LHBTQ+ Royalty - Page 25

CSENYC · #**481** 07-18-2011, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 ?

Because a monarchy, by its nature and usually by law, requires offspring from a marriage.

Boris · #**482** 07-19-2011, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSENYC

Because a monarchy, by its nature and usually by law, requires offspring from a marriage.

Oh dear.
A comment like this is bound to set back a discussion to zero which for the most part has been very interesting on the previous 25 pages - perhaps you could take a look at a few of them?

fearghas · #**483** 07-20-2011, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSENYC

Because a monarchy, by its nature and usually by law, requires offspring from a marriage.

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.

**HRHHermione** · #**484** 07-20-2011, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas

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.

Agreed, and I would also point out that gay people can and DO have biological children. It'd be amazing to get to the point where this is so accepted that a royal could be openly gay without facing prejudice.

Biri · #**485** 07-20-2011, 05:39 AM

And such a royal & his/her partner could have bunch of candidates to become a surrogate mother/sperm donor.
It would be a great honour!

maria-olivia · #**486** 07-20-2011, 06:41 AM

What an awful thread with if, if. and..bla-bla 25 pages. I agree totally with Boris. MO

Boris · #**487** 07-20-2011, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

What an awful thread with if, if. and..bla-bla 25 pages. I agree totally with Boris. MO

I'm afraid you absolutely misunderstood me.
IMO the topic of gay Royalty and their past history, their present outlook and future role is a most interesting one, not 'awful' at all. Neither are the previous 25 pages just full of 'blah blah'.
I simply reacted to a post along the lines of 'Royals must marry and produce children and period', which could have started a discussion from scratch which has already evolved beyond this level.

nascarlucy · #**488** 07-20-2011, 08:06 PM

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.

CSENYC · #**489** 07-20-2011, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nascarlucy

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.

Exactly. I see that the Prince of Monaco's children outside marriage aren't in line for succession, and the constitutions of some monarchies have strict rules about
succession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas

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.

True but that might not work too well for all situations. For example, I believe that if King Michael of Romania didn't have a valid heir, the throne (if the country were a monarchy) would pass to the Hohenzollerns of Germany. I don't see that working too well these days.

fearghas · #**490** 07-21-2011, 02:36 AM

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.

CSENYC · #**491** 07-21-2011, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas

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.

fascinator · #**492** 07-21-2011, 08:45 AM

I don't have anything of substance to add

I just wanted to say that this is a VERY interesting topic and has been handled with incredible care and sensitivity. I think the contributors to this forum are a real class act, and this thread is, IMO, outstanding in terms of the diversity of examples and the care taken to discuss the topic in a manner that is not offensive but also dos not shy away from reality.

fearghas · #**493** 07-22-2011, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSENYC

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.

Mmmm Not sure how to respond bevause while I can see what you mean I don't agree. So we just need to agree to disagree I guess

richard61 · #**494** 07-24-2011, 08:25 AM

First off, this is a very interesting thread. Everyone has been civil and honestly there is not one thing that I have read so far that can be taken as offencive.

I did noticed that a few pages back, there was someone who mention "tribe" that currently had a gay leader and which allowed for a valid succession and for the use of the title of "prince consort" for the gay leader. I do wonder if anyone knows which tribe he may have been speaking of because about four years ago I came across a monarchist group of lgbt people who recognise a leader as monarch. Apparently the monarch is an openly gay male, and there are provisions according the website that I came across for a marriage, a valid succession, and which allow for a spouse of the same sex to enjoy the right to titles. I spent about six hours reading through all of the information that was displayed on the various sites of the same group, and to be frank, it seemed to be really nicely composed in terms of the legalities behind a same-sex royal marriage. I believe the name of the institution or government if you will, is the lgbt monarchy. I came across it on a popular search engine and I'm sure that one can easily find it.

The whole idea of equality seems to be nicely employed in the dealings of this tribe or whatever they are called, but I do wonder if the rest of the world would recognise them as legitimate. Do you think it would be likely that such a concept as an lgbt royal family would become globally accepted, if not at least in the West for the most part?

maria-olivia · #**495** 07-24-2011, 01:41 PM

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.

Boris · #**496** 07-24-2011, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

Having in my close family someone born with this "genes" I don't like this thread.

"Someone born with this genes"? Do you mean to say someone who's gay or lesbian?
I don't understand why this would be a reason not to like this thread? It could just as well be a good reason for the opposite - to like it because you can find out more about gay and lesbian Royalty past and present.

**HRHHermione** · #**497** 07-24-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

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.

You don't like this thread why? It was a very respectful thread about equality for gay people in a modern world- up to and including how their relationships could fit into a monarchy. As someone with a close family member who's gay, I'd expect that you'd be thrilled that we've come so far in accepting gay couples and recognizing that they should be welcomed at every level of society. Don't you want that for your family member?

Nico · #**498** 07-24-2011, 04:29 PM

Quote:

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.

So with all due respect why are you here? You don't have to read or intervene in this thread if you are not confortable with the topic...

XeniaCasaraghi · #**499** 07-29-2011, 07:21 PM

Most royals also have at least the image of strong religious lives and beliefs. And about 90% of religions frown on homosexuality. More than likely a gay royal would have to adhere to the old rules that other homosexual royals have had to live by.

PrincessKaimi · #**500** 07-29-2011, 09:11 PM

Edward II was clearly gay/bisexual (and I have "his genes"). The torment he endured due to ignorance back then is why we call it "the Dark Ages." Some people still live in those times.

ALl manner of sexual proclivities (including overall sex drive) are inherited. Imagine what monarchy would be like if monarchs were all asexual, celibate and had no kids (hmm, there seem to be a few of those along the various lines). Hmm, highly sexed heterosexuals seem to do better at producing the 10-20 offspring necessary for keeping these lines going, back in the day.

Edward III had 13 children that survived birth - what a guy. Straight and prolific. But is this really what we want from modern monarchs? I think not.