LHBTQ+ Royalty

[Jacknch]

Originally Posted by vkrish

...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..

Oh bless your heart! Yes, I understand - I might not necessarily agree, but I DO understand what you're saying!!!

But none of this WILL happen all of sudden! We're all going nuts over something that frankly most likely will not happen and if it does, based on statistics alone, it's going to be years - if at all - before a gay heir/monarch comes into existance. Assuming one does and on their 18th Birthday they announce their sexuality to the world, they're hardly going to immediately go off the very next day and get married and find a surrogate or adopt are they?! They'll be British royalty for goddness sake - finding anyone to marry a British royal gay, straight or indifferent, is difficult enough as it is, let alone one suddenly appearing the very minute they've come out!

It all makes me think that the individual concerned - the gay heir - is going to have to be exceptional in the way they deal with their sexuality and how they reconcile it to the outside world. I know for sure that they will not be stereotypically gay, and that they will be supported on all sides and that they will not wish to scare the horses in any way and that they will be very careful in their choice of partner.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by Jacknch

...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!

Exactly. I can't spot anyone gay anywhere near a European throne right now.
As for the current royal children it will be some ten years or more before we can say anything specific about their sexual preferences.
And should one of the future heirs be homosexual it will be another ten years or so, before the question of a spouse seriously becomes a topic and perhaps another ten years before a marriage is on the table.
In thirty years from now, the world will look different and same sex marriages will have been a commonplace thing for a generation.
- There will still be controversy but not nearly as much as today.

I was merely responding to the notion if a gay monarch today in 2013, went out and said he/she wanted to marry and people were being knocked on the head and demanded to accept it. - That will with guarantee cause a backlash.
I would be calling for an abdication too, because that monarch is selfish. He puts himself and his own happiness before the stabilllity of the monarchy and the interests of his country.
I'm very fond of the monarchy and I'd prefer it to stay safe. A same-sex monarch today is too modern, too controversial, rocks the boat too much for my taste. It's better to wait some years.
And the best thing would be for a lesser royal to be a trailblazer first.

[EarlOfDawleyMagna]

It's not a question of rocking the boat or there not being anybody gay ready to put the new laws to the test but a question of equal rights NOW. Not in the future but now. We have a duty as a modern society to pave the way and prepare in advance so that when eventually it does happen there will be something in place.
It may not even be '30 years' until its put to the test. We have many aristocratic families with titles and peerages such as Sir Elton John. Even Prince Harry although jokingly (we assume) has commented recently about the possibility of looking in the direction of a male partner. Proof enough that the issue is current and a warning that it could present itself at a moments notice.

Being prepared is key.

Action now.

[Wayne James]

For people born in the 20th century, sexuality was over-simplified by psychologists and sociologists: People were either gay or straight, with 90% of people being "straight," and 10% of people being "gay." Bisexuality was hardly acknowledged as an actual, legitimate expression of sexuality. For many people, a bisexual was a homosexual in denial. (For some people, such points of view still persist).

Since the 21st century, people tend to view sexuality more comprehensively--as occurring upon a spectrum from 100% homosexual on one extreme to 100% heterosexual on the other extreme, with 100% bisexual as the median point. Very few people are 100% homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Most people are somewhere along on the spectrum, leaning either towards the homosexual pole, the heterosexual pole, or the bisexual median. Like in all other areas of human existence, our perspective has evolved--thankfully.

For many young people 30 and under, sexuality is increasingly becoming a non-issue, except for when engaging in sex or planning to engage in it. Many young people today regard discriminating based on sexuality to distasteful, they way they have come to view discrimination based on race or gender.

Consequently, for young royalty and nobility (some on the throne, about to be on the throne, in possession of hereditary titles, etc.), embracing of one's non-heterosexual sexuality is as natural as having friends of different races or working with the opposite gender. Diversity is natural for young people--far more so than it was for people born in the 20th century. Because of popular culture--as expressed on television, in music, and in society at large, sexuality is not used to exclude.

To think that a generation will pass before gay royalty and aristocracy declare themselves as such (or are recognized as such) is naïve. People today see sexuality--in all its expressions--as a fundamental right which cannot be denied. And with the increasing passage of same-sex marriage laws around the world--especially in Europe--European countries with systems of royalty and aristocracy will have to adjust to the times. Today, a noble or a royal will not abdicate because of sexuality. And rightfully so. Instead, royalty and nobility are simply going to demand that the laws be applied to them just as they are applied to everyone else in their respective countries. And who can fault them for asking for equal treatment? After all, they are so oftentimes afforded special treatment that it will be a breath of fresh air when they ask to be treated just like everyone else.

People need to realize that today, being uncomfortable with homosexuality and bisexuality is no longer the "problem" of the homosexual or the bisexual. It is the problem of the person who feels the discomfort--the way racism is no longer the "problem" of the person persecuted, but of the racist.

The world is changing. And nobles and royals (and their subjects) are going to have to change along with it.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Wayne James

Today, a noble or a royal will not abdicate because of sexuality. And rightfully so.

While your intentions are well-meant, you appear to be trying to wrap your arguments around situations where your knowledge and understanding is superficial. For a start, nobles don't "abdicate". In Britain since 1963 newly-inherited hereditary peerages can be disclaimed, a device introduced to allow a peer to either stand for election to, or retain their seat in, the House of Commons. Since about 2001 with the reform of the House of Lords, the act of disclaiming a peerage is no longer necessary. While a newly-inherited peerage can be disclaimed for other reasons, such instances are rare (just over half a dozen in 50 years, including three from the same family).

You are correct in stating that "Today...a royal will not abdicate because of sexuality", but then, they never have. You would be hard-pressed to find even one example of a monarch who did abdicate because of their sexuality. There are plenty of known or suspected gay and lesbian monarchs throughout history but none to my knowledge who gave up their throne because of it.

A royal's attitude to legally marrying their same-sex partner will depend on their own personal view and probably that of their family. Royal rebels are not unknown but as a generalisation royals tend to be conservative and cautious in their outlook. If it was a choice between continuing a discreet defacto same-sex relationship or as you say "demand that the laws be applied to them just as they are applied to everyone else", most may prefer the former. In any case, in those countries with marriage equality, the obvious rejoinder to the latter is "there's no law stopping you from doing so". Only Establishment, organised religion, homophobic and possibly family disapproval. For a junior royal, maybe a price worth paying; for a senior royal with a role on the public stage, maybe not, at least for a few more years until same-sex marriage becomes unremarkable.

[Wayne James]

The meaning of the word "abdicate" is straight-forward: To renounce or relinquish a throne, right, power, claim, responsibility or the like. Anyone can "abdicate." It is not limited to royalty relinquishing their right to the throne. And while a "noble" is not necessarily a "royal," a "royal" is by definition a noble: Of or constituting a hereditary class that has special social or political status in a country or state.

There is nothing esoteric, recondite, or abstruse about this discussion. I have never been to the North Pole, but I know it is cold there. And, fortunately, I am not a subject of a monarch, but I know what the words "abdicate" and "noble" mean such that I know that their definitions are far broader than you suggest.

[Warren]

Oh, that's rather defensive. Nonetheless, this being a site focussing on royal-related matters, we tend to the specific rather than the general.

Rather than debating definitions, the point remains that the statement "Today...a royal will not abdicate because of sexuality" implies that in the past one or more monarchs have done just that. This is not the case. You would be hard-pressed to find an example of any monarch, ruler or noble who is known to have given up their position and power due to sexual orientation.

[AfricanAUSSIE]

So...what does happen right now if the King or Queen is gay? Say he or she adopts or does what Elton John has?

[amaryllus]

being gay does not effect your ability to produce children.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by amaryllus

being gay does not effect your ability to produce children.

Illigitemate children are not aknowledged and cannot inherit within a royal family.
A royal would have to have a child within a pro forma marriage in order to continue the dynasty. - And then continue his/her relationship with an unofficial gay partner.
How many want to accept a marriage based on that?

Wayne James, I think you are wearing the biased glasses today and you see what you want to see.
It's not just a question of royals being accepted by the under 30 (gay acceptance is not an age thing anyway), it's a question of the royal being accepted by the widest possible segment of the population.
I need hardly remind you of what happened in Vilnius in order to tell you that universal gay tolerance is not just around the corner - not least if you try and impose it.

[Ish]

Being gay may not affect your ability to produce children, but it does affect the ability of those children to inherit.

Pretty much all monarchies require only biological children to inherit (not adopted ones), and most require that children are either born in wedlock or retroactively legitimized by the marriage of parents.

So the question becomes, is a child born via a surrogate or conceived through artificial means a legitimately born child if both of its biological parents are married? How about if its parents are in a same-sex-relationship and only one of them is biologically related? Is that child eligible for a place in the succession?

Since it hasn't happened yet it's hard to say, although I personally suspect that it's an issue that will have to be addressed when the situation arises. There's also the question of what legal rights the other biological parent has, or the surrogate mother. In Britain a surrogate mother is, at birth, the legal mother of the child, and the non-surrogate parents have to apply to be recognized as the legal parents (with the mother giving up her rights). Does that constitute as adoption, and if so is a child born through such means eligible to inherit?

Once again, I think all of this would have to be addressed when such an issue came up. What's more is that depending on where it happens can affect how easily - or not easily - it's addressed. Look at how the whole equal primogeniture has been handled - on the Continent it seems to largely be working out fine, although not everyone is addressing it yet. In Britain and the Commonwealth it's proving to be a lot more difficult because sixteen different, independent nations have to all pass the changes. The same is likely to happen in this kind of scenario.

What I wonder though, specifically regarding Britain, is if an heir, or even a monarch, could enter into a same-sexed marriage. They couldn't get married in the CoE because, while same-sex marriage is now legal in Britain it isn't legal for homosexuals to marry in the CoE. Could an individual who is the head of the CoE enter into a marriage that isn't recognized by the CoE itself? While we know that the heir can get married outside of the church so long as it's recognized by the church (as happened with Charles' second marriage), would the ABC be willing to bless such a marriage? And if he isn't, would we have another abdication crisis on our hands?

[Warren]

A King (or Monarch) in confrontation with the government of the day is fraught with risks and could escalate into the Monarch standing aside, voluntarily or otherwise. Any such confrontation by its nature is a "constitutional crisis" as convention and practice dictate that the Sovereign is expected to act on the advice of the Prime Minister.

A confrontation between a Monarch and an Archbishop of Canterbury is more personal so doesn't challenge the constitutional position of the monarchy or the legitimacy of the government or the ultimate supremacy of the Parliament so would be unlikely to result in abdication.

[Wayne James]

It is not a matter of being defensive. It is a matter of setting the record straight.

In the past, gay monarchs and other royals lived a lie. They would marry someone of the opposite sex; manage, somehow, to produce children; and live unhappily ever after--between their extramarital affairs, of course. So the issue of a "gay monarch" was, in effect, a non-issue. (Even non-royal people lived such lies. The societal pressures against gay people were unbearable. And in some cases, homosexuality was illegal). But today, the world is more tolerant on the issue of homosexuality. So now, protocols will have to be established.

The world is more likely to have a gay king or queen than a gay president. After all, kings and queens are BORN; presidents are popularly elected. So it would behoove the nations with monarchies to get ready for the inevitable. By the time America elects an openly gay male president, it will be prepared to call the husband of that president, "First Gentleman." That occurrence is probably several elections away, though it will come. But the possibility of a gay royal is NOW. So why not have the protocol in place NOW? Who of us can say definitively that any single royal is either gay or straight? Prince Harry could "come out" tomorrow. The prince of Sweden could come out on Tuesday. Then what? People need to realize that the world has changed.... Black people are now in the White House; women are now running Fortune 500 corporations. And gay people are in all walks of life--from the patrician class to the plebian class.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Wayne James

The world is more likely to have a gay king or queen than a gay president. After all, kings and queens are BORN; presidents are popularly elected. So it would behoove the nations with monarchies to get ready for the inevitable.

Your comment that royals are born royals, so it's more likely we'll have a gay royal makes little sense. We might not have a gay member of the royal family for 200 hundreds years, it's not determined by genes you know.

Originally Posted by Wayne James

By the time America elects an openly gay male president, it will be prepared to call the husband of that president, "First Gentleman." That occurrence is probably several elections away, though it will come.

I'm not sure how you can predict the future? An openly gay US President and his First Gentleman "will come"? Can you tell us when?

Originally Posted by Wayne James

But the possibility of a gay royal is NOW. So why not have the protocol in place NOW? Who of us can say definitively that any single royal is either gay or straight? Prince Harry could "come out" tomorrow. The prince of Sweden could come out on Tuesday. Then what?

Why is it NOW? Why is there a possibility of a gay royal now? I don't understand your logic? Because there is more royals that means there's a greater chance of a "gay one"? Excuse the crudeness. If Prince Henry or Prince Carl-Philip "came out" tomorrow, both rather unlikely as they have had very very highly publicised relationship, it would make no difference whatsoever. Both Victoria and William have children and heirs. Pushing both Henry and CP to fourth in line.

Originally Posted by Wayne James

People need to realize that the world has changed.... Black people are now in the White House; women are now running Fortune 500 corporations. And gay people are in all walks of life--from the patrician class to the plebian class.

What people?! Do you think if Henry were to come out tomorrow and say he was gay the British people would take to the streets and scream blue murder until he was forced to give up everything connected to royal life and go live in the amazon or something? Do you think we'd call for the dissolution of Monarchy because Prince Henry happens to like men instead of women? No we wouldn't. It's Henry's choice, and frankly if he has felt pressured to keep his sexuality hidden for however long "he's known", then I feel beyond sorry for him because there was no need for it.


I imagine you're willing for a royal to come out and say "I'm gay" and for the whole TRF to collapse in shock and go "HA TOLD YOU SO".

[Muhler]

There are and there have been several gay presidents.

You do not seem to genuinely understand the role of a modern monarch.
A monarch must, repeat must, represent as wide a segment of the population as at all possible. And do that for life.
Therefore a monarch, in contrast to a politician, must cause as little controversy as possible. A monarch cannot allow himself/herself the luxury of causing a split in the population caused by his/her person. - On the rare occasions that happens he has to tread very, very carefully. If not he may very well end up having to step down or worse, end up being the last of his dynasty.

Politicians are temporary and they can be voted out of office, step down or be forced away - and even that can cause a lot of trouble.
A royal is for life.

Modern monarchs represent values that are approved, accepted or at the very least tolerated by the vast majority of the population, also among those who may oppose the monarchy as an institution.
A monarch who is not even tolerated by say 25 % of the population is too divisive, cause too much controversy, rocks the boat too much. And he had better abdicate.

In contrast to popular belief modern royals have much less room to manouvre in regards to their personal lives than they had just pre WWII.

You cannot achieve tolerance by imposing it but you can by gradual acceptance. So to say a gay monarch must by fully accepted now is counterproductive.
It's the equivalent to me planting my finger on the tip of your nose saying: "I have this and this lifestyle and I intend to be open about it and you must fully accept and tolerate it, now, understand? And I don't care if you are unused to that or it goes against your values".

[EarlOfDawleyMagna]

Why wait until somebody is brave enough to 'come out' and question the system. The system should already have something planned and agreed written into law ready for them.

That is the meaning of true equality not just a wait and see attitude.

[maria-olivia]

It is a personal affair. Countess Gloria married the Furst Prince of Thurn and Taxis and they had 3 Children and a Heir.

[EarlOfDawleyMagna]

Of course it's all a personal affair and nobody should feel obliged to divulge anything about their own personal life however in an age where marriage laws have been changed and homosexual couples can marry, decisions need to be made upon what a same sex partner will be styled.

There is no harm in doing so and everybody will be clear going forwards. A homosexual person born into aristocracy may still feel the need to live a lie as there is nothing put there for them in law. Who would want to be the first to cause a stir? There simply would be no issue if everything was made clear now.

Since marriage was made legal for homosexual couples we also have the issue of existing gay couples who had civil partnerships now 'upgrading' to marriage status who have a partner with a title that their female counterpart would also adopt as in the case of Sir Elton John and Mr David Furnish. Why should Mr Furnish be denied the same right as his female counterpart based on sex?

[Wayne James]

If 10% of the world's population is "gay," then 10% of royals and aristocrats are "gay." There is nothing nonsensical about that. That is basic common sense. So right this minute, if one were to round up all of the world's royals, and if there were some accurate method of determining human sexuality, 10% of them--some of them presently in "heterosexual" marriages and relationships--would be declared gay.

The point is that unlike the past, when gay people could not express their true sexuality--for fear of criminalization, bodily harm, rejection from family and friends, etc.--they had to hide behind convention. But today, such self-denial is increasingly becoming unnecessary. Bigotry, however, still exists. So while a president must be publicly elected, thereby being subject to the public's bigotry, a royal is born into his title, regardless of his sexuality and what his subjects think of his sexuality. For that reason, coupled with the increasing tendency of gay people to express their true sexuality, it is more likely for there to be gay royals than gay elected officials.

Despite the changing world, the institutions that must determine the protocol for same-sex nobles and royals have failed to establish such protocol. It is while researching this very issue for an upcoming book on men's manners (which includes a chapter on "Marriage in the 21st Century" and a chapter on "Weddings in the 21st Century") that I came to the realization that there was no protocol in place and that there were no plans to begin establishing a protocol. The typical response was, "Well, we don't have the answer, and we don't think there will be any need for an answer in the foreseeable future." LOL... In what world do those people live? Do they not read the newspapers and look at television such that they would know that the Gay Movement is underway? What will the husband of a count be called? What will the wife of a baroness in her own right be called? If Prince Harry, for example, marries a man, what would that man be called? How can rational people aware of what is going on in the world around them not think that these issues must be addressed posthaste? LOL... Well, I guess if no one is willing to establish the protocol, then I--an American who comes from a culture that over 200 years ago decided to do away with such things as aristocracy and royalty and bowing to people and curtsying to others--will have to establish the protocol in my upcoming book. But don't blame me: I asked for your learned guidance; but none of you Brits or Spaniards or Danes or Swedes had the answers..... LOL

[Nice Nofret]

The conzept of a marriage to be solely based on mutual love is quit a new one; and not all people have adopted it.

For a marriage to be lawful it is only based on the will of two people to live married. There is no law that you also have to fancy your marriage-partner ...

So Gloria married T&T and had children and the lovelife of both was/is more samesex oriented ... that doesn't make their union unlawfull ...