LHBTQ+ Royalty


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Do these modern "marriages" between same sex couples have to be ended in a legal divorce? If not, they should not be called marriages. I would like to see same sex couples treated the same as heterosexual couples, in the fact that to end a marriage there must be a legal divorce, with all the attendant child custody problems, etc.
I had no idea there was so much stuff going on in royal families in the past.
 
KittyAtlanta said:
Do these modern "marriages" between same sex couples have to be ended in a legal divorce? If not, they should not be called marriages. I would like to see same sex couples treated the same as heterosexual couples, in the fact that to end a marriage there must be a legal divorce, with all the attendant child custody problems, etc.
I had no idea there was so much stuff going on in royal families in the past.
Click to expand...

Yes, in Spain, Canada, and Massachusetts, where I have explored this topic (divorce among same-gender couples), friends there say that there are divorce proceedings. The only complications are what you would expect... child custody and dividing joint assets. No difference then with heterosexual marriages.


I would expect no difference between a married gay royal or high noble. Except in so far as if a gay prince became king, what would his spouse be known as? Probably a 'prince-consort' and 'duke of something'. The wife of a gay queen? Would she be given a courtsey title of queen-consort? This I do not know. In the example a few posts above, the widow of the late 21st Duchess of Medina Sidonia in the Spanish peerage is known as the Dowager Duchess of Medina Sidonia.
 
Last edited:
I don't know whether the laws have changed, but I do remember there being problems with homosexual divorce in the beginning because of the wording of the divorce laws. The child-care issue could be a very tricky one, because usually the mother has custodial rights and it's up to the father to show her as incompetent or dangerous to the child. So if there are two "mothers" in the marriage, or two "fathers", what's the court to do unless there's joint custody?

Keystone said:
Yes, in Spain, Canada, and Massachusetts, where I have explored this topic (divorce among same-gender couples), friends there say that there are divorce proceedings.
Click to expand...
 
Mermaid1962 said:
I don't know whether the laws have changed, but I do remember there being problems with homosexual divorce in the beginning because of the wording of the divorce laws. The child-care issue could be a very tricky one, because usually the mother has custodial rights and it's up to the father to show her as incompetent or dangerous to the child. So if there are two "mothers" in the marriage, or two "fathers", what's the court to do unless there's joint custody?
Click to expand...


I think it has become easier with time and indeed, I know in Spain new lanaguage clarifying custody issues was introduced after the gay marriage law was passed and revealed those concerns.

It depends on jurisdiction of course, and how much of a role the birth mother (or biological mother in the case of artificial fertilization of an egg, then implantation into a surrogate) has in the life of the child. But in this case, there is no difference between a gay couple or a heterosexual couple, as in both cases non-birth parent(s) are considered a parent in those jurisdictions.

I admit I do not know all of the nuances involved in all of the jurisdictions. But suffice to say that you could have a heterosexual couple who had a surrogate mother for their child and still end up in the same complicated custody case as a gay couple in the same situation.

What interests me for a gay royal couple is the heir of a gay king or gay queen?

Say, if a gay king and his prince consort decide to have a child. One would imagine the gay king would use his sperm to fertilize a donor egg, and place that egg in a surrogate. Once the baby is born would it be an heir or considered a bastard? Likewise, if a gay queen were fertilized by a donor sperm.

I think under current law for various monarchies, since the birth parents were not married to each other, the child would be considered ‘illegitimate’ in terms of inheritance and disqualified from the succession. This would mean some additional amendment to Spain, or Denmark, or Norway, or even Canada, would need to be enacted to allow the child to be legally considered in the line of succession. Previously in Monaco there was an option for adoption, but I think this was removed when the principality adopted male preference cognatic primogeniture (why they just didn't adopt absolute primogeniture I will never know!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once again, a reminder that posts repeating unsubstantiated "rumours" will be deleted.

Warren
TRF Administrator
 
jrhino said:
I think that in this day and age it is about time for gay members of the royal families to be proud of their sexuality and not hide behind sham marriages that ,more often than not, produce children who grow up without a true sense of family unity.
As a gay man myself, I would be proud to marry a male member of a royal family and stand by his side... also to produce children with him. Maybe I am lucky that both of sisters have said ,upon my marriage, they would donate eggs to mix with my husbands sperm to produce biological kids. However I can't be the ONLY gay man who has sisters who would do this. In my opinion, gay royals should be able to marry the person they love... weather they are heirs to the throne or not!
Click to expand...

I agree totally! Not only the children can be harmed, but the spouse as well, who usually has no idea her husband (or his wife) is gay, or may have been told but doesn't realize what that will mean in her marriage.

I was married to a gay man. We married somewhat young, before he understood that our church's teachings that you can "pray it away" were wrong. These marriages lead to a lot of heartbreak, on both sides. Too many men are afraid to come out and tell their wives the truth, so the unhappiness goes on. Fortunately, my husband was honest with me, we got divorced and later became close friends.

A gay monarch marrying a woman just to produce an heir is terrible, just using her as a brood mare. Much, much better to accept reality, and come out and marry someone of your own gender whom you can truly love. I hope that for anyone, including royalty.

I think that is wonderful that your sisters are volunteering to help you have children.
 
Being gay would not affect someone's ability to rule. However, the reaction to an heir to the throne who stated that they were gay would be very strong. I imagine some people would call for the ouster of that person. I would imagine religious leaders would have something to say about that. It would probably shake the monarchy to its very foundations if something like this occurred. Any heir to the throne would have to marry and produce children within that marriage. Otherwise it would go to the next in line or the next person who was eligible. This is according to most laws on the books regarding royal succession.
 
I doubt that there no gay royals today,some say that they cover themselves.
 
Several years ago, I read an interesting online article about old British noble families, and the article mentioned that among the bluebloods the need to ensure the continuation of the line was paramount for the family name. So the marriage of gay aristocrats happens. They do their duty for the family and then live their own lives discreetly while the wives raise the kids and have the social position.

We who have regular lives may not always agree with the fairness of this, but it is a fact of life.

This has been a facinating thread and confirms theories that I have held for a long time. Royals and aristocrats are certainly different from you and me.
 
Agreed mammacats. In today's world this person would have the option of divorcing as it's really not fair to the woman that they marry to have a secret life. They still would live discreetly but they wouldn't be living a lie by staying married. The only way that this would remain secret would be when they divorced, the wife would keep her social position.
 
In certain tribes, their ruler(s) are "gay" and have lovers and spouses who are both men and women. They have the women spouses for children, and the men spouses for love. There is only one tribe in the world where their leader is homosexual and the rules say that his husband will be "Prince Consort." Hope this helps.
 
TrueGayKing said:
In certain tribes, their ruler(s) are "gay" and have lovers and spouses who are both men and women. They have the women spouses for children, and the men spouses for love. There is only one tribe in the world where their leader is homosexual and the rules say that his husband will be "Prince Consort." Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Curious what tribe is this? I do think though that even with all the strides made in the area of gay rights it would still be very difficult for a person to come out. In fact the stigma they face may be so great that they may never come out. I don't even think that being from a European royal family would change any of that just because the press is less respectful of the royal families in Europe than the local press that reports on the middle east or Asia.
 
branchg said:
In the progressive Scandinavian monarchies, I think the people would accept an openly gay sovereign. Possibly it would be OK in the Netherlands too. I doubt it would be accepted in Spain or Monaco (even though rumors about Prince Albert have been around for years).
Click to expand...
Nonsense! If anything, Spain has become one of the most progressive countries in the world when it comes to LGBT issues. King Juan Carlos refused to yield to the Spanish Catholic hierarchy's request to decline signing the royal decree that allowed same-sex marriages in Spain. Mind you, Spain was the third European nation to do this, just after the Netherlands and Belgium, and years before Sweden and Norway (Denmark hasn't got full-equality legislation for gays so far). If anything, a hypothetical openly gay Spanish Prince would face the very same problems associated with every monarchy: producing an heir to the throne.
 
KittyAtlanta said:
Do these modern "marriages" between same sex couples have to be ended in a legal divorce? If not, they should not be called marriages. I would like to see same sex couples treated the same as heterosexual couples, in the fact that to end a marriage there must be a legal divorce, with all the attendant child custody problems, etc.
I had no idea there was so much stuff going on in royal families in the past.
Click to expand...
Why the need to use quotation marks ("") when referring to same-sex unions as marriages? That's what they are in full right in the countries where they are allowed. And yes, these marriages can end in a legal divorce, just like any other marriage.
 
Mermaid1962 said:
I don't know whether the laws have changed, but I do remember there being problems with homosexual divorce in the beginning because of the wording of the divorce laws. The child-care issue could be a very tricky one, because usually the mother has custodial rights and it's up to the father to show her as incompetent or dangerous to the child. So if there are two "mothers" in the marriage, or two "fathers", what's the court to do unless there's joint custody?
Click to expand...
In those cases, a court would obviously not decide to favour one sex over the other. It would rule based on the child's best interest and the parent's merits and/or abilities to obtain the custody.
 
I'll start off by saying that it's great that we can have a thead as frank as this on here. There are some sites where it would be a recipe for disater to talk about sexuality.

*turns sheet over* now on to my opinion. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of a LGBT Royal, be they The Sovereign, The Heir, or a peripheral member of the Family. Sure no direct heirs can be produced, but The Throne or the Peerage can easily go to a Niece or Nephew, as many on here have already said.

As for whether or not such a Royal would be accepted, I could see the public being accepting of a LGBT peripheral Royal, in a more progressive country, but I'm not so sure about how accepting they would be of a LGBT Heir or Monarch. I might be wrong, though, and I hope I am. I can't see any of the associated Churches* wanting anything to do with a homosexual relationship. The Church of England wouldn't even give Charles and Camilla a Wedding as opposed to just a Blessing. This would unfortunately make it very difficult for an openly gay Royal to keep their place in the line of succession, but again I might be wrong. Plenty of Monarchies have made gay Marraige (or at least Civil Partnerships) legal.

Despite my doubts, I do hope that Royalty takes this next step. This is the twenty-first century, now. Why should being gay be any different to being infertile, or opting not to marry? (not asking anyone on here, just making the point) Sexuality is just one part of a person (obvious but true) and it's pathetic that marrying someone of the opposite sex is ideal, while marrying someone of the same sex (or at least declaring you are attracted to members of the same sex) will almost certanly cost you your place in the line of succession. Noone can stop a Royal from being gay. They can only be stripped of certain rights if they admit it to themself, their Family, and their country. The dinosaurs who would be mortfied if anyone in any Royal line of succession came out as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, are probably tolerating a LGBT Royal, without even knowing it. History shows us that a Royal can be gay without calling up alot of media outlets, standing on the Palace rooftop, and shouting "It makes me physically ill to look at the genitallia of the opposite gender!" There have been alot of LGBT Royals (as the Wikipedia list shows)and there will continue to be. There's just never been a Royal who has come out, and been treated no differently for it.

On another note, would it be too contentious or off topic to bring up the possibility of an intersex baby being born into a Royal Family? Even in Countries with equal primogeniture, how would a baby with both Male and Female genitals be titled? Would the baby be given an operation? (pretending it isn't required for survival) It's an unlikely scenario, but not not an impossible one.

Ramble over ;)

*Emphasis on associated. I'm not lumping all religion together.
 
Last edited:
I don't doubt anything you are saying but I do think that he will take a brave person to come out. There may even be gay royals right now that we know nothing about. To come out on a global stage is a huge deal, I would guess, and some people may not beagle to do it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great information here, special thanks to Keystone for the information about the Spanish Duchess.

Many gay people go ahead and get married and even have children, it's very hard to know who is gay unless they tell us (and it's none of our business, really). But it would be very cool if royals could live their lives openly and in freedom, too.
 
PrincessKaimi said:
Great information here, special thanks to Keystone for the information about the Spanish Duchess.

Many gay people go ahead and get married and even have children, it's very hard to know who is gay unless they tell us (and it's none of our business, really). But it would be very cool if royals could live their lives openly and in freedom, too.
Click to expand...

It might even help other people accept themselves more if they saw someone living an open life, but I also understand why some people do not chose to do so.
 
The main obstacle, I believe, is the officialdom. If a Sovereign isn't the head of a particular Church, they are linked to it. That's not to say that all religion is bigotted, or that every member the public would be accepting, but I can truly imagine that if a Royal came out, the public would generally be accepting, while the relevent Church would not allow them to keep their place in the line of succession.
 
Statistically, there is a high probability that one of the princes or princesses set to inherit a throne is in fact, gay. There is a also a high probability that one of the current crowned heads is gay, but could never be open about it. And there is even a higher probability that--just an example--a couple like Kate and William could have a gay son or daughter.

Now, whether they would ever be able to live their lives openly is up for some serious debate.
 
Through the past millenia they have been many gay royals, but none of them open, of course. Our society isn't ready to accept a gay head of state whether they be elected or royal.

For example, fifty years ago if someone had suggested the idea of a black president they would have been considered lunatics but now it was welcome with open arms. People couldn't wait to have a black president.

So, maybe, fifty years from now people will love the idea of an openly gay royal but now it would be too controversial.
 
Has anyone met or know anything about Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia ? X
 
Most famous gay/bisexual monarchs I can think of are Edward II and James I; both of whom did their duty by getting married and producing children. Back then that was one of their royal duties; today when most royals are just ceremonial figures it seems marrying and having children is more important.
 
If an heir to the throne is gay, then he should try to find a female whose a lesbian and whose acceptable for him to marry. In reality,if this were known, no marriage would take place. This has to be a secret.

The couple has an understanding that they will live as husband and wife and produce at least 3 children or how many they want. They will not cheat on each other. Once this is done, then if they want to get a divorce, they can.
 
Could such cases be covered in our age(not only heirs)?
It seems difficult,but I admit you've found a good solution to keep the appeareances
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This arrangement would be easier to follow if it didn't involve an heir to the throne. Keeping up appearances is very important in royal circles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
If you could’ve arranged marriages between royals and other royals
2 3
Replies
69
Views
9K
Tatiana Maria
T
H
Royal Fears and Phobias
Replies
9
Views
1K
Biri
B
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
979
Tatiana Maria
T
S
New Person Here
Replies
4
Views
494
doro
doro
T
Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story
2 3
Replies
76
Views
12K
shady lady
shady lady

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom