LHBTQ+ Royalty

[sirhon11234]

I've often wondered what would the titles be for the spouse of a gay or bi royal. So for example hypothetically if Prince Harry was bisexual and married a man, and he was given a title like Duke of Clarence would his partner be known as Lord Clarence or Prince of Clarence? This is a question I don't know if it will ever be answered but it does have me thinking about possible same sex marriages or unions in royal families.

 

[Jacknch]

I don't think producing an heir is going to be that vital especially under the circumstances of a gay monarch who oughtn't be expected to produce an heir anyway. Is it not the whole point of having a royal family and a list full of heirs who can take the throne when all the other heirs above them have died? It's the same situation with a gay monarch - no children, throne goes to next in line. King Baudouin was no less a great king because he and his Queen had no children.

As for contracting a marriage of convenience in this day and age, I would object to that. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in my mind, but I if it did happen, I think it would be more unacceptbale to people than having a gay monarch in the first place.
It seems odd that a lesbian willing to marry a gay king (If you could find a lesbian to do it) could be deemed acceptable whilst the gay king himself wasn't!

 

[nascarlucy]

I would think any heir to the throne regardless of whether they were straight or gay would want to have heirs. They would want someone to carry on their name or blood line. At least most of them IMO.

Yes, it would be odd that a lesbian would marry a gay king, but if she wanted to have children depending on the society she's in, this would be an acceptable way to have children, although if this came out, she would be criticized.

 

[jemagre]

I've often wondered what would the titles be for the spouse of a gay or bi royal. So for example hypothetically if Prince Harry was bisexual and married a man, and he was given a title like Duke of Clarence would his partner be known as Lord Clarence or Prince of Clarence? This is a question I don't know if it will ever be answered but it does have me thinking about possible same sex marriages or unions in royal families.

I think that Lord Clarence would be a great compromise on the title. After all he wouldn't be the Prince of Clarence because that would be "Harry's" title no?

 

[SpeedDial]

I've often wondered what would the titles be for the spouse of a gay or bi royal. So for example hypothetically if Prince Harry was bisexual and married a man, and he was given a title like Duke of Clarence would his partner be known as Lord Clarence or Prince of Clarence? This is a question I don't know if it will ever be answered but it does have me thinking about possible same sex marriages or unions in royal families.

I wonder if the partner would get any title since in the UK they only have civil unions as of now and not actual same sex marriage. This is all very interesting indeed.

I would love to see an openly gay royal someday. Out of all the royal families in the world, there has to at least be a few royals that are gays if statistically 1 out of 10 people (10% or the population) is gay.

 

[sirhon11234]

I think that Lord Clarence would be a great compromise on the title. After all he wouldn't be the Prince of Clarence because that would be "Harry's" title no?

Well Harry would be the Duke of Clarence, but POC does seem a bit higher than DOC. Or I wonder if the spouse could be known as Prince John of Clarence like the way Harry is styled Prince Henry of Wales because of his father.

I would love to see an openly gay royal someday. Out of all the royal families in the world, there has to at least be a few royals that are gays if statistically 1 out of 10 people (10% or the population) is gay.

I believe sometime in the future it wil happen.

 

[LadyGrinningSoul]

I don't know what you all mean. There's already a gay Queen of England, and they are very much loved...oh wait sorry, wrong forum I was talking about Sir Elton.

In all seriousness I do find it incredibly sad that in this day and age, a certain large section of the British public would not be able to accept an openly gay or lesbian monarch. As has been stated, 10% of the population are said to be homosexual, so its a shame that that rough proportion have to hide their lives for 'duty'.

As proud as I am of being British, I do wish we could be more like our European neighbours in regards to these things. I believe that in say Sweden, people wouldn't really care about what their Royals got up to.

Speaking as a gay woman myself, I would only want a Royal to reveal their sexuality if the British public would most likely accept them.

 

[nascarlucy]

If the royal was unlikely to become heir to the throne, then if he/she came out, people would for the most part accept them. Depending though on the country. A conservative/religious country would never accept a gay heir to the throne and would be hostile to any royal who came out.

A liberal or progressive country would accept someone who isn't heir to the throne if they came out. They probably would accept a gay heir to the throne although I think they would have questions. It wouldn't be 100% approval.

A royal who came from conservative religious parents probably wouldn't come out or their parents would either advise them not to do so or try to change them or would try to find someone of the opposite sex and hope that perhaps they would fall in love with them and this would be the solution. This is often what conservative parents try to do or what others try to do.

Liberal parents would be accepting but would have concerns about how the country would accept their child.

 

[No1_Saint]

This may not be earth shattering, however the Maori (indigenous people of New Zealand)
King's eldest son Whatumoana is openly gay, even to the point of bringing with him in his official entourage his boyfriend and their gay friends when representing his father at major events.

This will cause an interesting situation when his father passes. Although the position is elected in secret council by the chiefs of the all of the tribes and could go to any of the current ruling families...the past 6 have been direct descendants of the first Maori King.

The current Maori King has two other children...Korotangi who was recently arrested for dangerous driving after smashing his car into a light pole...(thank goodness no one died - and he's only 16) and his only daughter Ngawai Hono I Te Po.

We probably won't have the worlds first openly gay King...however we will probably have the first openly gay senior royal. As the son of the current King and probably the brother or close relative of the future Monarch... Whatumoana will always be senior.

 

[NotHRH]

I do believe the acceptance of a gay/lesbian royal is lurking around the corner. Now, I did not state acceptance an heir/ess (presumptive) to a throne. Many people still have to mature to that level. A gay crown prince/ss would not have to provide the crown with children. As stated in an earlier post for this discussion thread, there is always the 'next in line to the throne.'
Queen Victoria's (late) youngest son was thought to be gay and by some, 'Jack the Ripper.' My research has only come to the point that neither assumption has ever been proved (officially). Also it has been mentioned in (unofficial) information on the late Duke of Windsor that was believed to be gay also. Again, the assumption has never proven. Technically, I believe that a person's personal life is their own business. Even if a royal admitted his/her homosexuality or the above was proven to be factual, it would not have any effect on me in any way whatsoever. Truthfully, I am very surprised that a thread in this topic still 'exists' in this forum.

 

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Slight correction:
If you are referring to Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, then he was Queen Victoria's grandson, not her youngest son.
Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany was her youngest son; and he was not homosexual, as far as I know....

Albert Victor was in the same position as Prince William is now - son of the son of The Queen... 3rd in line...

Larry

 

[NotHRH]

I do stand corrected. I was referring to HM QV's grandson, Prince Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence. Thanx for the clarification.

 

[Markstephensonuk]

Royals on Gays?

So what do Royals think of us gays and how would they feel if they had a open gay person on the family ?

 

[Muhler]

So what do Royals think of us gays and how would they feel if they had a open gay person on the family ?

That's an interesting question.

Perhaps you should turn the question around and ask: What will the public think about a royal, a high ranking royal like an heir to the throne, who is openly gay?
I don't think it's the royals who will object as much as the public.

Let's play with the idea.
We have a successor in a European royal family who confirms what people have suspected for years, that he is gay.
Okay what to do?
A) The family or even government can "persuade" him to renounce the throne. - That'll a PR disaster. They'll be branded as inhumane gaybashers with a medieval mindset.

B) Or accept it. He will eventually become king and when the time comes, he will be succeeded by the next in line to the throne.
He will be a gay-icon and his family will be praised to the sky by many. But - there is a prize; he will also become one of the most prominent hate-figures in the world and the foreign ministry of his country will face some interesting diplomatic challenges as homoseksuality is not accpeted in the same way everywhere and certainly not among heads of states.
Others again will see him and his family as ultimate symbols of depravity.
It will for sure be an interesting reign!

C) He marries an appropriate women, have children and we all pretend he's not gay. And as long as we all believe that and keep our eyes closed, there is no problem, diplomatic or otherwise. - That will be a liiiiittle difficult to pull off.

- I don't think he needs to be that concerned about his family. It's more the government who will reluctant, - for pragmatic reasons.

Oh, and congratulations on your first post.

 

[Tsaritsa]

If we take C as our yardstick, there could have been any number of gay princes. Certainly it seems that in Imperial Russia C was their method of choice.

 

[Renata4711]

Pop singers, movie stars and other high profile people have been able to have a relatively normal life.

Why not a gay or lesbian royal ?

 

[nascarlucy]

My guess is that a European heir to the throne who is gay will probably pick option C but C will be modified. The heir to the throne will marry and have children (the woman that he marries may or may not know or he might hint that he's bisexual). Later he will divorce. When the children are grown or nearly grown, he might come out (depending on the circumstances) or he will wait until he is on the throne. If he's not an the throne, how his parents feel about this will influence his decision (he may or may not tell them).

When this happens, no one in royal circles will be that surprised, perhaps the surprise from the general public will come wondering why the monarch waited so long before he did. He will have reasons.

I would think he would want to be secure on the throne with several children in tow before he came out. As far as I know there is nothing in any European Constitution that a monarch has to be heterosexual in order to succeed the throne, so that would not be an issue. A lot of it would depend on the country.

 

[Muhler]

If we take C as our yardstick, there could have been any number of gay princes. Certainly it seems that in Imperial Russia C was their method of choice.

Statistically speaking it's bound to happen at some point. And nowadays it will be almost impossible to hide.

But there is an option D:
He renounce the throne of his own free will.
He says he's gay and that he understands the complications of being an open gay and at the same time head of state, of a very traditional institution as a monarchy on top of that.
He also realises that being a monarch will make it even more difficult to be with the man he loves.
So he will step back, while still be an open gay and live openly with another man.
It would be a pragmatic solution and in that way he will still be a gay icon, his country and his family will be seen as tolerant.

- He will still be a major hate figure though. Some will hate him for being gay, other will see him as a coward and hate him for that.

 

[nascarlucy]

Regardless of the sexual orientation, one would think that an heir to the throne would want to have children. If a gay heir to the throne married and had children, he would be criticized for doing so. If he didn't marry and came out, he would be criticized.

The only problem with a gay heir marrying is that it would be very difficult to hide or surpress his feelings. By being married he's basically living a lie. If he fell in love with another man while married (which is very likely) and then acted on his feelings and this came out, I'm sure there would be a very strong reaction, much stronger than it would be if the person was a woman. He would be forgiven for cheating with a woman. If he cheated on his wife with another man and got caught, that would be it. He would probably be dethroned (if he was on the throne) or either his families or outside forces would want to make sure that he was never on the throne.

If the heir married, had children, divorced and then was on the throne for a couple of years and then came out, he probably would be more likely to be accepted (especially if he has proven to be a good father and good leader). The heir would have to prove himself, I believe.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Are you assuming that such a situation has never previously occured? It is only in relatively recent years that "love"- what ever that word means!-has come into the equation of royal marriages. One thing only was required of the participants-breeding,the more, the merrier-their sexual preferences were not considered because homosexuality has never been a barrier to the breeding process. In practice,it's not unlike an heir to a throne marrying a "suitable" young bride whilst continuing to love his mistress. Royals have learned how to "manage" these situations.

 

[Muhler]

Is it my post you are responding to?

That a monarch is gay has certainly happened many times before. What I'm talking about is what would happen if a an heir to a throne came out of the closet today.
Previously he could just have married a suitable woman who would have to accept that the marriage was pro forma. People at court would have closed their eyes as long as the king wasn't too fond of some of his closest male "friends". The general public wouldn't know and certainly not told.
What I'm saying is that the above option is much more difficult today with the much more extensive media focus on royals and because we live in a global village the traditional methods cannot be used.
If the statistics are correct that up to 10 % of the population is gay, then this issue will come up. If not among the current heirs, then perhaps the next generation.
- And that a secondary royal come out of the closet could in my opinion happen any moment.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Muhler, choosing option D would certainly put the cat among the pigeons, however in a more liberal world than that of the 1930s,would it have any greater impact nationally/internationally than Edward viiis abdication for a twice divorced American woman. The psychological effect on the Windsor family is probably still being felt today, we can see it in the Queens dedication and duty but for the rest of us it no more than an interesting point to discuss.
We perhaps won't have to worry about the reality of option D for the forseeable future, e.g.William and Harry's potential children but we must bear in mind that the sexuality of two of their Greatx3 uncles was, at the very least, questionable. As to "a secondary royal coming out of the closet any moment," I'm very intrigued-please share. We may have similar thoughts!!!

 

[Muhler]

That's the big if...
How would people react nowadays to a gay heir? We can only speculate. I hope and believe that the majority will be tolerant if the heir is open about it. But the cynic within me is not so sure. - Especially when the heir finds the love of his life. Should he be denied living with the man he loves?
How tolerant would we really be towards a gay king and especially towards his spouse? His "queen" if you will.
To be honest I'm not even sure I can answer that question for myself.

Option D is the easier way out, yes. But it's also a way to ease the way for the next. I mean for the public to accept a prominent royal who is openly gay and living with a man is one thing. To accept a future monarch is a big step further and probably too much to ask of the public to begin with.
Personally I would accept a secondary but prominent royal who came out of the closet in a heartbeat, if he was open and honest about it. However I'm far from certain I would accept a future monarch of my own country who is openly gay.

As to "a secondary royal coming out of the closet any moment," I'm very intrigued-please share. We may have similar thoughts!!!

I'll keep such speculations to myself. Unless people are hypocritical about it, their sexual preferencies is none of my business, - as long as they keep them private. If they choose the be open about it, fine. If they won't, that's fine with me. If they don't tell, I don't ask.

You know, Markstephensonuk, you can join in....

 

[CSENYC]

Replying to the first post:

If a king or queen were openly gay, it would be a huge problem if s/he didn't have biological children within marriage.

Plus if the monarch were the head of the Church of England (or whatever other state church), that would be a problem.

 

[nascarlucy]

Couldn't the monarch then if he were head of whatever church say that he doesn't want to be head of the Church and resign that position and still maintain the throne. All this is nowadays is just a figure head. None of the European monarchs who are head of any church make policy decisions regarding the church affairs or hand out edicts relating to the church.

 

[Boris]

...not every religion has the same attitude towards gays and lesbians, and not every monach is Head of Church.
As for the question of procreation, unless the gay or lesbian monarch is a single child, it's not an overly dramatic issue either.

 

[Kasumi]

India's gay prince: Manvendra Singh Gohil | Radio Netherlands Worldwide

 

[Boris]

Thank you very much for posting the link to this interview, Kasumi.
It's interesting to read the point of view of an Indian Prince who decided to come out after a brief marriage and turned into an advocate for gay rights and gay self-confidence in his home country and beyond.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Cool article. I wonder if it's easier in India, Hinduism seems more tolerant of various sexualities.

 

[Kasumi]

...Hinduism seems more tolerant of various sexualities.

No, it is not.