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 ?
Because a monarchy, by its nature and usually by law, requires offspring from a marriage.
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 ?
Oh dear.Because a monarchy, by its nature and usually by law, requires offspring from a marriage.
Because a monarchy, by its nature and usually by law, requires offspring from a marriage.
fearghas said:A Monarchy by its nature requires an heir. The heir does NOT have to be a child of the previous Monarch. Using the Bristish Royal family as an example, if Prince William had been gay he could have been King and his heir would have been Harry. As QEII has 8 grabdchildren and 1 great grandchild there are plenty of heirs.
I'm afraid you absolutely misunderstood me.What an awful thread with if, if. and..bla-bla 25 pages. I agree totally with Boris. MO
While it's true that the monarch is not required to produce an heir and the brother or sister of the childless monarch (depending on what the country's rules are on succession) would be the next heir to the throne, the only way that a monarch's children or heir to the throne's children will be on the throne is if they get married and have children. Most likely this would be in the traditional manner.
A Monarchy by its nature requires an heir. The heir does NOT have to be a child of the previous Monarch. Using the Bristish Royal family as an example, if Prince William had been gay he could have been King and his heir would have been Harry. As QEII has 8 grabdchildren and 1 great grandchild there are plenty of heirs.
In your case with Michael, if he'd been a reigning monarch then the relevant laws would have been changed to accomodate the daughters, just as he has done. Again in the Roumanian case, the Crown Princess has no children and is too old to do so, so her heir is her nephew. That is what would have happened if the monarch had been gay.
My point is still the same; if the monarch doesn't have children from within a marriage, even if other family members can inherit the throne, that may not be a result that works for the situation.
For the Crown Princess, I don't think that anyone can say for sure that the laws would have been changed- particularly with the unpopularity of Radu.
"Someone born with this genes"? Do you mean to say someone who's gay or lesbian?Having in my close family someone born with this "genes" I don't like this thread.
maria-olivia said:To Boris , thanks for your answer, yes in fact I misunderstood!
Having in my close family someone born with this "genes" I don't like this thread.
To Boris , thanks for your answer, yes in fact I misunderstood!
Having in my close family someone born with this "genes" I don't like this thread.
And ended up with a red hot poker as a suppository...The problem with Edward II is that kings of England had real power, it was the Middle ages, and he did not conduct himself with discretion.
Making fun of medieval torture methods which lead to the victim's death?And ended up with a red hot poker as a suppository
I do not understand the gay gene or believe in it either. I think you are born gay.
As the word that he was killed in such a way was only mentioned several years after his forced abdication and murder its not known if he died in such a way. Its believed he was more likely to have been sufforcated or strangled. He played the game of politics and lost and in previous ages that meant death. You can't put our feelings or morals on the medieval period.Making fun of medieval torture methods which lead to the victim's death?
What an utterly deplorable attitude, PaulaB.
'A red hot poker as suppository' I consider to be a decidedly unfunny remark about this form of torture in exactly the period where you unfortunately made it, not the medieval age but the year 2011.You can't put our feelings or morals on the medieval period.