LHBTQ+ Royalty


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I know 1 has happened before. I hope that in this day and age a monarch would not choose option 1. IMO it could be so disastrous especially if children were born. It's not a pleasant sight .
 
The type of people who say, "I am all for gay marriage--but not in the monarchy," sound very similar to the type of people who say, "I am all for interracial marriage-- but not in my family." Regarding interracial marriages, we have all heard the excuses: it is not good for the children; society isn't ready for it yet; give it time..... And now, we are hearing all the "justifications" as to why gay marriage might be good for the populace but not good for the monarchy and royals.....

When it is all said and done, it is called "Discrimination." And no culture, no history, no heritage justifies discrimination. When people are treated differently, there must be a valid reason for that disparity in treatment. And I am yet to read one, single, solitary, valid reason as to why a gay monarch should NOT be able to marry the person whom he/she loves. (I have heard "justifications" and "reasons," but none of them outweigh a person's right to private happiness).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I for one, look forward to the day when a gay royal is simply old and comfortable news.
 
A monarch essentially gives up the right to private happiness to become the servant of the people. If their private happiness leads them in a direction that is contrary to their peoples wishes they have 2 options,,,,give up that which is their private happiness or give up the throne.
However I dont think any of us have said gay marriage within any royal family could not happen, but we have pointed out that while same sex marriages may be legal they might still present problems in a royal family. That seems perfectly logical given the nature of monarchy. Heck, it would seem perfectly normal in a republic as well. I dont expect to see a same sex couple in the White House any time soon, despite the rumours about Barack and Michelle.
In the UK we only have one single male royal who seems very hetero in his tastes and you are really too old for him. Putting aside the whole gay issue, your political past in the USVI is perhaps a bit too colorful and would provide too many tales for the DM for you to really fit in with our Royal Family. Perhaps you should set your sites on Monaco since their standards are not quite so high and scandal not quite so bothersome although same sex marriage is not yet legal there. If there is anything to the idea that heredity might play a role in homosexuality well Prince Rainiers father, Prince Pierre, was gay and Grace's uncle George Kelly was gay so that might increase the odds of a gay Grimaldi-Casiraghi-Ducruet. Your USVI expense audit shows you have a liking for Mediterranean locales so Monaco might really be your best bet to marry a royal.
 
Last edited:
I for one, look forward to the day when a gay royal is simply old and comfortable news.

I look forward to a gay first family in the White House but doubt that I will live that long. Still waiting to see first woman elected to the US presidency. Heck still waiting for same sex marriage to be legal in all 50 US states and recognized by the US Federal government.
 
I look forward to a gay first family in the White House but doubt that I will live that long. Still waiting to see first woman elected to the US presidency. Heck still waiting for same sex marriage to be legal in all 50 US states and recognized by the US Federal government.


Wow, NGalitzine for you a Canadian/British resident to be so interested in my nation's politics is cool. I guess this is truly an International Forum great! Thank you :flowers:
 
Ok, lets get back to basics. What's good for the public is good for the royal family I say. The royal family has the same legal rights as anyone else - and the monarch even more so.
The general issue concerning a gay heir to the throne seems to be acceptence. Ten years ago, the concept of the Prince of Wales marrying Camilla was hard to imagine, yet it happened. The government of the day saw no legal bar to a civil marriage on account of it being legal for everyone. The same would apply for a gay marriage (or as the case would be at the moment, a royal civil partnership). There could be no legal objection to the heir to throne entering into a civil partnership.
That in mind, what would the nation think? The nation would accept it - one reason being that the British Public would not accept a situation where an heir to the throne (or anyone else for that matter) would have to give up their rights on account of their sexuality.
The only fly in the ointment as I see it is the Church of England. However, in reality, the Church would have to accept it or be disestablished. The government would make the Church accept it especially if the heir in question were a practising Christian. If the Church wished to disestablish itself, then disestablished it will become.
 
I disagree.

By the time Prince Charles wanted to marry Camilla, divorce was a common thing that had been normal since the 60's - for ordinary people. I.e. the working class and the middleclass, where many remained in loveless marriages because "one simply don't divorce".

Same-sex marriages is still very much a novelty. And a large segment of the population in any country are, if not opposed to it, then at least sceptical and hesitant about it.
It needs to become a well established and accepted thing among the population in the general then the royals can follow suit.
The reaction in the general public has to change from a current: "There goes His Majesty the Fairy and his Queenie. Good grief"! To a for royals more normal: "There goes the king and his consort. - Oh, those shoes look awful". - You get my meaning? ;) That takes a little time.

It all boils down to allowing people to getting used to gay marriages and let them learn for themselves that it really isn't such a big deal.
But if you shove a major change like same-sex marriages within an institution like a monarchy, down the throats of the general public, then there will be a backlash.
 
Last edited:
The type of people who say, "I am all for gay marriage--but not in the monarchy," sound very similar to the type of people who say, "I am all for interracial marriage-- but not in my family." Regarding interracial marriages, we have all heard the excuses: it is not good for the children; society isn't ready for it yet; give it time..... And now, we are hearing all the "justifications" as to why gay marriage might be good for the populace but not good for the monarchy and royals.....

When it is all said and done, it is called "Discrimination." And no culture, no history, no heritage justifies discrimination. When people are treated differently, there must be a valid reason for that disparity in treatment. And I am yet to read one, single, solitary, valid reason as to why a gay monarch should NOT be able to marry the person whom he/she loves. (I have heard "justifications" and "reasons," but none of them outweigh a person's right to private happiness).

Yeah, yeah, when you run out of arguments you can always yell racism or discrimination. - Sorry, that don't work anymore.

You have been presented with pages up and pages down with arguments and explanations but you are not listening.
Try listen and try to understand what a monarchy is all about and what it means to people. You know precious little as it is now.

So far your attitude is pretty millitant and that does more harm for gay rights than good.
As a gay rights activist surely you know that acceptance don't come from day to day and why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that this also applies to monarchs?
 
Last edited:
I've been following this thread for the past few days and find the discussion very interesting. I'd like to take a stab at your question if I may.

Answer this question honestly:
Would the American people accept, embrace and elect a gay candidate, living openly with a gay partner (soon spouse) at the next election for president?
We assume here that his qualifications and politics is no different than if he was married to a woman.

Although the public worldwide is gradually coming to accept and perhaps even embrace those in same sex marriages, I really don't see an openly gay candidate for the office of President succeeding. If campaigns were run solely on the platforms of what the candidate hopes to accomplish during his term of office I would think there was a chance but IMO, political campaigns have turned mudslinging into an art form. Its more about how bad the other guy is. Being openly gay in this kind of environment is like giving the opposing camp and the moral majority a nuclear bomb to play with.

Acceptance is a slow process and social norms evolve as time passes. For many, it may be all well and good that same sex marriages are legal as long as it doesn't affect them. When it comes down to their own Head of State or Monarch that represents them, its a whole different kettle of fish.

Speaking as an old goat who grew up in the 50s and 60s, I am very pleased at the strides human consciousness has made in my lifetime to embrace human differences and inclinations. We're not there yet but heading in the right direction. :D
 
The question is a simple one: In a country where same-sex marriage is the law of the land, can a monarch of that land marry someone of the same sex? That is the question. The question is not whether YOU THINK it is appropriate or not. The question is not whether YOU THINK it would be good for the people or for the monarchy. The question is also not whether YOU THINK it is in keeping with the nature of monarchy or with tradition. The question is: CAN a monarch of a country where same-sex marriage is the law of the land get married to someone of the same sex in that country?

Clearly, the answer is--and rightfully so--a resounding "YES"! Does it not impress you as utterly absurd that a general law on an issue as basic as the right to marry would apply to everyone in a land--except the monarch of that land? People may differ, from now until the end of time, over whether they "think" same-sex marriage is right or wrong, good or bad. But when the law of the land simply states that PEOPLE of the same sex can marry each other, then any PERSON (and the royals, believe it or not, are PEOPLE just like everyone else) can marry someone of the same sex.

Laws don't drop out the sky. People create laws which they, at the time of the creation of those laws, feel address their wants and needs. If the British people don't want their monarchs and royals to marry people of the same sex, then they have a simple solution before them: Write a law which states that everyone--except monarchs and royals--is entitled to marry someone of the same sex. (Of course, such a law would be, in my opinion, discriminatory since I can conceive or no valid reason for distinguishing between "royal" PEOPLE and "non-royal" PEOPLE vis a vis the right to marry whom they love. So such an exclusionary attempt would probably never make it into law in the first place).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question is a simple one: In a country where same-sex marriage is the law of the land, can a monarch of that land marry someone of the same sex? That is the question.

If that is your question, than the answer is Yes, in a country where same-sex marriage is legal, the monarch can enter such marriage (ofcourse... why ask really)

Since this is a forum about royalty and you have several times mentioned you like the open discussions and you mentioned you are new here, people in this thread, apart from just saying 'yes, of course the monarch can', have tried to inform you on the fact that royals ofcourse have the same rights as 'regular' citizens but also have to comply with many additional rules, like family house rules, stipulations in wills, religious rules etc.
This is obviously not what you are interested in :flowers:

An example from my country (the netherlands, probably doesn't interest you either, but i'm going to type it anyway):
- same sex marriage is completely legalized and has existed for years (has exsted for so long that we already have same-sex divorces :lol:)
- if a royal wants to marry another person (regardless of gender, color, religion etc) AND this royal wants to remain a royal, the government of the country has to agree

The government will not prevent the marriage (nope, never), but if they for whatever reason don't agree the royal will loose his/her royal status while remaining a member of the royal family. The royal that chooses not to ask consent also chooses to loose the status (this happens more than you might think)
The marriage will continu just as the couple likes.
 
:previous:Oh Jacknch.. you are back to square one. No one is telling a gay monarch has to give up his rights due to his sexuality. No one is telling it is against the law/idea of civil rights..We are all telling getting in a relationship(s), marrying and too much campaigning with regard to succession laws for their kids, all these should not happen all of a sudden..
Since you have perfectly given Charles-Camilla's example, let me explain you in that context only.At the time of wedding no one told Camilla is going to be the Queen. She did not use the titles which was rightfully hers. She maintained a very low profile. It was as if the only purpose of marriage was to keep Charles happy, and nothing to do with the country.
And going by this way, they slowly, steadily gained public trust and confidence to such an extent that now many if not all are okay with her being Queen..
This is the way it should happen with a gay heir/monarch. His partner should keep completely low profile in the beginning, no official titles/business/marriage..the royal in question should completely warm up to the nation by his personal work ethic and grace, then slowly, his partner will be accepted..
The idea is
WHENEVER U DO SOMETHING UNCONVENTIONAL, LIE LOW FIRST.
THEN DO OTHER THINGS WHICH U R VERY GOOD AT--A LOT, THEN SLOWLY COAXE PEOPLE INTO ACCEPTING YOUR UNCONVENTIONL SIDE..
I hope u understood. I have explained this several times here God knows if anyone understands this..Anyway..
 
Ok, lets get back to basics... QUOTE] I would argue that in practice the monarch and members of the BRF have fewer rights and much less freedom of choice than members of the public and in return they receive certain benefits and priveleges. Members of the public do not have to get approval for their marriages unlike the monarch and heir apparent. Members of the general public do not have to suffer the slings and arrows of public opinion and tabloids tales designed to stir public opinion in favour or against them based on the whims of editors and owners. Members of the public are not living in publically funded palaces. Members of the public are not required to belong to the CofE. Members of the public can vote in general elections. Members of the general public can tell other members of the public to just FO and ignore public opinion. Members of the general pblic are not representatives of the state. Monarchs serve at the sufferance of their people, and if the people dont like what you do you are out and perhaps the institution of monarchy with you.
Right now the CofE is very clear in its opposition to gay marriage. The governmemnt has made it clear that it has no intention of disestablishing the CofE, and in the poroposed legislation on same sex marriage has included a clause that would forbid the CofE from ever performing a same sex marriage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question is a simple one: In a country where same-sex marriage is the law of the land, can a monarch of that land marry someone of the same sex?
That question has already been answered several times.
A monarch can marry whomever he/she wants but a monarch cannot be sure to remain a monarch if he does.

You don't seem to understand what a monarchy is all about. A monarch and his family belongs to the people. If a monarch does not have the approval of the people he is out. Period!
Rights and laws don't matter, it's the public opinion that matters.

In one of the most liberal monarchies in the world (Sweden) a prince is having considerable difficulty having his girlfriend accepted by the public because she has previously posed topless.
And you think a gay marriage to a monarch won't cause a major controversy? That's a very utopian attitude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FYI Wayne James, if you do enter into a same sex marriage with one of our peers you do not acquire a title.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right now the CofE is very clear in its opposition to gay marriage. The governmemnt has made it clear that it has no intention of disestablishing the CofE, and in the poroposed legislation on same sex marriage has included a clause that would forbid the CofE from ever performing a same sex marriage.

I guess they may reach a compromise as here in DK, where we also have a state church. (Incidentally also with monarch as head of the church).
Homosexuals can get married in state churches (Lutheran), but individual priests are free to refuse to perform such a marriage.
As for other churches and religions, they can do what they want.
 
While conducting the research on 21st-century weddings, as pertaining to forms of address, I contacted various peerage organizations around the world. NONE of them had any protocol or could give any meaningful guidance/suggestions on the forms of address which will have to be established when royals and nobles marry people of the same sex. What is the husband of a count to be called? Count-Consort? How should the wife of a baroness in her own right to be addressed? Baroness-Consort? Lady X? And what title would the husband of a crown prince receive? Duke of X? No one, interestingly, had any idea..... It was as if they had never thought of the possibility. A few responded, eventually, "Well, that would never come to pass." (or other such responses, including, "Well, the nobles haven't even settled on the issue of adoption, so same-sex marriage is not even on the horizon for discussion"). In America, the husband of a male president or governor would probably be styled, "First Gentleman" (Just as the husband of a female president or governor); and the wife of female president or governor would probably be styled, "First Lady." I have received some tentative suggestions for the impending protocol adjustments from several gubernatorial staffs in the states in the U.S. where same-sex marriage is already law, but, clearly, the world has to catch up with this issue..... It is upon us. So we would be better off getting ready for it--rather than burying our heads in the sand and crying, "Oh dear God, yet another cross for Old England to bear..." LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah okay, so *this* was your issue to begin with :flowers:
Well in my country even the fact that the wife (woman) of a male monarch automatically becomes the Queen has been questioned recently.... because a husband of female monarch doesn't become a king and why should that be different (in view of true emancipation, indeed wife of King should not be a Queen)

You seem surprised that protocol doesn't cover the issue yet, I'm not... these things often only get decided only when it actually happens...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even in the countries where "approval" is "required" for royal weddings, lawmakers in a country where same-sex marriage is allowed would be hard-pressed to deny/disapprove a monarch's a right to use the very law those lawmakers have passed. (Just like laws don't drop out the sky, lawmakers don't either. They, too, have to answer to public opinion, lobbyists, public pressure, etc. Very few lawmakers would have the backbone to pass a same-sex law for the people, then withhold approval from a monarch who opts to utilize that same law). So not only will monarchs and royals be getting married to people of the same sex in such countries, no monarch in such countries will have to abdicate. The public wouldn't have it. The public isn't insane enough to tell a monarch, "WE can marry the person of our choice, but YOU can't). LOL
 
There is no great difficulty in determining such titles - there aren't any, unless given by a government or a monarch.
If Tom Smith marries the Count of Cutglass, he remains Tom Smith (he could always change his name by deed poll, but that won't give him a legitimate title).
If Tom marries a Crown Prince it would be up to that country's sovereign to create, or not create, a suitable title.
That's about all there is to it.
 
Even in the countries where "approval" is "required" for royal weddings, lawmakers in a country where same-sex marriage is allowed would be hard-pressed to deny/disapprove a monarch's a right to use the very law those lawmakers have passed. (Just like laws don't drop out the sky, lawmakers don't either. They, too, have to answer to public opinion, lobbyists, public pressure, etc. Very few lawmakers would have the backbone to pass a same-sex law for the people, then withhold approval from a monarch who opts to utilize that same law). So not only will monarchs and royals be getting married to people of the same sex in such countries, no monarch in such countries will have to abdicate. The public wouldn't have it. The public isn't insane enough to tell a monarch, "WE can marry the person of our choice, but YOU can't). LOL

You are completely fixated on this same marriage thing, apparently you guys in the US are not as accustomed to that yet as people elsewhere on this planet...
And your book has 200 pages of this? Did you already choose a lead actor for when Hollywood turns the book into a movie LOL
 
I am in agreement with the member from the Netherlands. The rights and privileges and titles conferred to women and men who marry royalty and nobility should be equal in a truly equal society. But herein lies the BIG PROBLEM: The royalty and aristocracy have NEVER been about being fair and egalitarian. LOL. Those institutions have ALWAYS been about privilege, hierarchy, exclusivity, etc. Merit and fairness have little place in the concept of nobility. So to expect "fairness" and "equality" from a system of royalty and aristocracy is counterintuitive.

The Dutch people are thinking along rational lines. Bravo to the Dutch! And bravo to the Dutch for being brave enough to allow same-sex marriage over a decade ago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The public wouldn't have it. The public isn't insane enough to tell a monarch, "WE can marry the person of our choice, but YOU can't). LOL

Why not, they have done it with straight marriages why not with same sex marriages? In 1936 the British government threatened to resign if Edward VIII went ahead with his plans to marry a twice divorced woman. An ordinary citizen would have had no problems entering into such a marriage in 1936. More recently the Dutch government advised HRH Prince Friso of The Netherlands that they would not approve his marriage to Mabel. He went ahead with the marriage, lost his place in the line of succession and lost his title Prince of The Netherlands. An ordinary Dutch man would have encountered no such problems in marrying Mabel, but for a prince it was different. The public tell monarchs and their families all the time what they find acceptable or unacceptable behaviours for a royal, even if similar behaviours in their own families are less troublesome.
 
There is no great difficulty in determining such titles - there aren't any, unless given by a government or a monarch.
If Tom Smith marries the Count of Cutglass, he remains Tom Smith (he could always change his name by deed poll, but that won't give him a legitimate title).
If Tom marries a Crown Prince it would be up to that country's sovereign to create, or not create, a suitable title.
That's about all there is to it.

Okay, this right here is all you need in that chapter in the book :lol:
 
1936 was a LONNNNNNNNNG time ago.... And in the more recent case in the Netherlands, did HRH Prince Frisco LOSE his place in the line of succession or did he GIVE UP his place in the line of succession?
 
1936 was a LONNNNNNNNNG time ago.... And in the more recent case in the Netherlands, did HRH Prince Frisco LOSE his place in the line of succession or did he GIVE UP his place in the line of succession?

He chose not to ask consent, because it was made quite clear to the couple that consent would not be given.
So basically both LOL

(reason for this had nothing to do with sexual preference, gender, color or religion)
 
Personal, irrelevant, and self-aggrandising posts have been - and will continue to be - edited or removed.
Could members please keep to the topic of "Gay Royalty" and resist the temptation to insert themselves into hypothetical and/or unlikely scenarios.

thanks,

Warren
Admin
 
Last edited:
...It all boils down to allowing people to getting used to gay marriages and let them learn for themselves that it really isn't such a big deal. But if you shove a major change like same-sex marriages within an institution like a monarchy, down the throats of the general public, then there will be a backlash.
OK, so if we take gay marriage/civil partnership out of the equation, we are left simply with a gay heir/monarch, which I believe will be accepted as per my previous post by everyone but the CoE (who will presumably only accept it on the condition that the said heir/monarch remains single). It is not a case of shoving anything down anyone's throats because in practice, a gay heir/monarch is not suddenly going to appear one day and immediately get married - knowing our heirs, they will be well into their 30's by the time they can find anyone suitable and we will have known he or she is gay for years before that.

In any event, by the time we actually have a gay heir/monarch, I think same-sex marriage/civil partnerships will have been established for many years, so in effect all this argument is going to have been a waste of time!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the Netherlands you have two good examples

Queen Maxima is only 'Queen' by courtesy; she never was Princess of Orange; her husband was Prince of Orange and now her daughter is Princess of Orange. (Same rights for both sexes).

When prince Friso wanted to marry Mabel; parliament withheld consent - so he had to give up his succession rights.

There is a big difference between things you can legally do - and things which are socially accepted. (You are allowed to get drunk in public... You are allowed to pick your nose in public ... are clean your teeth etc. ) If you are John Smith you can have strip-poker in Las Vegas and no on cares - if you are Prince Harry...

... or as the old Romans said: Quod licet jovis, non licet bovis.

Probably you are writing here only to promote your book or having written such a book you really feel, that you understand the matter thoroughly ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom