The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #681  
Old 07-28-2013, 08:09 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,468
That's because your perception is selective, Wayne James. You percieve what you want to perceive.

By the way, the husband of Count X is called Mr. X. The wife of baroness Y is called Mrs. Y. The husband of (female) camberlain Z is called Mr. Z. - You haven't done your homework.

I'm pleased that you as an American are proud you have abolished the concept of nobillity and royalty 200 years ago. Fair enough. It may not be the most endearing thing to say on a royal board and it could be interpreted perhaps as a teeny bit arrogant and dismissive.
However, I come from a country where we have had a monarchy for 1.200 years, that is 1.000 years longer than USA has been around - so who are you to say that your system is better?
So please, be less dimissive of how things work in other cultures and other countries.

Anyway, a politician as a head of state can perhaps live with being elected by 51 % of the voters and with the remaining 49 % hating his guts. These are however unacceptable figures for a monarch. - A monarch who may be around for another 25 years.
An non-political figure like a monarch must be accepted by the vast majority of the population or he is out - and endangering the very institution at the same time.
A modern monarch do not sit on the throne by right, but by the grace of the people.
Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

I don't understand how you can be dismissive of the concept of royalty while at the same time demand that monarchies conform to your set of values - preferably yesterday.
__________________

__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #682  
Old 07-28-2013, 08:55 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
You are missing the obvious point: Marriage equality means precisely that--Marriage EQUALITY. And if the wife of a count receives the courtesy title of "countess," then, in an equal world, the husband of a count must receive a courtesy title. The question is: WHAT WILL THAT TITLE BE. To say that "The husband of Count X is called Mr. X" is to completely disregard the notion of equality in a system where had that same Count X married a woman, she would have been given a courtesy title.

To say, "Well, traditionally, men cannot receive a title by marriage" is again to misunderstand the point. The point is that the tradition must now change to accommodate a new world. That new world is called "Marriage Equality."

Yes, 200 years.... And look at how far we have come. Much of that progress is due to the fact that we have created a system where people are able to achieve their full potential. They are not confined by assigned social strata. Clearly, our system that has done well for itself--so much so that people from all over the world (many of them from Great Britain) come to our shores in order to realize their dreams. For us, titles of nobility and royalty are, in effect, non-Christian. Bowing and curtsying to human beings and valuing one human over another is, in my humble opinion, a form of idolatry. It does not impress me as particularly Jesus-like. (After all, the Son of God himself would be called "Commoner" in England and would have to bow to Her Majesty The Queen). But that is the stuff for another thread.... LOL
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #683  
Old 07-28-2013, 09:32 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
You are missing the obvious point: Marriage equality means precisely that--Marriage EQUALITY. And if the wife of a count receives the courtesy title of "countess," then, in an equal world, the husband of a count must receive a courtesy title. The question is: WHAT WILL THAT TITLE BE. To say that "The husband of Count X is called Mr. X" is to completely disregard the notion of equality in a system where had that same Count X married a woman, she would have been given a courtesy title.

To say, "Well, traditionally, men cannot receive a title by marriage" is again to misunderstand the point. The point is that the tradition must now change to accommodate a new world. That new world is called "Marriage Equality."
On the contrary, you are missing the point. Royalty and nobillity are by their very nature about (more or less accepted) inequality.
A man marrying a reigning queen will get the title of prince consort. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but life sucks. He will nevertheless still be the second highest ranking man in the kingdom. - So does it matter that much.

If a count is displeased with his husband not getting the title of count, too bad. He can stop using the title altogether if it matters so much to him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne James View Post
Yes, 200 years.... And look at how far we have come. Much of that progress is due to the fact that we have created a system where people are able to achieve their full potential. They are not confined by assigned social strata. Clearly, our system that has done well for itself--so much so that people from all over the world (many of them from Great Britain) come to our shores in order to realize their dreams. For us, titles of nobility and royalty are, in effect, non-Christian. Bowing and curtsying to human beings and valuing one human over another is, in my humble opinion, a form of idolatry. It does not impress me as particularly Jesus-like. (After all, the Son of God himself would be called "Commoner" in England and would have to bow to Her Majesty The Queen). But that is the stuff for another thread.... LOL
Yeah okay, it is admirable that your country has overcome a number of hurdles on that road, so that you, now, can fullfill your potential. That aim is however also possible in other countries and I dare say even before that was fully possible in your country.

As for the Christian bit, well, I'm an atheist, so that doesn't bother me.
However one of the most important traditional roles of monarchs have been to defend and protect the church and the Christian faith. Monarchs in other religions also see it as one of their main roles to defend and follow the teachings of their particular religion.
And in some countries, including mine, the monarch is still the head of the dominant church. - So a monarchy not being compatibable to Christianity is I think a question of interpretation.
Also, I was under the impression that Jesus is often, symbollically, referred to as "king".

I was also under the impression that bowing and curtsying in our day and age was a way to show respect for the institution. You know, saluting the rank, but not necessarily the person.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #684  
Old 07-28-2013, 11:11 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 1,233
"Yet another cross for Great England to bear..... LOL .... "

I haven't followed the thread completely, but from this sentence alone i get the feeling this thread is not about emancipation of or equal rights for gay royalty, you just want to arouse a stir within the anglo-saxon world.... Because from the parts that i read, when you talk about "royalty" or about "president" you talk about the british royal family and the us-american president...

I think there are some people who have pointed out to you, Wayne James, (maybe in this thread, maybe in another, possibly even by me), that there already are gay royals (not in-the-closet gay royals, but openly living as such), and there already are gay politicians (not in the closet, openly gay politicians, fully accepted by their community).
A city not very far from where i live has a gay major and he and his husband are well known, respected for and occasionally criticized for their work (just as they would be had they been straight....after all, isn't that what emancipation of gay people is all about: that it doesn't matter anymore if one is gay or straight?)

But i guess that's not what you want hear, because otherwise: who'd want to read your book...
I'm guessing i'm just not your target audience
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #685  
Old 07-28-2013, 11:33 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 1,233
Maybe it's just me, but this whole discussion very much sounds to me like:

USA has finally made some steps in equal rights for gays (gay marriage etc.) and because the USA is OFCOURSE ahead on the rest in the world on EVERYTHING, now the rest of the world needs to get ready for gay rights too....

Personally, and no offence intended to anyone personally, I think the US-people has achieved many great things for the world, but on emancipation and equality, based on religion or race or sexual preference, in my opinion the USA is in no way ahead; if i'm completely honest, i even think that it is behind on a lot of countries, across the world...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #686  
Old 07-28-2013, 11:39 AM
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
If 10% of the world's population is "gay," then 10% of royals and aristocrats are "gay."
How do you figure that exactly?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #687  
Old 07-28-2013, 12:10 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
...When I was researching the styles of address for the various levels of nobility and royalty, I sought answers from the various peerage organizations around the world. They all had information on the forms of address for single and traditionally married nobles and royals, but NONE had ANY information or suggestions on how invitations to same-sex nobles and royals should be styled. Then one day, while engaged in my research, I happened upon this forum.

The long and short of it is that no one had any concrete answers or could give any significant guidance. The general response was, "We don't know. We suppose we will have to cross that bridge when we get there." Or "That will never come to pass."

The issue at this point is not whether gay aristocrats/royals will marry. That is a foregone conclusion in countries where same-sex marriage is legal. The issue for me...is: How will their spouses be styled?

At the foundation of same-sex marriage is the concept of marriage equality. So to suggest that the wife of Count X will be given a courtesy title of Countess X, but that the husband of Count X would be styled, "Mr. X" is, clearly, not in keeping with marriage equality. The system of nobility and royalty is by definition not a system of equality. But when that system collides with the concept of marriage equality, clearly there will have to be some reconciliation between the two ideas.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #688  
Old 07-28-2013, 12:22 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,468
In other words: You are making up titles.

It's the monarchs who decide what titles spouses of royals and nobels will have, if any. It's also the monarchs who come up with new titles. So instead of asking butlers, write a court.

If you are to promote your book on a serious royal forum, please have the curtesy not to present fiction as facts.

Good luck with your novel.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #689  
Old 07-28-2013, 12:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 1,233
Well, you assume that in a straight royal marriage there are automatically titles...there aren't,
In the Netherlands we have a Princess Margriet (sister of former Queen Beatrix) and her husband has no royal title and is just called Pieter van Vollenhoven (or occasionally by his professional title "Mr" (Meester, not Mister))...

Had Princess Margriet been a guy and gay, her/his husband would still have been called Pieter van Vollenhoven...

Princess Anne (brf) has been married twice and neither has a specific royal title (afaik her first husband was offered a peerage but he declined), so these guys were simply known as "Mark Phillips" and "Tim Lawrence" (especially the latter also with his professional title "Vice admiral").

So, in other words: you can assume that after you, Wayne James, were to marry Prince Harry, the two of you would be called Prince Harry and Wayne James.
If the Queen would see it fit to offer you a peerage; you might be Prince Harry and Earl Wayne James or something, but you cannot assume that, since, were you to marry Princess Anne, you couldn't count on a title either....

In other words, title-wise it will make no different if you, Wayne James (male) will marry Princess Anne or Prince Harry.
Were you a women (Waynette James) than titlewise we'd have a different discussion, but that is not what you are interested in, you want only the "guy spouse" option...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #690  
Old 07-28-2013, 12:27 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlOfDawleyMagna View Post
Why wait until somebody is brave enough to 'come out' and question the system. The system should already have something planned and agreed written into law ready for them. That is the meaning of true equality not just a wait and see attitude.
While I agree with what you're saying here, that really isn't how equality has worked in the past and certainly isn't how royalty and nobility has worked in the past. Rather than addressing issues that could come up in the future, succession and inheritance laws instead wait until they've actually come up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlOfDawleyMagna View Post
...in an age where marriage laws have been changed and homosexual couples can marry, decisions need to be made upon what a same sex partner will be styled. Since marriage was made legal for homosexual couples we also have the issue of existing gay couples who had civil partnerships now 'upgrading' to marriage status who have a partner with a title that their female counterpart would also adopt as in the case of Sir Elton John and Mr David Furnish. Why should Mr Furnish be denied the same right as his female counterpart based on sex?
You can look at this two ways: on the one hand the wife of a titled individual is entitled to a courtesy title based on their husband's title. On the other hand a man does not take the titles of his wife by courtesy.

I prefer to look at it the second way because it doesn't put a gay man into the position of "being the wife." A man does not take the titles of his spouse, regardless of what gender his spouse is. At the same time, a woman does not extend her titles to her spouse, regardless of what gender her spouse is.

It may not be "equality" but it's a discrimination based on gender, not sexuality, and is seen in the treatment of titles in same-sexed relationships as well.

If this were to be changed it would need to be changed overall - allowing for the titles spouse's partner to use the appropriate gendered titles by courtesy. Although, even then you run into problems as you can't have two Dukes of Y or Duchesses of X.

In all likelihood if Harry married a man (which I would say is unlikely in itself given his dating history. Even were he gay, it seems as though he's made the decision to pursue women) then letters patent would be issued granting the male partner titles of some form, similar to what happened when Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret married men - their husbands were granted titles. I would expect that Harry would be given a dukedom, similar to what his brother and uncle got, while the spouse would be given an Earldom and perhaps an HRH.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #691  
Old 07-28-2013, 12:40 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
It may not be "equality" but it's a discrimination based on gender, not sexuality, and is seen in the treatment of titles in same-sexed relationships as well.

This here, this is the answer to the question that started this thread "Gay royalty", as this thread is not about Gay royalty, it's about what titles you get when you marry into a royal family,

and this is indeed, as has been discussed in other threads on this forum, is a gender-inequality issue.
No use repeating what has been said elsewhere (and better)....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #692  
Old 07-28-2013, 12:56 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 28
The crown princess of Sweden married her Swedish personal trainer. But because she is a crown princess, a title was offered to her husband, and he accepted it. So now, he is the "Duke of Something." The crown princess' sister, however, recently got married to an American, but he declined an accept of a title. The rationale is that no royal should be married to someone without a title--unless that person declines the offer of a title. So the monarch creates a title for such persons. Based on that logic, then, if the Swedish prince, who is yet unmarried, were to marry a man, that man would be offered some title, which he could accept or decline.

As for non-royal nobility, however, the rules of peerage determine how titles are handled. And therein lies the problem. Unlike the case of the royalty, where the monarch creates a title when necessary (even if some governmental "approval" is necessary), the peerage relies on long-established rules, many of which did not even conceive of same-sex marriage when they were being created. But times, as they say, have changed....The peerage organizations have not established any protocols for same-sex marriage. But they need to. The issue is upon them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #693  
Old 07-28-2013, 01:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Wayne...as a US citizen you are not eligible to receive a title anyway so the question should really be moot.
Perhaps, instead of telling other countries how to deal with same sex marriage and titles, you should devote your energies to making same sex marriage legal throughout the US instead of just 13 states and DC.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #694  
Old 07-30-2013, 01:27 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Thread re-opened following editing and removal of recent self-serving posts.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #695  
Old 10-05-2013, 04:37 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 514
According to this wiki page
Frederick Francis III, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Grand Duke Friedrick Franz III of Mecklenburg Schwerin was homosexual but I cannot find any source for this information. DCoes any one have any knowledge of this?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #696  
Old 10-06-2013, 02:12 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
Gay marriage bill will make The Queen a lesbian!!!!!

I was watching this guy's clips..And this was a really hilarious one
__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #697  
Old 11-01-2013, 05:07 PM
EarlOfDawleyMagna's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Telford, United Kingdom
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
If this were to be changed it would need to be changed overall - allowing for the titles spouse's partner to use the appropriate gendered titles by courtesy. Although, even then you run into problems as you can't have two Dukes of Y or Duchesses of X. In all likelihood if Harry married a man (which I would say is unlikely in itself given his dating history. Even were he gay, it seems as though he's made the decision to pursue women) then letters patent would be issued granting the male partner titles of some form, similar to what happened when Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret married men - their husbands were granted titles. I would expect that Harry would be given a dukedom, similar to what his brother and uncle got, while the spouse would be given an Earldom and perhaps an HRH. .
That's exactly what I'm saying equality for all! Based on sexual preference and gender. If it's unequal then it should be made equal. Just because having two 'Dukes' etc is difficult does not make it an excuse to not come up with a different style of address for two 'Dukes' I actually think this issue is rather easily solved. Let's say Harry is given the title Duke Of Sussex He would be HRH The Duke Of Sussex His male partner could be HRH Prince Henry Duke Of Sussex As is customary in cases such as The Princess Michael Of Kent. Fairly simple really
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #698  
Old 11-01-2013, 05:30 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlOfDawleyMagna View Post
That's exactly what I'm saying equality for all! Based on sexual preference and gender. If it's unequal then it should be made equal. Just because having two 'Dukes' etc is difficult does not make it an excuse to not come up with a different style of address for two 'Dukes' I actually think this issue is rather easily solved. Let's say Harry is given the title Duke Of Sussex He would be HRH The Duke Of Sussex His male partner could be HRH Prince Henry Duke Of Sussex As is customary in cases such as The Princess Michael Of Kent. Fairly simple really
The problem is that there is a way that titles exist within heterosexual couples that doesn't translate into same-sex couples.

If John Smith and Jane Doe marry they become Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. If John Smith marries, instead, Jack Doe, they remain Mr. John Smith and Mr. Jack Doe (or become Mr. and Mr. Doe-Smith, or whatever they prefer).

Men don't take the titles of their spouses. Women don't give their titles to their spouses. The gender of the spouse here is irrelevant. Personally, I can't help but think that changing the system for Harry's (hypothetical) husband to make him an HRH would be an insult to the other men who have married into the BRF - notably Mark and Tim (who didn't receive titles at all), and Antony. Creating special titles isn't the way of creating equality. I believe that if the titles are going to be altered it should be so that women can give their spouse - regardless of gender - courtesy titles, and men can take - regardless of gender - courtesy titles from their spouse, although you still run into the problem of having two people using the same title in the case of same-sex nobles.

That said, were Harry to marry a man, I still think the best approach would be to treat him like Antony was treated, and create Harry a Duke and the spouse an Earl. The HRH would depend on whether or not said spouse wants to perform a royal role - if, like the DoE, he wants to, then make him an HRH, but if he prefers to stay out of it more, like Antony, Mark, and Peter, then don't.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #699  
Old 11-01-2013, 05:40 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlOfDawleyMagna View Post
actually think this issue is rather easily solved. Let's say Harry is given the title Duke Of Sussex He would be HRH The Duke Of Sussex His male partner could be HRH Prince Henry Duke Of Sussex As is customary in cases such as The Princess Michael Of Kent. Fairly simple really
This actually wouldn't be a solution at all.

Princess Michael of Kent is clearly a woman who married into the family, as denoted by her title. The same could not be said of Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. Then the question becomes are you talking about Harry or the spouse? This change just makes titles more confusing.

What's more is that if a change happens it should happen within the peerage not the royalty. If they figure out how to change it within the royalty by having the spouse take the royal's name as his title, like a woman, then the question still becomes what happens when the non-royal Duke of Wherever marries a man? However, if you change it so that there is a system in place where the non-royal Duke of Wherever marries a man and his spouse takes a title by courtesy, then there is a system in place for royal peerages as well.

Actually, thinking of it an easy solution would be for the spouse to take one of the titled partner's lesser titles; the Duke of Wherever is often also Earl of Somewhere. This is a custom usually reserved for the heir apparent, but because adopted children/children born out of wedlock can't inherit titles it could be a bit of a solution (at least until they address the issue of whether or not children born via surrogates can inherit titles).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #700  
Old 11-01-2013, 07:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,534
It is all nonsense. Either way, who cares what one is called if they are happy. Most royals are appendages to their nation's larger agenda. Harry is not gay, so he will have a wife. But someone might face this some day. In Spain they refer to the Dukes of Austrias. Some day it may be 2 dukes.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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 genealogy 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 poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris 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 wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:04 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]