN a monarch of a country where same-sex marriage is the law of the land get married to someone of the same sex in that country?

Clearly, the answer is--and rightfully so--a resounding "YES"! Does it not impress you as utterly absurd that a general law on an issue as basic as the right to marry would apply to everyone in a land--except the monarch of that land? People may differ, from now until the end of time, over whether they "think" same-sex marriage is right or wrong, good or bad. But when the law of the land simply states that PEOPLE of the same sex can marry each other, then any PERSON (and the royals, believe it or not, are PEOPLE just like everyone else) can marry someone of the same sex.

Laws don't drop out the sky. People create laws which they, at the time of the creation of those laws, feel address their wants and needs. If the British people don't want their monarchs and royals to marry people of the same sex, then they have a simple solution before them: Write a law which states that everyone--except monarchs and royals--is entitled to marry someone of the same sex. (Of course, such a law would be, in my opinion, discriminatory since I can conceive or no valid reason for distinguishing between "royal" PEOPLE and "non-royal" PEOPLE vis a vis the right to marry whom they love. So such an exclusionary attempt would probably never make it into law in the first place).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #642  
Old 05-13-2013, 09:04 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
The question is a simple one: In a country where same-sex marriage is the law of the land, can a monarch of that land marry someone of the same sex? That is the question.
If that is your question, than the answer is Yes, in a country where same-sex marriage is legal, the monarch can enter such marriage (ofcourse... why ask really)

Since this is a forum about royalty and you have several times mentioned you like the open discussions and you mentioned you are new here, people in this thread, apart from just saying 'yes, of course the monarch can', have tried to inform you on the fact that royals ofcourse have the same rights as 'regular' citizens but also have to comply with many additional rules, like family house rules, stipulations in wills, religious rules etc.
This is obviously not what you are interested in

An example from my country (the netherlands, probably doesn't interest you either, but i'm going to type it anyway):
- same sex marriage is completely legalized and has existed for years (has exsted for so long that we already have same-sex divorces )
- if a royal wants to marry another person (regardless of gender, color, religion etc) AND this royal wants to remain a royal, the government of the country has to agree

The government will not prevent the marriage (nope, never), but if they for whatever reason don't agree the royal will loose his/her royal status while remaining a member of the royal family. The royal that chooses not to ask consent also chooses to loose the status (this happens more than you might think)
The marriage will continu just as the couple likes.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #643  
Old 05-13-2013, 09:11 AM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 891
Oh Jacknch.. you are back to square one. No one is telling a gay monarch has to give up his rights due to his sexuality. No one is telling it is against the law/idea of civil rights..We are all telling getting in a relationship(s), marrying and too much campaigning with regard to succession laws for their kids, all these should not happen all of a sudden..
Since you have perfectly given Charles-Camilla's example, let me explain you in that context only.At the time of wedding no one told Camilla is going to be the Queen. She did not use the titles which was rightfully hers. She maintained a very low profile. It was as if the only purpose of marriage was to keep Charles happy, and nothing to do with the country.
And going by this way, they slowly, steadily gained public trust and confidence to such an extent that now many if not all are okay with her being Queen..
This is the way it should happen with a gay heir/monarch. His partner should keep completely low profile in the beginning, no official titles/business/marriage..the royal in question should completely warm up to the nation by his personal work ethic and grace, then slowly, his partner will be accepted..
The idea is
WHENEVER U DO SOMETHING UNCONVENTIONAL, LIE LOW FIRST.
THEN DO OTHER THINGS WHICH U R VERY GOOD AT--A LOT, THEN SLOWLY COAXE PEOPLE INTO ACCEPTING YOUR UNCONVENTIONL SIDE..
I hope u understood. I have explained this several times here God knows if anyone understands this..Anyway..
__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #644  
Old 05-13-2013, 09:16 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
[QUOTE=Jacknch;1551123]Ok, lets get back to basics... QUOTE] I would argue that in practice the monarch and members of the BRF have fewer rights and much less freedom of choice than members of the public and in return they receive certain benefits and priveleges. Members of the public do not have to get approval for their marriages unlike the monarch and heir apparent. Members of the general public do not have to suffer the slings and arrows of public opinion and tabloids tales designed to stir public opinion in favour or against them based on the whims of editors and owners. Members of the public are not living in publically funded palaces. Members of the public are not required to belong to the CofE. Members of the public can vote in general elections. Members of the general public can tell other members of the public to just FO and ignore public opinion. Members of the general pblic are not representatives of the state. Monarchs serve at the sufferance of their people, and if the people dont like what you do you are out and perhaps the institution of monarchy with you.
Right now the CofE is very clear in its opposition to gay marriage. The governmemnt has made it clear that it has no intention of disestablishing the CofE, and in the poroposed legislation on same sex marriage has included a clause that would forbid the CofE from ever performing a same sex marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #645  
Old 05-13-2013, 09:30 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 question is a simple one: In a country where same-sex marriage is the law of the land, can a monarch of that land marry someone of the same sex?
That question has already been answered several times.
A monarch can marry whomever he/she wants but a monarch cannot be sure to remain a monarch if he does.

You don't seem to understand what a monarchy is all about. A monarch and his family belongs to the people. If a monarch does not have the approval of the people he is out. Period!
Rights and laws don't matter, it's the public opinion that matters.

In one of the most liberal monarchies in the world (Sweden) a prince is having considerable difficulty having his girlfriend accepted by the public because she has previously posed topless.
And you think a gay marriage to a monarch won't cause a major controversy? That's a very utopian attitude.
Reply With Quote
  #646  
Old 05-13-2013, 09:30 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
FYI Wayne James, if you do enter into a same sex marriage with one of our peers you do not acquire a title.
Reply With Quote
  #647  
Old 05-13-2013, 09:35 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Right now the CofE is very clear in its opposition to gay marriage. The governmemnt has made it clear that it has no intention of disestablishing the CofE, and in the poroposed legislation on same sex marriage has included a clause that would forbid the CofE from ever performing a same sex marriage.
I guess they may reach a compromise as here in DK, where we also have a state church. (Incidentally also with monarch as head of the church).
Homosexuals can get married in state churches (Lutheran), but individual priests are free to refuse to perform such a marriage.
As for other churches and religions, they can do what they want.
Reply With Quote
  #648  
Old 05-13-2013, 09:43 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
While conducting the research on 21st-century weddings, as pertaining to forms of address, I contacted various peerage organizations around the world. NONE of them had any protocol or could give any meaningful guidance/suggestions on the forms of address which will have to be established when royals and nobles marry people of the same sex. What is the husband of a count to be called? Count-Consort? How should the wife of a baroness in her own right to be addressed? Baroness-Consort? Lady X? And what title would the husband of a crown prince receive? Duke of X? No one, interestingly, had any idea..... It was as if they had never thought of the possibility. A few responded, eventually, "Well, that would never come to pass." (or other such responses, including, "Well, the nobles haven't even settled on the issue of adoption, so same-sex marriage is not even on the horizon for discussion"). In America, the husband of a male president or governor would probably be styled, "First Gentleman" (Just as the husband of a female president or governor); and the wife of female president or governor would probably be styled, "First Lady." I have received some tentative suggestions for the impending protocol adjustments from several gubernatorial staffs in the states in the U.S. where same-sex marriage is already law, but, clearly, the world has to catch up with this issue..... It is upon us. So we would be better off getting ready for it--rather than burying our heads in the sand and crying, "Oh dear God, yet another cross for Old England to bear..." LOL
Reply With Quote
  #649  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:09 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,094
Ah okay, so *this* was your issue to begin with
Well in my country even the fact that the wife (woman) of a male monarch automatically becomes the Queen has been questioned recently.... because a husband of female monarch doesn't become a king and why should that be different (in view of true emancipation, indeed wife of King should not be a Queen)

You seem surprised that protocol doesn't cover the issue yet, I'm not... these things often only get decided only when it actually happens...
Reply With Quote
  #650  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:10 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
Even in the countries where "approval" is "required" for royal weddings, lawmakers in a country where same-sex marriage is allowed would be hard-pressed to deny/disapprove a monarch's a right to use the very law those lawmakers have passed. (Just like laws don't drop out the sky, lawmakers don't either. They, too, have to answer to public opinion, lobbyists, public pressure, etc. Very few lawmakers would have the backbone to pass a same-sex law for the people, then withhold approval from a monarch who opts to utilize that same law). So not only will monarchs and royals be getting married to people of the same sex in such countries, no monarch in such countries will have to abdicate. The public wouldn't have it. The public isn't insane enough to tell a monarch, "WE can marry the person of our choice, but YOU can't). LOL
Reply With Quote
  #651  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:13 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,487
There is no great difficulty in determining such titles - there aren't any, unless given by a government or a monarch.
If Tom Smith marries the Count of Cutglass, he remains Tom Smith (he could always change his name by deed poll, but that won't give him a legitimate title).
If Tom marries a Crown Prince it would be up to that country's sovereign to create, or not create, a suitable title.
That's about all there is to it.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:17 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
Even in the countries where "approval" is "required" for royal weddings, lawmakers in a country where same-sex marriage is allowed would be hard-pressed to deny/disapprove a monarch's a right to use the very law those lawmakers have passed. (Just like laws don't drop out the sky, lawmakers don't either. They, too, have to answer to public opinion, lobbyists, public pressure, etc. Very few lawmakers would have the backbone to pass a same-sex law for the people, then withhold approval from a monarch who opts to utilize that same law). So not only will monarchs and royals be getting married to people of the same sex in such countries, no monarch in such countries will have to abdicate. The public wouldn't have it. The public isn't insane enough to tell a monarch, "WE can marry the person of our choice, but YOU can't). LOL
You are completely fixated on this same marriage thing, apparently you guys in the US are not as accustomed to that yet as people elsewhere on this planet...
And your book has 200 pages of this? Did you already choose a lead actor for when Hollywood turns the book into a movie LOL
Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:21 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
I am in agreement with the member from the Netherlands. The rights and privileges and titles conferred to women and men who marry royalty and nobility should be equal in a truly equal society. But herein lies the BIG PROBLEM: The royalty and aristocracy have NEVER been about being fair and egalitarian. LOL. Those institutions have ALWAYS been about privilege, hierarchy, exclusivity, etc. Merit and fairness have little place in the concept of nobility. So to expect "fairness" and "equality" from a system of royalty and aristocracy is counterintuitive.

The Dutch people are thinking along rational lines. Bravo to the Dutch! And bravo to the Dutch for being brave enough to allow same-sex marriage over a decade ago.
Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:22 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
The public wouldn't have it. The public isn't insane enough to tell a monarch, "WE can marry the person of our choice, but YOU can't). LOL
Why not, they have done it with straight marriages why not with same sex marriages? In 1936 the British government threatened to resign if Edward VIII went ahead with his plans to marry a twice divorced woman. An ordinary citizen would have had no problems entering into such a marriage in 1936. More recently the Dutch government advised HRH Prince Friso of The Netherlands that they would not approve his marriage to Mabel. He went ahead with the marriage, lost his place in the line of succession and lost his title Prince of The Netherlands. An ordinary Dutch man would have encountered no such problems in marrying Mabel, but for a prince it was different. The public tell monarchs and their families all the time what they find acceptable or unacceptable behaviours for a royal, even if similar behaviours in their own families are less troublesome.
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:26 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
There is no great difficulty in determining such titles - there aren't any, unless given by a government or a monarch.
If Tom Smith marries the Count of Cutglass, he remains Tom Smith (he could always change his name by deed poll, but that won't give him a legitimate title).
If Tom marries a Crown Prince it would be up to that country's sovereign to create, or not create, a suitable title.
That's about all there is to it.
Okay, this right here is all you need in that chapter in the book
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:28 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
1936 was a LONNNNNNNNNG time ago.... And in the more recent case in the Netherlands, did HRH Prince Frisco LOSE his place in the line of succession or did he GIVE UP his place in the line of succession?
Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:32 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
1936 was a LONNNNNNNNNG time ago.... And in the more recent case in the Netherlands, did HRH Prince Frisco LOSE his place in the line of succession or did he GIVE UP his place in the line of succession?
He chose not to ask consent, because it was made quite clear to the couple that consent would not be given.
So basically both LOL

(reason for this had nothing to do with sexual preference, gender, color or religion)
Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:36 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,487
Personal, irrelevant, and self-aggrandising posts have been - and will continue to be - edited or removed.
Could members please keep to the topic of "Gay Royalty" and resist the temptation to insert themselves into hypothetical and/or unlikely scenarios.

thanks,

Warren
Admin
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:41 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
...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.
OK, so if we take gay marriage/civil partnership out of the equation, we are left simply with a gay heir/monarch, which I believe will be accepted as per my previous post by everyone but the CoE (who will presumably only accept it on the condition that the said heir/monarch remains single). It is not a case of shoving anything down anyone's throats because in practice, a gay heir/monarch is not suddenly going to appear one day and immediately get married - knowing our heirs, they will be well into their 30's by the time they can find anyone suitable and we will have known he or she is gay for years before that.

In any event, by the time we actually have a gay heir/monarch, I think same-sex marriage/civil partnerships will have been established for many years, so in effect all this argument is going to have been a waste of time!
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:42 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 512
In the Netherlands you have two good examples

Queen Maxima is only 'Queen' by courtesy; she never was Princess of Orange; her husband was Prince of Orange and now her daughter is Princess of Orange. (Same rights for both sexes).

When prince Friso wanted to marry Mabel; parliament withheld consent - so he had to give up his succession rights.

There is a big difference between things you can legally do - and things which are socially accepted. (You are allowed to get drunk in public... You are allowed to pick your nose in public ... are clean your teeth etc. ) If you are John Smith you can have strip-poker in Las Vegas and no on cares - if you are Prince Harry...

... or as the old Romans said: Quod licet jovis, non licet bovis.

Probably you are writing here only to promote your book or having written such a book you really feel, that you understand the matter thoroughly
__________________

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 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 harald 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 02:57 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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