The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #701  
Old 11-01-2013, 08:53 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,250
The fairest way to go would be to do what other countries (e.g. Spain - I know a rare example of them getting something right) and saying if a person marries (civilly or otherwise in this case) a person then they take on their title in the form (male of female ) that suits them
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 01-05-2014, 12:48 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,288
An adopted son in one of Italy’s oldest and wealthiest clans, Prince Jonathan Doria Pamphilj can expound on the many glories and scandals in his family’s history. But now, in the view of some Roman aristocrats, including his sister, Princess Gesine, he has exposed the family to a distinctively 21st-century crisis—by having two children with his male civil partner. Amid the art treasures of the Palazzo Doria Pamphilj, James Reginato hears about family strife and love, as well as the latest threat to their shared inheritance.

How Prince Jonathan Doria Pamphilj Disrupted Roman Aristocracy by Having Children with His Male Partner | Vanity Fair
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 01-23-2014, 08:36 AM
The Last Baron's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 2
No results

Quote:
Originally Posted by Count View Post
When you ask to Omanians why the Sultan has not sons, the answer you receive is: "because he dedicated his whole life to the benefit of the Country and Omanians". They really love Sultan Qaboos, and if you go there you see how much he did and does for the country.
He married a cousin and tryied to have sons, unfortunately with no results, she lives now in the UK, as far as I know.
6-month marriages usually do not produce results.

It is customary in the Middle East to marry even first cousins, just in case anyone is wondering. And yes, there is a higher incidence of birth defects, but try to convince people here that it maybe marrying your cousin that's at fault and they will stare at you in disbelief or laugh outright at the notion...
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 01-23-2014, 09:12 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 17,640
First cousin marriages were not uncommon in the Western world until a century ago or so either. Not only among royalty and nobility but also among the bourgeoisie.
Since no children came from the marriage, we will never know in what offspring it may have resulted. In general a marriage to a cousin once is not a problem, but several generations of inbreeding is.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 01-24-2014, 10:46 AM
The Last Baron's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
First cousin marriages were not uncommon in the Western world until a century ago or so either. Not only among royalty and nobility but also among the bourgeoisie.
Since no children came from the marriage, we will never know in what offspring it may have resulted. In general a marriage to a cousin once is not a problem, but several generations of inbreeding is.
Actually, legislation forbidding marriages as close as first cousins has been on the books in many countries since the 1850s, which did not entirely negate the custom in many Western countries.

Having lived in Kuwait and Oman now for some time now, there are many instances here where the marriage of first cousin to first cousin has and does result in hydrocephalus and other similarly distressing diseases in the offspring. Most Gulf countries have a higher rate of birth defects than others, not necessarily because of generations of inbreeding.

As for the ruler of Oman, a six month marriage is unlikely to have resulted in offspring and the divorce was supposedly welcomed by both parties. This, and the fact that the Sultan never remarried, even though under Islam that would have been no problem (just as he is entitled to have up to four wives simultaneously), and if there had been the will, there would have been offspring.

While this is circumstantial and speculative at best (as is the entire thread), there is sufficient anecdotal press around the world to allow people to conclude that he may in fact be gay.
__________________
The Last Baron
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 01-24-2014, 11:36 AM
Victorian-Dandy's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: York, United Kingdom
Posts: 83
I'm glad I finally got around to reading through this thread.

As an openly gay male I would love to see some openly gay British Royalty but deep down I also realise that the chances of that ever happening are the same as me suddenly waking up in the morrow a strapping six footer.

Also I would think it would a nightmare for any openly gay British Royal simply due to how the British press conduct themselves...ie very badly. It seems that should any male royal remain single beyond the age of 30 the rumours start "is he or isn't he gay".

I can remember reading in some newspaper/gossip mag many years ago, that very same thing being said about Prince Michael of Kent with "well considering how his father was would it be surprising if he was the same" tagged onto it all because his father Prince George was promiscuous with both sexes. His son Freddie was also labelled as being gay because he worked with and posed for a gay mag, which we now know to be wrong, if anything Lord Frederick Windsor is bisexual.

So personally while I'd adore seeing more openly gay royalty, I can totally understand why we don't due to how the press and the general public may react.
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 02-15-2014, 08:04 AM
ff462's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 64
I sent a letter to Queen Elizabeth II expressing my respect for her and so on but I also asked her why nobody in the royal family supports any LGBT charities or organisations when they support so many other charities.

I got a reply today from the senior correspondence officer telling me that the Queen supports ''a broad range of charities'' and that I can find out more on the website (which contains nothing about LGBT matters). This is very frustrating because they recognised in their reply that I was asking about LGBT charities but then didn't answer the question...

Should I write back and ask for a real answer?
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 02-15-2014, 09:03 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ff462 View Post
I sent a letter to Queen Elizabeth II expressing my respect for her and so on but I also asked her why nobody in the royal family supports any LGBT charities or organisations when they support so many other charities.



I got a reply today from the senior correspondence officer telling me that the Queen supports ''a broad range of charities'' and that I can find out more on the website (which contains nothing about LGBT matters). This is very frustrating because they recognised in their reply that I was asking about LGBT charities but then didn't answer the question...



Should I write back and ask for a real answer?

No reply is a polite response indicating monarchy and government are not joined by the hips. No need to insist you'll get nowhere.
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 06-07-2015, 03:28 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1
So there it is! The best evidence of gay love in royal families!
Who would guess it involves muslim countries? https://youtu.be/XN2gFZEp6jE
Unbelievable!
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 09-20-2015, 06:56 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 75
Imagining that Prince Harry was gay and wanted to marry a man. That would be well accepted in British society today? Would be detrimental to the monarchy?
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 09-20-2015, 07:23 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,209
I'm surprised there haven't been rumours that Harry was gay as "he's not married yet". Edward was hounded for years for being gay because he wasn't married and didn't seem interested in marrying, even though he had many girlfriends but he chose to keep them hidden from the public. People nowadays still say he is gay and his marriage is a cover up. If that were true, which I doubt it is, it's sad that someone in this day and age cannot be who they want to be simply because of an accident of birth.

Harry is 31 and not even close to marriage and yet the rumour of homosexuality has never been made about Harry. He's had many girlfriends so is said to be a playboy, when that could in actual fact be a cover for the fact that he is gay and can't settle down?

I can't imagine the monarchy would be affected hugely if he were gay, particularly at a time when the monarchy are trying to modernise. Alan Turing, a man who was convicted of gross indecency with a man in the 50's (as homosexuality was illegal until the 1960's), and who was a huge part in the code breaking during the war, as well as being one of the first computer scientists, received a royal pardon from the Queen in 2014 for his conviction. This was a way of apologising to Alan who sadly committed suicide because of his conviction in 1954. This could be seen as a way of supporting LGBT from a modern monarchy.
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 09-20-2015, 07:30 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,363
Well Harry hasn't kept his girlfriends hidden so that's going to help the spread of rumors.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 09-20-2015, 07:33 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 75
Harry was just an example I gave. Could have talked of another Prince. A situation like this would be accepted into monarchy today?
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 09-20-2015, 08:07 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Catania, Italy
Posts: 76
It's curious to see that out of 11 European monarchies, 7 are countries who have already legalized same sex marriage; then you have Great Britain where is legal everywhere but in Northen Ireland, Liechtenstain that has registered partnerships since 2011, Monaco where a bill about it will be discussed in autumn, and the Holy See, ok, we know how they see it.

Anyway, they wouldn't definitely be seen as ill or immoral, by the majority of people at least, but I'm not sure how having a public partner, getting married, adopting children would be considered. I can see this happening in The Netherlands, or in Denmark where the Church of Denmark even performs same-sex weddings.
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 10-24-2015, 02:57 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 13
in terms of children being illegitimate, would anything be wrong if the royal member got married to the mother of the child and then had an annulment and married their same sex partner and the partner adopted the child? It wouldn't be born out of wedlock and and i don't see how you could say it shouldn't inherit titles or positions or things like that
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 10-24-2015, 03:11 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisLegendaryMajest View Post
in terms of children being illegitimate, would anything be wrong if the royal member got married to the mother of the child and then had an annulment and married their same sex partner and the partner adopted the child? It wouldn't be born out of wedlock and and i don't see how you could say it shouldn't inherit titles or positions or things like that

Legally or morally?

Legally, a person can get married, have a child, get divorced, marry someone else, and still have the child be eligible to inherit whatever titles are at play - William and Harry are still in the succession despite their parents' divorce, as are Peter and Zara, Beatrice and Eugenie, David and Sarah.

Morally, however, I think people might not be on board with a royal marrying a person just so that they could have a child, then divorcing them once said child is born so that they could marry their same sex partner. Using a person that way isn't really viewed as acceptable these days.

A better solution would be to change the rules regarding surrogacy and legitimacy, so that a child born via a surrogate is the legal child of the parent(s) the surrogate is carrying the child for, and is recognized as born in wedlock if said parents are married. Eligibility to titles becomes a little more complicated because of the DNA aspect of things, but really if a married, same sex couple has a child and the biological parent is the one who contributed the DNA for the child to be conceived then why shouldn't they be eligible to inherit whatever titles are at play?
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 10-24-2015, 05:15 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,928
The problem with children from same-gender couples is that a third person is needed for the conception. In a country as the Netherlands an Act of Parliament is needed (Act of Consent). This Act says that Parliament approves the royal marriage of X with Y and that possible fruit of the union between X and Y are legitimate successors to the throne.

When Prince X marries a Mr Y but ask a Ms Z to bear his child, then both Ms Z and their child are outside this legal bond and per definition the child is no "fruit of the marriage between Prince X and Mr Y".

When Princess A marries a Ms B but ask a Mr C to create their child, then Mr C and their child are outside this legal bond and per definition the child is no "fruit of the marriage between Princess A and Ms B".

So the equal gender marriage on itself will not be the biggest problem. Possible offspring from that marriage, which will always require a ménage-à-trois, no matter it is done in a laboratory, always will be a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 10-24-2015, 08:36 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Legally or morally?

Legally, a person can get married, have a child, get divorced, marry someone else, and still have the child be eligible to inherit whatever titles are at play - William and Harry are still in the succession despite their parents' divorce, as are Peter and Zara, Beatrice and Eugenie, David and Sarah.

Morally, however, I think people might not be on board with a royal marrying a person just so that they could have a child, then divorcing them once said child is born so that they could marry their same sex partner. Using a person that way isn't really viewed as acceptable these days.

A better solution would be to change the rules regarding surrogacy and legitimacy, so that a child born via a surrogate is the legal child of the parent(s) the surrogate is carrying the child for, and is recognized as born in wedlock if said parents are married. Eligibility to titles becomes a little more complicated because of the DNA aspect of things, but really if a married, same sex couple has a child and the biological parent is the one who contributed the DNA for the child to be conceived then why shouldn't they be eligible to inherit whatever titles are at play?
Legally its all right i know that, and morally it can be seen as wrong. But if it was to be done as say a business deal where the person outside the royal family is aware they are being paid for their service, then is that still morally wrong? Just like parents paying a nanny to raise their child for them, is that morally wrong considering the parents should raise the child?
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 10-24-2015, 08:57 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisLegendaryMajest View Post
Legally its all right i know that, and morally it can be seen as wrong. But if it was to be done as say a business deal where the person outside the royal family is aware they are being paid for their service, then is that still morally wrong? Just like parents paying a nanny to raise their child for them, is that morally wrong considering the parents should raise the child?
I don't think the issue is with the outside-person themselves (ofcourse assuming it would be with mutual consent); but rather with the fact that this is done in one of the few situations on earth were parental lineage is actually still a big deal: the hereditary monarchy.
It is therefore not comparable with a nanny, tutor or child's nurse or whatever as the upbringing of the child does not have an impact on the continuation of the monarchy, the parentage does and in fact is one of the few things that actually make the difference..
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 10-24-2015, 04:52 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Morally, however, I think people might not be on board with a royal marrying a person just so that they could have a child, then divorcing them once said child is born so that they could marry their same sex partner. Using a person that way isn't really viewed as acceptable these days.
Yes, I think using a person this way would be frowned upon. At least I hope it would.

Quote:
A better solution would be to change the rules regarding surrogacy and legitimacy, so that a child born via a surrogate is the legal child of the parent(s) the surrogate is carrying the child for, and is recognized as born in wedlock if said parents are married. Eligibility to titles becomes a little more complicated because of the DNA aspect of things, but really if a married, same sex couple has a child and the biological parent is the one who contributed the DNA for the child to be conceived then why shouldn't they be eligible to inherit whatever titles are at play?
This makes perfect sense to me. A child born to a married woman is deemed to be her husband's child and legitimate, so why can't the rules be changed to accommodate same sex marriages and surrogacy? As long as the one whose DNA is relevant to the inheritance is one of the parents, it shouldn't matter who the other parent is.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
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
Queen Silvia's Family and Siblings - The Sommerlaths NJRedDevils King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia 51 11-30-2016 04:22 PM
Precedence - Who Outranks Who? Huddo Royal Ceremony and Protocol 131 09-06-2016 08:50 PM




Popular Tags
albania ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king abdullah ii in new york 2016 king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathilde fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion 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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:26 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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