LHBTQ+ Royalty

[GracieGiraffe]

I'd like to think that a gay monarch in the year 2013 could marry his/her partner and have children with the partner who can inherit the throne. But reading through this thread has proven interesting. It suggests to me that for all of its claims of liberality, Europe might not be quite ready to accept a gay monarch, and therefore it not quite as liberal as it claims. (I limit my discussion to a Western monarchy because I think it's the only place where it would be possible in this day and age). It suggests to me that the concept of liberality is certainly nuanced, and I suppose it begs the question of just how liberal is a society with a monarchy in place.

I've just skimmed most of the discussion, but a few points (so apologies if I have misinterpreted anything):

1) The idea that royals are supposed to be role models and therefore might not be able to enter into a gay marriage and family does not sit well with me. Entering into a loving marriage, raising a family in that loving marriage is what role models should do, IMO. Nothing more conservative than marriage and family, and here the royal would be perpetuating that concept. I don't accept the notion that something "more" is expected of royals because it suggests that gay marriage is something a little less than heterosexual marriage.

2) There are subjects/citizens who won't accept the gay marriage, but there are plenty of such subjects/citizens who don't accept the concept of royalty anyway in a modern society. You need the majority to accept it.

3) I do understand the notion that royals must behave on a higher moral level than others. In that regard, I have far more of an issue of royals who don't pull their weight, who jump from one meaningless relationship to another, who engage in substance abuse (not singling out anyone in particular, just a few thoughts). A gay marriage is on equal moral grounds as a straight marriage. But a marriage involving infidelities, spousal abuse, etc, is not.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

I am not understanding your analogy between homosexuality, incest and pedophilia? I'm actually finding it rather offensive... But I'm sure that wasn't your intent.

It certainly wasn't meant so. Provocative, yes, but not offensive.

I was to illustrate my point, merely putting things on the edge.

There are people, who in the name of sexual rights, advocate pedohillia and incest.
Wayne James was being very black and white in claiming that there should be no legal descrimination against any consentual sexual conduct.
I was trying to get Wayne James to realise that perhaps there are limits to his tolerance.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by vkrish

I guess Wayne James need to spend a couple of weeks on TRF and go through all the discussions to have an understanding how people perceive the royals, and what is expected of them..
He seems to have very little idea of that.
He is seeing everything from the eye of a fundamental rights activist, from the far left end of even the American "freedom" way.
The points he is repeating over and over--"Society has accepted, so whats the problem".."Everyone has his own personal choice".."We should worry how the monarch leads us, not how he lives"..are all too good in a book of gay activism..But reality is much far and the journey is much slow... Rushing only makes things worse.

This a forum so it's quite obvious that many users will have different opinions and views. Personal jabs at members who's opinions differ from yours is unnecessary.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

I'd like to think that a gay monarch in the year 2013 could marry his/her partner and have children with the partner who can inherit the throne. But reading through this thread has proven interesting. It suggests to me that for all of its claims of liberality, Europe might not be quite ready to accept a gay monarch, and therefore it not quite as liberal as it claims. (I limit my discussion to a Western monarchy because I think it's the only place where it would be possible in this day and age). It suggests to me that the concept of liberality is certainly nuanced, and I suppose it begs the question of just how liberal is a society with a monarchy in place.

Few countries, if any, are as liberal and tolerant as they claim and wish to be.
Europe is certainly much more tolerant than before - as long as we don't rush things.
People need time to adjust and getting used to changes.

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

I've just skimmed most of the discussion, but a few points (so apologies if I have misinterpreted anything):

1) The idea that royals are supposed to be role models and therefore might not be able to enter into a gay marriage and family does not sit well with me. Entering into a loving marriage, raising a family in that loving marriage is what role models should do, IMO. Nothing more conservative than marriage and family, and here the royal would be perpetuating that concept. I don't accept the notion that something "more" is expected of royals because it suggests that gay marriage is something a little less than heterosexual marriage.

Gay marriage is not less worthy.
Monarchy is a conservative institution in itself, even though it often has a very liberal outlook. But it is subject to the scrutiny and approval of the people
When DK introduced registered partnerships for homosexuals, QMII was one of the first monarchs who as a matter of course invited a minister and his spouse. - In fact that was the way he was officially "outed". It created some attention at the time, but it didn't cause any outcry and hardly any raised eyebrows among the public.
So the monarchy can be conservative, liberal and role models at the same time.
With the current baby-boom among CP's here in Europe one or two of the children will statistically speaking be homosexual. The royal families will deal with that when the time comes, but there will inevitably be some controversy. It'll pass.
And at some point a CP will be homosexual and he/she will face the problems then and they are likely to be overcome. - But not now. That's too soon.
It all depends on the acceptance of the people and now in 2013, it's still too soon.

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

2) There are subjects/citizens who won't accept the gay marriage, but there are plenty of such subjects/citizens who don't accept the concept of royalty anyway in a modern society. You need the majority to accept it.

Those who object to royalty will use a same-sex-marriage monarch as an argument to abolish the monarchy. If you are against the monarchy out of principle, the sexual orientation of the monarch is secondary.
What matters is what those who are in favour of the monarchy thinks. And again, they (we/I) tend to be conservative.

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

3) I do understand the notion that royals must behave on a higher moral level than others. In that regard, I have far more of an issue of royals who don't pull their weight, who jump from one meaningless relationship to another, who engage in substance abuse (not singling out anyone in particular, just a few thoughts). A gay marriage is on equal moral grounds as a straight marriage. But a marriage involving infidelities, spousal abuse, etc, is not.

And the royals get a lot of heat for, basically behaving like many of their subjects. There are I don't know how many threads on this forum alone where even minor discretions by royals are disected and critisised.
Royals nowadays can get away with much, much less than their great-grandparents.
The view on royals has simply become much more conservative.

[Wayne James]

I am always amazed at how it is generally the man sitting at the banquet table, partaking in the great feast, who tells the beggar at his feet, "Have patience, my good servant. Have patience. Food will come in due time....."

I am not imposing my morality on anyone. I am simply stating, in plain English, that everyone--including royals and aristocrats--is entitled to his own morality, provided that that morality does not contravene the law of the land. The FACT is, whether you like it or not, that a monarch in ANY COUNTRY which allows for same-sex marriage, can marry someone of the same sex. Same-sex marriage is law in Spain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, etc. And if ANY of those monarchs, royals, or aristocrats wanted to marry someone of the same sex (even if they had to divorce their present spouses first), they could do it. THAT is the law, whether you like it or not. And rightfully so... And had the law makers wanted it to be otherwise, they would have written the law otherwise. For example, some laws are written such that no church or religious entity would have to perform same-sex marriages if such marriages are contrary to the tenets of the religion. But I am aware of NO marriage equality law which EXCLUDES monarchs, royals, or aristocrats. Such laws do not exist because such laws would be clearly discriminatory. No, I don't live in a monarchy. We, thank God, gave that system of government up years ago for a system based on merit. But that doesn't mean that I don't know discrimination against a royal or a monarch when I see it. I don't have to live in the South Pole to know that it is cold there. The law makers of Spain, for example, could have passed a law which reads: "Same-sex marriage is permissible in Spain--but it is not available to monarchs and royals." They could easily have done that. But they didn't. And for good reason. Good law makers have long learned that laws should apply equally to all people within a realm.

My point about the pilot goes towards my point of people being able to do whatever or be whoever they want to be, provided that they don't break the law, harm themselves, or harm others in the process. How does someone else's gay marriage harm you? How does someone else's heterosexual marriage benefit you? How does someone's personal taste in clothing harm or benefit you? If President Obama donned an evening gown and sported a tattoo, it would not affect me one way or the other. My personal preference for how HE should dress SHOULD not supersede HIS personal preference for how HE should dress. My "recourse" in such an instance would be to vote against him (or not for him) in the following election. But it would never cross my mind to think that I have a right to tell an adult how he should dress, what markings he should apply to his skin, or with whom he should engage in sex or marriage. I was not raised that way. We have laws in America regarding appropriate dress. As long as the president is in compliance with those laws, then he can wear whatever he chooses to wear. That is the American way. And thank God.

Freedoms have limits. Everyone knows that. There are laws against incest, child abuse, pedophilia, underage marriage, etc. Equating those aberrant practices with the right, pursuant to law, of two consenting adults of the same sex to marry is absurd.

Monarchies are inherently problematic. Any system of government based on birthright is inherently problematic. Whenever you allow people with NO qualification--other than birth--to be "the living face of a country...a rallying point in times of change...," you have a problem. I don't select my barber because his father was a barber. I select my barber based on his ability to cut hair.

If you don't want your monarchs and your royals to engage in same-sex marriage, tell your lawmakers to carve out that exception in the legislation. Otherwise, the royals have the right to do it, just like you, your children, your friends, and your colleagues. And if they married pursuant to law, no one, not even you, would insist upon abdication. After all, you would have no right to do so. How can you fault a king for following the laws of his land?

[NGalitzine]

Wayne, you continue to miss the essential point about a monarchy. Monarchy is about emotion and tradition and continuity. What may be perfectly legal in civil law becomes much more emotional and complicated when it comes to the monarch/symbol of the nation. It can be even more complicated when the church is involved. While civil marriage may be legal not all churchs will perform a same sex marriage and in many countries the monarchy is closely tied with the church even if unlike the UK the monarch is not head of the church. In some countries the government would also have to approve the marriage which could result is a quite devisive debate in parliament depending on the party in power.

Change takes time. Society does not adapt to change so quickly even though the laws are in place. Think back to what a big deal it was to elect the first RC President, and there had never been any laws to prevent it just peoples own biases and prejudices. Divorce had long been legal but it was still much discussed when Betty Ford was first lady and it became known that she had been previously married and divorced. When Reagan was elected it was much commented on that he was the first divorced President. think back to your election primaries over the last decade, lots of stories about the multiple marriages and divorces of people like Gingrich and McCain. Is ine divorce acceptable but 2 or 3 or 4 not acceptable?

How long has it been since the emancipation of the slaves (not counting Mississippi which just passed the amendment this year) and how many years after that did it take Americans to elect a black President? How long ago did American given women universal sufferage and yet a woman has still not been elected President. It would be naive to suggest that in all these decades there has never been a black person capable of being POTUS yet American had not reached a point where that was possible until 2008, and even today may not have reached a point where a woman could be elected POTUS or even be at the top of the ticket in an election but I am sure there must have been many qualified women along the way.

It may not be rational but people tend to have an idealized image of their monarch/president as representing a better version of themselves and their nation so as has been said before what may be legal and acceptable for the general population may not be deemed acceptable by the general population for their monarch or head of state. Law and rational have little to do with it, it all comes down to time and generational change.

Perhaps you should contact HRH the Duke of Bavaria who is openly gay and does bring his partner to some functions to get his views on the subject.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Wayne James

Who are we to tell anyone--monarch or otherwise--that he/she does not have a basic, fundamental, human right...

I don't believe "we" are telling anyone they don't have human rights. Members are instead suggesting that if there was a gay Monarch, he (or she) would be unlikely to publicly disclose the fact. Just as heterosexual royals are reticent in publicly discussing their sex lives, sexual preferences and unofficial partners, there is no reason to believe that homosexual royals would be any different.

As there is no currently-known gay reigning monarch or gay heir to a throne within the European Gotha, the campaign to have them exercise their human rights in marrying a person of the same sex may be a touch premature.

[Mermaid1962]

No. In the British Royal Family, a member has to have the monarch's consent to marry.

Originally Posted by Wayne James

The FACT is, whether you like it or not, that a monarch in ANY COUNTRY which allows for same-sex marriage, can marry someone of the same sex.

[Muhler]

Very well put, NGalitzine.

Wayne James, you are basically stamping your feet right now.

On one hand you are apparantly against monarchy or alternatively don't understand it and on the other hand you insist that a monarchy should conform to your values and views.
Same sex marriages has, as far as I know, not yet been implemented in USA. It is being implemented in Europe and yet, you demand that we, who currently have a debate about it and are getting used to gay marriages must comply with your views and that we wrong (even suggesting we are bad) if we don't go all out right now, preferably yesterday.
No one want someone else to impose their values. It will lead to a backlash.
Is it really too much to ask that you allow people to have time to get used to it and learn that the world doesn't end if gay couples marry.

Heads of states in free countries live on the acceptance of the people.
Elected heads of state who are not accepted get voted out.
But the stakes are higher for monarchs. If they lose the acceptance of the people, then the monarchy itself is in serious danger. That's an entire form of government, that in the case of my country has exited for 1.200 years.

I understand you have no problems with your president becoming the laughingstock of the world if he should show up at a summit in drag. Because that's what will happen, now in 2013. Not to mention the embarrasment he will cause I don't know how many millions of your fellow Americans.

I come from a small country and we can't afford that luxury. If our head of state is too unconventional when going on say statevisits we risk losing billions on trade.
This is bloody serious and that's why our royal's appearance is so important.
We can't have a monarch whom half the population has problems taking serious or worse think is an embarrassement.

As for the monarchs rights. The monarch can stand hand in hand with his gay partner quoting the lawbooks until he turns blue in the face. If the people don't accept his way of life he's out, one way or another.

If you come to me and say: "I demand that you tolerate my way of life"! My reaction will be: "Get lost! - At least have the curtesy to let me get to know you and then, if I think you deserve it, I'll respect you, embrace and also support you. But don't force me".

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Currently we won't have a Gay monarch anywhere in the world as far as I am aware.

There are at least two current monarchs who are gay.
Unsurprisingly, neither is "out", but it's no secret and their people appear to be quite unfussed about their sexual preference.
.

[Wayne James]

A monarchy is many things, some good, and some bad. To reduce the concept of monarchy to a common denominator called "emotion" is, in my opinion, overly simplistic. People are not naïve. They already know that monarchs, royals, and aristocrats are just like everyone else. And if they truly expected the monarchy to
exist on some plane above the rest of humanity, they would have, long ago, gotten rid of all monarchies since the historical record is rife with well-documented instances of royals who behave (or misbehave) just like normal people--and sometimes more so. And it is those precise instances which endear the monarchy to the people. People love their monarchs and royals because they know that they are real people. It was Princess Diana's vulnerability and her humanity that endeared her to the British people and to the world. People love royals and aristocrats because they can relate to them. Everyone saw a British royal sucking the toes of her paramour; everyone saw another British royal parading naked at a party; everyone saw yet another one having an affair in broad daylight. And after the proverbial eight days of "outrage," and "conniptions," all was well again. That is how it is, and that is how it will always be. People have love-hate relationships with their dogs, their bosses, their children, their lovers, their popes, and their monarchs.

So why is it that the same people who are so willing to accept nudity, divorce, affairs, financial scandals, and who knows what else, be so against same-sex marriage? The answer is: They are not. More people are in favor of same-sex marriage--including that of royals and monarchs--than you may think. They are in support same-sex marriage because they know that it is a Human Right. At the end of the day, people are good.

So to a large extent, you argue my point: All those years between Emancipation and the first black president; and all the time that passed between Womens' Suffrage and women routinely holding political office; and all those years between the Sexual Revolution and Marriage Equality were wasted years. Just think of how much further along society would have been had more people been brave enough to step forward --then and there--and demand their rights once they were granted by law. The "time" you speak of is not some component of natural law or the natural order of things. The "time" you speak of is the result of cowardice. It is like a bull not knowing that he cannot be restrained by the rope that binds him by the neck.

Anyway, all of this will be resolved when England passes its same-sex statute shortly. Trust me when I tell you that it won't be long thereafter that monarchs, royals, and aristocrats will be coming forward to exercise their right to marry whomever they love. And England will become a better place for it.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Warren

There are at least two current monarchs who are gay.
Unsurprisingly, neither is "out", but their people appear to be quite unfussed about their sexual preference.

Question, who are the two?

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Wayne James

Anyway, all of this will be resolved when England passes its same-sex statute shortly. Trust me when I tell you that it won't be long thereafter that monarchs, royals, and aristocrats will be coming forward to exercise their right to marry whomever they love. And England will become a better place for it.

Exactly which monarchs and royals will be queuing up to have same-sex marriages and how will they make England a better place? Prefacing an assertion with "Trust me" does not necessarily give it greater credibility.

Most assuredly, neither of the two gay monarchs I referred to earlier will be "coming forward" to get married to the man of their choice in England.

[Lee-Z]

Bit off-topic but i just had a thought: you know those the stories of royal or nobles houses were an ancestor made a will that has very strict specifications concerning marriage of the heirs...? the specifications often include race, religion etc...but do you think any of these ancestors could have ever imagined that gender needed to be specified :)

[vkrish]

Originally Posted by Warren

There are at least two current monarchs who are gay.
Unsurprisingly, neither is "out", but it's no secret and their people appear to be quite unfussed about their sexual preference.
.

Exactly. this is what I was saying from the beginning. The people know those two, the world knows, nothing is said or done publicly, but just things go on. So far so good. This should be the way a gay monarch (again, first time one) should be in any country..Europe/Asia/even Antarctica..
But apparently, Wayne James wants him to also have a string of relationships , some PDAs at night-clubs as well as on the Balcony and being heralded by a sea of pink/biege-clad LGBT activists wherever he goes..All this right at the beginning..No that cannot and should not happpen..

[fandesacs2003]

Originally Posted by Warren

There are at least two current monarchs who are gay.
Unsurprisingly, neither is "out", but it's no secret and their people appear to be quite unfussed about their sexual preference.
.

I have an idea about the first, who is also married, but who is the second one?
Is he married? any clue? is it a reigning monarch?

[NGalitzine]

[QUOTE=Wayne James;1550943]So to a large extent, you argue my point: All those years between Emancipation and the first black president; and all the time that passed between Womens' Suffrage and women routinely holding political office; and all those years between the Sexual Revolution and Marriage Equality were wasted years. Just think of how much further along society would have been had more people been brave enough to step forward --then and there--and demand their rights once they were granted by law. The "time" you speak of is not some component of natural law or the natural order of things. The "time" you speak of is the result of cowardice. It is like a bull not knowing that he cannot be restrained by the rope that binds him by the neck.

QUOTE]

It is not cowardince for societies to take the time to adjust to new realities.
In another post you said Americans would accept and warmly embrace a SCOTUS ruling in favour of same sex marriage. You must be incredibly naive if you really believe that a SCOTUS ruling automatically changes peoples viewpoints.
Brown V Board of Education did not overnight change peoples views on segregation. As recently as last week I read a story about a southern high school that is scheduled to hold its first desegregated prom and the local protests still calling for a white only prom. The State governor did not feel able to comment on this issue even in 2013.
Roe V Wade is still hotly debated in the US and state and federal politicians still work to overturn the ruling.
You seem to lecture those of us who live in countries which allow same sex marriage on how we must behave and deal with our monarchy while proclaiming America as a country of freedoms etc. The US is a great country but I am sorry it cannot really lecture us all about the exercise and granting of freedoms. America was not the first nation to abolish slavery, it was not the first to give women the right to vote, it has yet to grant full rights to its LGBT citizens, it has yet to elect a woman head of state/government while many other nations have done so including Muslim nations, it has yet to have an openly gay head of state /governmemnt or even a gay cabinet secretary while both Iceland and Belgium have had LGBT heads of goivernment.
Societies, including America, take the time they need to adapt to change even after the laws are in place. For your arguement of course, there will need to be an LGBT heir or monarch before we will know how society will react. Stomping your feet and demanding action today or yesterday or tomorrow does not change this.
Perhaps you might seek out an LGBT candidate for the presidency and then let us know how those wise Americans have accepted and warmly embraced the idea of gay president and First Spouse in the White House. Of course you first need to get over the hurdle of how SCOTUS might rule, how wide or narrow their ruling might be, and then the required changes in state and federal laws regarding same sex marriages.

[cepe]

Great post. Thank you

[Wayne James]

It is a pity I did not learn of the existence of this site before just a couple of days ago. I like the engagement (pardon the pun).

The member's point (whether based in fact or not) that a monarch must give consent to a royal wedding clearly is of no consequence when it is the monarch him/herself who is getting married. Obviously, he or she would consent to his or her own royal wedding. (As for the member who asserts that Parliament/Houses of Lords/etc. must give approval of royal weddings, I would have to see that in official documentation to believe that. And even then, I am sure there would be a loophole to such a law. I can understand approval of the finances allocated to the wedding ceremony itself. But I do not believe that such approval would be necessary for obtaining the legal status of "married").

As for the other member who states that any discussion about same-sex royal weddings is "premature," his position is, at best, uninformed. How can you or I possibly know who is gay or not gay or who is planning on getting married or not unless we are specifically told THE TRUTH? Furthermore, we are engaging in a hypothetical discussion: Should a monarch or a royal be allowed to marry someone of the same sex in a country where same-sex marriage is permissible by law. That is the question.

Yes, there will become a time when gay marriage is so commonplace that it doesn't warrant discussion. Just like today, interracial marriage is a non-issue. But until then, when a gay person marries someone of the same sex, he in effect "announces" his homosexuality (or perhaps his bisexuality). There is no opportunity for the "reticence" to which the member refers. Just as a heterosexual "announces" his heterosexuality (or bisexuality) when he marries someone of the opposite sex, so does a homosexual "announce" his sexuality when he marries--unless, of course, they intend on engaging in sexless "marriages."

The United States is a huge country with over 300 million people who come from all over the world. We, thankfully, are not a homogenous, monolithic society. We attract the best of the best and the worst of the worst from all over the world. And that is precisely what makes us the greatest nation on Earth. Obtaining consensus on any issue in America is infinitely more complicated than obtaining agreement in most other countries of the world. But it is our diversity which is our greatest asset. In America, we are accustomed to open-minded debate. It is our way of life. We expect people to have differences of opinion, and we celebrate those differences knowing that at the end of the day, we will come to a common ground that is good for all. And as a result, it is WE Americans who are at the forefront of much of the social change which impacts the rest of the world. By the end of June or the beginning of July, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the issue of marriage equality. If the law passes and has applicability across the country, trust me when I tell you that the rest of the world will have to look very carefully at its same-sex marriage policies and laws. if the law does not pass, trust me when I tell you that Americans will go back to the drawing board to re-strategize so as to ensure equality for all who reside on American soil. All roads once led to Rome; once upon a time, the sun did set on the British Empire; and today, America is the Land of the Free and the land of the Brave. In America, we don't have to "ask" (as yet another member suggests) for Human Rights and Fundamental Rights. We demand them. We demand them because those rights are inalienable--no one should ever have been deprived of them in the first place. So it would be foolish of us to sit back and "wait" for someone to bestow upon us what is rightfully ours--by birth. In America, we don't bow and genuflect to humans. We bow and genuflect to God.

So I have no need to "campaign" for anything. I simply am engaging, as is my right, in a discussion, in a public forum, which I find interesting, relevant, and important. To that end, I state my positions and welcome others' positions. It is the American way. If 20% of the world's population is gay, then 20% of the world's aristocrats are gay. So trust me when I tell you that this issue of gay marriage is as real and immediate for them as it is for everyone else in the free world.

[Lee-Z]

this was about the last thing that i was expecting.... you seriously think that the US is at the *forefront* of the same-sex-marriage discussion?