LHBTQ+ Royalty


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It may not be "equality" but it's a discrimination based on gender, not sexuality, and is seen in the treatment of titles in same-sexed relationships as well.

:previous:
This here, this is the answer to the question that started this thread "Gay royalty", as this thread is not about Gay royalty, it's about what titles you get when you marry into a royal family,

and this is indeed, as has been discussed in other threads on this forum, is a gender-inequality issue.
No use repeating what has been said elsewhere (and better)....
 
The crown princess of Sweden married her Swedish personal trainer. But because she is a crown princess, a title was offered to her husband, and he accepted it. So now, he is the "Duke of Something." The crown princess' sister, however, recently got married to an American, but he declined an accept of a title. The rationale is that no royal should be married to someone without a title--unless that person declines the offer of a title. So the monarch creates a title for such persons. Based on that logic, then, if the Swedish prince, who is yet unmarried, were to marry a man, that man would be offered some title, which he could accept or decline.

As for non-royal nobility, however, the rules of peerage determine how titles are handled. And therein lies the problem. Unlike the case of the royalty, where the monarch creates a title when necessary (even if some governmental "approval" is necessary), the peerage relies on long-established rules, many of which did not even conceive of same-sex marriage when they were being created. But times, as they say, have changed....The peerage organizations have not established any protocols for same-sex marriage. But they need to. The issue is upon them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wayne...as a US citizen you are not eligible to receive a title anyway so the question should really be moot.
Perhaps, instead of telling other countries how to deal with same sex marriage and titles, you should devote your energies to making same sex marriage legal throughout the US instead of just 13 states and DC.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread re-opened following editing and removal of recent self-serving posts.
 
If this were to be changed it would need to be changed overall - allowing for the titles spouse's partner to use the appropriate gendered titles by courtesy. Although, even then you run into problems as you can't have two Dukes of Y or Duchesses of X. In all likelihood if Harry married a man (which I would say is unlikely in itself given his dating history. Even were he gay, it seems as though he's made the decision to pursue women) then letters patent would be issued granting the male partner titles of some form, similar to what happened when Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret married men - their husbands were granted titles. I would expect that Harry would be given a dukedom, similar to what his brother and uncle got, while the spouse would be given an Earldom and perhaps an HRH. .
That's exactly what I'm saying equality for all! Based on sexual preference and gender. If it's unequal then it should be made equal. Just because having two 'Dukes' etc is difficult does not make it an excuse to not come up with a different style of address for two 'Dukes' I actually think this issue is rather easily solved. Let's say Harry is given the title Duke Of Sussex He would be HRH The Duke Of Sussex His male partner could be HRH Prince Henry Duke Of Sussex As is customary in cases such as The Princess Michael Of Kent. Fairly simple really
 
That's exactly what I'm saying equality for all! Based on sexual preference and gender. If it's unequal then it should be made equal. Just because having two 'Dukes' etc is difficult does not make it an excuse to not come up with a different style of address for two 'Dukes' I actually think this issue is rather easily solved. Let's say Harry is given the title Duke Of Sussex He would be HRH The Duke Of Sussex His male partner could be HRH Prince Henry Duke Of Sussex As is customary in cases such as The Princess Michael Of Kent. Fairly simple really

The problem is that there is a way that titles exist within heterosexual couples that doesn't translate into same-sex couples.

If John Smith and Jane Doe marry they become Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. If John Smith marries, instead, Jack Doe, they remain Mr. John Smith and Mr. Jack Doe (or become Mr. and Mr. Doe-Smith, or whatever they prefer).

Men don't take the titles of their spouses. Women don't give their titles to their spouses. The gender of the spouse here is irrelevant. Personally, I can't help but think that changing the system for Harry's (hypothetical) husband to make him an HRH would be an insult to the other men who have married into the BRF - notably Mark and Tim (who didn't receive titles at all), and Antony. Creating special titles isn't the way of creating equality. I believe that if the titles are going to be altered it should be so that women can give their spouse - regardless of gender - courtesy titles, and men can take - regardless of gender - courtesy titles from their spouse, although you still run into the problem of having two people using the same title in the case of same-sex nobles.

That said, were Harry to marry a man, I still think the best approach would be to treat him like Antony was treated, and create Harry a Duke and the spouse an Earl. The HRH would depend on whether or not said spouse wants to perform a royal role - if, like the DoE, he wants to, then make him an HRH, but if he prefers to stay out of it more, like Antony, Mark, and Peter, then don't.
 
actually think this issue is rather easily solved. Let's say Harry is given the title Duke Of Sussex He would be HRH The Duke Of Sussex His male partner could be HRH Prince Henry Duke Of Sussex As is customary in cases such as The Princess Michael Of Kent. Fairly simple really

This actually wouldn't be a solution at all.

Princess Michael of Kent is clearly a woman who married into the family, as denoted by her title. The same could not be said of Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. Then the question becomes are you talking about Harry or the spouse? This change just makes titles more confusing.

What's more is that if a change happens it should happen within the peerage not the royalty. If they figure out how to change it within the royalty by having the spouse take the royal's name as his title, like a woman, then the question still becomes what happens when the non-royal Duke of Wherever marries a man? However, if you change it so that there is a system in place where the non-royal Duke of Wherever marries a man and his spouse takes a title by courtesy, then there is a system in place for royal peerages as well.

Actually, thinking of it an easy solution would be for the spouse to take one of the titled partner's lesser titles; the Duke of Wherever is often also Earl of Somewhere. This is a custom usually reserved for the heir apparent, but because adopted children/children born out of wedlock can't inherit titles it could be a bit of a solution (at least until they address the issue of whether or not children born via surrogates can inherit titles).
 
It is all nonsense. Either way, who cares what one is called if they are happy. Most royals are appendages to their nation's larger agenda. Harry is not gay, so he will have a wife. But someone might face this some day. In Spain they refer to the Dukes of Austrias. Some day it may be 2 dukes.
 
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
 
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
 
No results

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...:bang:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Harry was just an example I gave. Could have talked of another Prince. A situation like this would be accepted into monarchy today?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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..
 
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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom