LHBTQ+ Royalty

[maria-olivia]

Thinks for much easier now ; they don't have to marry and then return to their partner. What an awful life a lot of Princesses had.
I was thinking to the Duke Franz of Bavaria who is invited with his partner.

 

[buckbeakbabie]

With regard to the Church's attitude towards marriage of same-sex couples, for me the question cannot be addressed until I can be sure of the Church's attitude towards straight couple's marrying in civil ceremonies (as opposed to marrying in church) and of straight couples marrying in church but not actually being religious themselves. Is it a "proper" marriage under the eyes of the Church to be married in a church if you're not a practicing Christian and never go to Church again? Is a civil marriage recognised as marriage by the church if you marry in a registry office?
I do hope this is not deemed to be too religious an issue for this thread or forum! It's a sensitive subject for religious folk gay and straight!

That I don't know, I'm not an expert on the CoE. (Not yet. It's on my list of things I need to know before I can write this book). I was just repeating some of the debates I've heard on the radio.

I hope so too. I'm not passing judgement on the beliefs or saying whether I think they're right or wrong. Just discussing what the beliefs are. Don't want to cause controversy.

Thinks for much easier now ; they don't have to marry and then return to their partner. What an awful life a lot of Princesses had.
I was thinking to the Duke Franz of Bavaria who is invited with his partner.

That is very true, if they can be out, which as this thread shows isn't always an option.

But I was more referring to the difficulty even straight royals have maintaining a private life and letting their hair down a bit. The Duke of Kent in particular was far, far more scandalous than Prince Harry - he had a drug addiction in the 20s on top of the bisexuality and cross-dressing. But the press back then was an entirely different beast. Today, poor Harry has his private moments splashed all over the internet...

 

[Andolini]

Very true. Here in the United States, I see a similar trend - in the past reporters respected Presidents far more than they do now - never photographing FDR's leg braces, keeping JFK's infidelities on the down low, and now, in this new world of "reality tv", a President or any politician really cannot make one single move without the press getting all over it. It's too bad. I do not really care about any President's infidelities AS LONG as it does not interfere with national security.

 

[Haakon-Magnus]

I'm not sure whether this should go here, or in the Questions of Titles thread, but I just had a theoretical question, and wanted some opinions. If Harry were gay, or say one of William's sons is gay and he (or in the case of Harry, Charles) were king, do you think the male partner would receive a title upon marriage? Would they use a lesser title of the royal son? Like Harry would be Duke of Clarence and his partner would be Earl of Wherever? Or do you think they Harry would be given two Dukedoms, say Clarence and Avondale, and one would use Clarence and the other would use Avondale, but their children (permitting new LP's are passed to say that surrugate children are royal) would be of Clarence and Avondale? I know it's kinda out there, but I'm just curious what people think would happen.

I would think that should Prince Harry come out as gay, the following would happen:

(Supposing that QEII is still Queen)

- He would carry his title of Prince of the United Kingdom and the husband/partner would be given a lower title (Earl of whotsit or Count of things). Any child born of surrogacy from the match would not receive or inherit a title as it would be born out of legitimate wedlock (even though, as a believer in surrogacy, I feel it would be monumentally unfair).

(Supposing Charles or William is King)

- Harry would more than likely receive a royal dukedom as a son/brother of the reigning monarch. I would not speculate on what the partner would be called, considering the spouse of a duke is usually a duchess and there can be only one Duke of something. The natural thing would be for the partner to be given a courtesy title of some kind (see above). Again, children born of the match would not receive titles unless given by the monarch and would not be in the line of succession).

All of this is supposition though, as there is no precedent in modern history for a homosexual partner of a prince and what the title conferred would perhaps be. As for children born of surrogacy, unless the laws regarding legitimacy are changed, it would be unlikely that they would be accepted as peers/peeresses based on royal connection.

On a sidenote, I believe that most of the northern European monarchies would be open to the idea of a gay prince/princess. As long as there is another heir (meaning brother/sister), I don't believe it would matter much to them what the kids get up to in the bedroom.

Also, there are two current monarchs believed to be gay. Sultan Qaboos of Oman and King Norodom Sihamoni of Cambodia (his father apparently as good as outed him when he said that: "Sihamoni loves women as sisters.")

 

[Wayne James]

Same-sex marriage is quickly gaining acceptance as a fundamental right in the Western world. And once recognized as such, everyone--royals and the nobility included--will live his/her life accordingly. To the extent that same-sex marriage is incompatible with progeny, the principles governing succession, which have long been established, will take effect. It is as simple and as complicated as that. What's the point in being "King" if you can't be as free as everyone else in your own land.

 

[Muhler]

Well, I believe it will be at least a couple of generations before a wider segment of the population in practically all western monarchies will accept a monarch marrying the same sex as himself/herself.

Monarchy is in its very nature a conservative and tradition-bound institution. While they can be progressive in their outlook and in regards to the topics and people they deal with, the royals themselves must be careful about not being too progressive themselves. If not many core-monarchists will turn their back on them.

And royals are not free. They are more than anyone else bound by the position they were born into. Even for lesser royals leaving that position can be very problematic.

 

[Wayne James]

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, held that no state in the United States could maintain laws which prohibited the intermarrying of the races. There was a time when racism was the "problem" of the person being discriminated against. Today, however (and thankfully so), racism is the problem of the racist. The same is rapidly becoming true with marriage equality. Today, many people are offended by the notion of gay marriage. But tomorrow, it is the opponent of gay marriage who will be regarded as the person with "the problem."

The nobility and the aristocracy are as free as they want to be. They have long ago abandoned the "requirement" of marrying other nobles; they routinely divorce; they bear children out of wedlock; etc. In other words, they acknowledge that blood--even theirs-- is red, not blue. In this day and age, it would be ridiculous for a monarch to abdicate because of homosexuality. He or she simply could rule, knowing that upon his/her death/abdication, the throne would pass to the heir to the throne. The system of succession is well-established precedent. Why depart at this juncture? Progeny has never been a requirement of monarchy.

The nature of man is to be free. And any tradition which infringes upon that natural right is suspect. So again, if a ruler can't inspire his people to express their God-given selves--as exhibited by his own approach to his life-- then he is not fit to rule.

 

[nascarlucy]

Because of the conservative nature of royalty, a monarch who is gay will probably have to go the route of heterosexual marriage and children first unless the rules are changed. Don't think this will change anytime soon at least not in my lifetime. Mostly likely then the monarch will divorce their partner and then come out to the public.

I don't think in any monarchy that it's actually stated that if you're gay that you can't be a monarch.

Will be interesting when this happens what the reaction of the country and the world will be. If they've had the traditional marriage and children, the fact that they are gay can't be held or used against their children although some might questioned why they took their route.

 

[Wayne James]

Marriage and progeny are not prerequisites to inheriting the throne. In 2013, anyone who does not realize that homosexuality is a reality--even within royal and noble families--is misinformed or in denial. Birth order is what determines who will sit on the throne, not heterosexuality (or sexuality, for that matter). So if a gay person ascends to the throne, then he/she should rule. And if same-sex marriage is legal in his/her country, then he/she should be able to marry someone of the same sex. And upon his demise or abdication, the throne would simply pass to the next-in-line. The system of succession has long been established. And it has been applied to childless monarchs since the beginning of the concept of monarchy. So what is the issue? Most decent people would prefer to see a monarch live a happy life with the love of his/her life than to live a lie. And if the throne thereafter must be occupied by a brother, sister, niece, nephew, or cousin, then so be it.

 

[Muhler]

While royals in general can get away, to some extent, with children out of wedlock, mistresses, divorce and being gay it's something quite different with monarchs.
On the contrary monarchs nowadays, and CP's as well, more than before have to set a "moral" example. Then can get away with considerably less than what they could just two generations ago.
They have to walk a very narrow path.

I cannot imagine a homosexual royal with a homosexual spouse, within the next two generations. It will have to take a lesser royal to be a trailblazer first, before a such monarch might be accepted.

Monarchy is so much about feelings and much less so about rights.
It's about conservative values. It's also about religious values as most monarchs are practicing Christians, some are even head of the state church in their countries.

Give it time. We will eventually see a gay monarch some time in the future. But not for the next couple of generations.

 

[Wayne James]

There is nothing inherently "immoral" about homosexuality. It is a birthright as much as heterosexuality is a birthright--it, too, is a gift from God (or nature, the universe, genetics, or from whatever else one wants to credit with having bestowed the gift). And anyone who denies God's gift is likely to retard his progress on Earth. A person's sexuality is too fundamental a characteristic to be bridled and stifled. A person's sexuality is a major component of a person's self. And to deny it is counterproductive to the person and to humanity. We are all created as we are for a reason. And when we deny that creation, we deny humanity of the gift which we were born to bestow upon humanity.

Long gone is the day when people ACTUALLY believed that the aristocracy was inherently superior--thank God. Everyone KNOWS that if our bloodlines are traced back far enough, we all end up with a caveman ancestor. So who are we kidding? THIS is the generation of the gay revolution--not two generations from now. And anyone of THIS generation who can't appreciate the equal rights of the homosexual is "on the wrong side of history." To tell a gay monarch, "Wait for two more generations" (until you are dead) before you live your life the way God made you is tantamount to telling Black people in the middle of the 1800s, "Wait two more generations for freedom," or telling them in the 1950s, "Wait two more generations for the end of segregation." Human rights should not have to wait until people who already enjoy those rights are willing to share them. Human rights have to be demanded whenever they are sought--because they are inalienable in the first place.

And to the extent that monarchs should set example, then a gay monarch should set the example by living as a gay person. After all, gay people are people within his/her realm too. Perhaps then, and only then, will this ridiculous notion that there is something "flawed" about being gay end.

Life is TOO short to tell people to wait two generations. And life is too short to tell people that they must live a lie to satisfy other people. NO ONE should have to live a life--for any reason.

 

[vkrish]

An ideal start for the first gay monarch..

For the first gay monarch (whenever that happens), marriage and surrogate children will all be a bit too much, both for him and the people, to deal with.
I personally would like a monarch who doesnt declare himself openly gay, but has a partner,who is totally kept away from all official business, and has a career of his own..people will automatically come to know, and will eventually accept him. And that monarch will totally be surrounded, assisted and represented by his siblings and their children, who will eventually take over that monarch.
That will be the ideal start for gay monarchs.
Too much spotlight on partner, unstable relatioships, public display of affections, surrogate children, activism about gay laws, eventually turning The Mall into an an LGBT carnival during all Balcony Appearances-----all these things will only backfire damaging the monarch personally, rather than winning people's support..

 

[NGalitzine]

It is not the viewpoint of the royal or even their family that might keep a royal closeted, it is the more important viewpoint of the citizens of their nation that counts. What may be legal for their citizens might still not be accepted by all the citizens of their nation and those citizens might be even less accepting of their monarch marrying a person of the same sex. Since monarchy is all about continuity the monarch might feel it better to remain officially closeted and keep his or her life partner a private matter until such time as the majority of people in the country came to support and accept same sex marriages.
What the courts make legal still takes a long time to be acceptable in public life. People hold all sorts of prejudices they may not publically speak about. In the US for example divorce has long been a fact of life, but until Reagan a divorced President was not acceptable. Divorce derailed Nelson Rockefellers campaign in the 60s. Today it is still news when a publically known person, especially a politician, comes out. It is still the view of the GOP that homosexuality is not acceptable and certainly not gay marriage. Even if SCOTUS were to rule that gay marriage should be legal it will take many years for that to gain general acceptance, probably generational change. It would be no different for a monarch coming out and marrying, it might be legal but it still might not be acceptable to their people and quite possibly to their official church.

 

[vkrish]

Yup. There is always a difference between having a law, and having people's acceptance. Thats why I am saying the first such monarch should definitely lie low, regarding his private life.
That partner should forget plans to become a whatever-Consort. I am personally not in favour of the monarch having surrogate babies. There will be too much mess..and all the fuss about the "mother of the future King"..(we already had enough of that didnt we?)..The throne should simply pass to the monarch's sibling and his children. It will be cool..The people would already be used to them well, as they would be representing the King everywhere all their lives..
And I am not telling they should be closeted or have a secret partner. Its just that their partners should be totally a private citizen, with a low-profile, and zero attention-gaining stunts..Thats very difficult to find such long-term partner, especially in "that"world..But...we have to see

 

[Lumutqueen]

And to the extent that monarchs should set example, then a gay monarch should set the example by living as a gay person. After all, gay people are people within him/her realm too. Perhaps then, and only then, will this ridiculous notion that there is something "flawed" about being gay will end.

A Gay Monarch in any country is going to do absolutely nothing to stop people viewing the LGBT community as flawed. There will always be people who believe being gay is wrong.

 

[vkrish]

Actually the gay monarch should never associalte himself with LGBT community. Just imagine 1000s of activists turning up and the whole Mall turning pink for Trooping the Colour balcony Appearance... What better thingto antagonise monarchy from conservatives
It will be left to become discrete universal knowledge.He will never speak about his lifestyle, and The Buckingham Palace will proudly, as ever, "shall not comment on His Majesty's private life". There will be no explanations/denials/clarifications..As simple as that

 

[Ish]

Yup. There is always a difference between having a law, and having people's acceptance. Thats why I am saying the first such monarch should definitely lie low, regarding his private life.
That partner should forget plans to become a whatever-Consort. I am personally not in favour of the monarch having surrogate babies. There will be too much mess..and all the fuss about the "mother of the future King"..(we already had enough of that didnt we?)..The throne should simply pass to the monarch's sibling and his children. It will be cool..The people would already be used to them well, as they would be representing the King everywhere all their lives..
And I am not telling they should be closeted or have a secret partner. Its just that their partners should be totally a private citizen, with a low-profile, and zero attention-gaining stunts..Thats very difficult to find such long-term partner, especially in "that"world..But...we have to see

I don't know about surrogate children, but within the British system adopted children cannot inherit a peerage. Likewise, as they wouldn't be the heirs of the body of Sophie of Hanover, they wouldn't be in the line of succession. For the peerage, however, adopted children are able to use the courtesy titles used by the younger children of a peer, and presumably the adopted child (or male-line grandchild) of a monarch would also be given the titles, if not the inheritance and succession rights, of any other child or male-line grandchild of the monarch.

I doubt the partner of an openly gay member of a royal family - be they the monarch or not - would simply fade into the background. In a country where same sex marriage is legal, they would likely be granted the same rights and titles as any other spouse of a monarch of that gender. In a country where same sex marriage is not legal, the monarch having a long term, same sex partner might actually help to encourage legislature that allows for same sex marriage. Until such a time, though, they would probably fill a similar role to what the girlfriends and boyfriends of royals fill - not doing any engagements on their own, but certainly accompanying their significant other on engagements where they are able to.

A Gay Monarch in any country is going to do absolutely nothing to stop people viewing the LGBT community as flawed. There will always be people who believe being gay is wrong.

This, sadly, is true, and expands beyond just homosexuality. There will always be people who believe that being *insert difference* is wrong. It's a fundamental flaw in humans.

Actually the gay monarch should never associalte himself with LGBT community. Just imagine 1000s of activists turning up and the whole Mall turning pink for Trooping the Colour balcony Appearance... What better thingto antagonise monarchy from conservatives
It will be left to become discrete universal knowledge.He will never speak about his lifestyle, and The Buckingham Palace will proudly, as ever, "shall not comment on His Majesty's private life". There will be no explanations/denials/clarifications..As simple as that

Why shouldn't a gay monarch be able to be open? This is the 21st century. If the Prince of Wales can be open about having had an affair, be seen in public with his mistress, and then later marry said mistress, why can't a monarch be openly gay? Sure, people will have a problem with it, and some will go one to support republican movements, but at the same time others will embrace the monarchy and monarchism because of it.

 

[Wayne James]

The concepts of "monarchy," "aristocracy," and "nobility" are socio-political, man-made constructs which, incidentally, have been dismissed as "vestiges of a bygone era" by many modern societies. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is, like it or not, a natural construct which has existed from the beginning of humanity.

Strategically, cogent arguments can certainly be offered in support of the "gradual introduction of the concept of gay monarchy." But that step-by-step approach seems troublingly similar to the arguments offered to end Apartheid gradually. Either people have a right to marry whomever they choose or they don't. And if they have that right--which I firmly believe they do--then that right is as much the right of a monarch as it is of his/her subjects.

The comments regarding "unstable relationships," "public displays of affection," "surrogate children," avid support of "gay activism," and "LGBT carnivals at balcony appearances" are suggestive of the types of prejudices that have long been directed to minority groups. Those arguments sound like the same arguments which would be offered if a European royal decided to marry a Black person. It is a "There goes the neighborhood..." mentality. Gay marriages, from what we have seen thus far, is no more unstable than traditional marriage--not even amongst the most revered royal families: Princess Margaret--divorced; Princess Anne--divorced; Prince Charles--divorced. Unstable relationships? Let's be fair here..... And so what if two married people have public displays of affection? A royal wedding isn't a wedding until the newlyweds emerge onto the balcony and kiss in front of their subjects. So why shouldn't that be the case with a same-sex royal couple? A monarch, if nothing else, should have good taste. And it is to be assumed that he/she and his/her spouse would conduct themselves with the requisite dignity in public and in private. (If we can't trust nobles to be tasteful, then the concept of nobility is a bigger farce than it already is). And who said anything about children? There are lots of married people--gay and straight--that don't want children, period (surrogate, adopted, or otherwise). It is the monarch who is the monarch; not his/her children. So why are may-never-be-born children being factored into the discussion? Only legitimate children may inherit a throne in most countries. So surrogate children would not qualify. Nor will adopted children. The throne would pass to the next-in-line, based on the laws of succession--a la Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Her indirect route to the British throne didn't seem to harm anyone.

Laws don't drop out the sky.... They come from the people. And if the people want gay marriage for themselves, it would be ridiculous for them not to want it for their monarch. After all, he/she is not only bound by the laws of the land, he/she must live them and uphold them. And to the extent that people have higher standards for their monarchs than for themselves, those people need to revisit that logic. Monarchs are regular humans like everyone else. They bleed; they have morning breath; they use the toilet. Besides, monarchs do a great job of reminding their subjects that they are just as human as everyone else. (There is no need to illustrate here since their human tendencies are well documented--oftentimes in gory details).

But perhaps the most troublesome argument is the one which suggests that a gay monarch should marry someone of the opposite sex, but live a clandestine life with someone of the same sex. That option was addressed and dismissed centuries ago by the great bard: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." People--fake spouses, hidden lovers, children--all have emotions which are scarred, oftentimes beyond repair, by such deceitful existences. How could such a life produce anything good?

The world is changing; it is becoming more tolerant and less bigoted. And it is about time. It also is about time that monarchs lead, even if just symbolically. (Otherwise, what are they being publicly supported to do?) So who better to expedite the social change, which is inevitable, than a monarch? After all, people are happy to see them set fashion trends. Why can't they also set social trends?

So let the activists, all dressed in pink, converge on the square. Pink is just a color like any other color, no more valid, no less valid. (Would it seem less intrusive if the activists all showed up wearing beige?)

Gay marriage is becoming a reality each day, whether some people like it or not. The people against it have family members who are gay. Some of the most vocal objectors are themselves gay. Everyone has a fundamental right to leave the home of his mother and father and align himself with another person in order to face this harsh world in which we live. Who are we to tell anyone--monarch or otherwise--that he/she does not have a basic, fundamental, human right to have someone pick him/her up if he/she slips and falls in the bathtub, or to be brought a cup of hot tea on a sick bed? Everyone deserves to live his/her life. And everyone has a right to share his/her life.

 

[Lenora]

The concepts of "monarchy," "aristocracy," and "nobility" are socio-political, man-made constructs which, incidentally, have been dismissed as "vestiges of a bygone era" by many modern societies. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is, like it or not, a natural construct which has existed from the beginning of humanity.


Everyone deserves to live his/her life. And everyone has a right to share his/her life.

I've understood your point of view, but if the religion of a heir is Catholic, Muslim or another? Then, the Church (or other institution) could be very much against such a monarch, despite all his other achievements, what he will be supposed to do in such a situation?

 

[vkrish]

I guess most of your post is a reply to my previous posts.But let me clarify one thing to you. I was not speaking about gay royalty in general. I specifically mentioned and even titled my post that this is about how the first gay monarch should bring in the things.Please keep that in mind.I will be putting in my views at relevant points.
Please dont see this as a FOR GAY MONARCH vs AGAINST GAY MONARCH..
I am just arguing ON THE APPROACH OF ESTABLISHING A GAY MONARCH..

Strategically, cogent arguments can certainly be offered in support of the "gradual introduction of the concept of gay monarchy." But that step-by-step approach seems troublingly similar to the arguments offered to end Apartheid gradually.

I am sorry I dont know much about Apartheid struggle. But I am a firm believer that any change in society has to come in a qqiet, gradual, progressive manner. Right from small customs to major Revolutions they took decades to build-up. You may see things like Bloody Sunday, assasination of Archduke, Pearl harborbombing etc. as one-day-history-twisters, but just dig deep there is a lot under. So this is also same. It cant happen in just one go. The first one has to slowly bring in things..

The comments regarding "unstable relationships," "public displays of affection," "surrogate children," avid support of "gay activism," and "LGBT carnivals at balcony appearances" are suggestive of the types of prejudices that have long been directed to minority groups. Those arguments sound like the same arguments which would be offered if a European royal decided to marry a Black person. It is a "There goes the neighborhood..." mentality.

This is what I meant above, gradual transition. First you have to warm up to the public that a King having a gay partner is cool, not a playboy King who spends each day in nightclub with a different boyfriend. People should recognise that ya he is a good king, let him do whatever he wants with his life.Marriage is the next step. And then come all others..

Gay marriages, from what we have seen thus far, is no more unstable than traditional marriage--not even amongst the most revered royal families: Princess Margaret--divorced; Princess Anne--divorced; Prince Charles--divorced. Unstable relationships? Let's be fair here......

Unstable relationships ARE costly among royals. Not lesser ones, but the monarchs and would-be-ones. Prince Charles had to pay a very heavy price . Even today he is striving to get the public to forget the past. And all his other counterparts have taken utmost care in that issue henceforth. Queen Juliana struggled a lot to keep all her dirty marriage linen under wraps. Queen Sofia lived with her husband's infidelities for decades. If you see carefully, (IIRC) post WW II, no reigning monarch has divorced. And there are hardly any chances anyone of even the next generation would do so..

The throne would pass to the next-in-line, based on the laws of succession--a la Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Her indirect route to the British throne didn't seem to harm anyone.

I agree perfectly with you on this one. In fact, wasnt I the one who suggested this should be the way the crown passed..

But perhaps the most troublesome argument is the one which suggests that a gay monarch should marry someone of the opposite sex, but live a clandestine life with someone of the same sex. That option was addressed and dismissed centuries ago by the great bard: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." People--fake spouses, hidden lovers, children--all have emotions which are scarred, oftentimes beyond repair, by such deceitful existences. How could such a life produce anything good?

Unfortunately you misunderstood me. I said King should just keep quiet and not speak about his sexuality and all gay stuff publicly, but people should be let to know, by various ways, that he has a gay partner. I didnt mean he should have an arm-candy wife and another closet life-partner

The world is changing; it is becoming more tolerant and less bigoted. And it is about time. It also is about time that monarchs lead, even if just symbolically. (Otherwise, what are they being publicly supported to do?) So who better to expedite the social change, which is inevitable, than a monarch? After all, people are happy to see them set fashion trends. Why can't they also set social trends?

Social trends are not fashion trends. And if you observe royalty, there never actually set social trends. They do not change the society. They infact change after the society, behind the society. And they do so, only not to look archaic or out-of-touch. Never expect royals to be social trend-setters.

So let the activists, all dressed in pink, converge on the square. Pink is just a color like any other color, no more valid, no less valid. (Would it seem less intrusive if the activists all showed up wearing beige?)

Well, I would rather ask some British straight royal-watcher if he would love a sea of LGBT activists in whatever colour fll in the Mall (not square) at the first Trooping balcony appearnce of the first gay monarch..Please note the firsts..

Gay marriage is becoming a reality each day, whether some people like it or not. The people against it have family members who are gay. Some of the most vocal objectors are themselves gay.

See, you yourself told the extent of hypocrisy and doublespeak in our society. And sadly their voice still has power. So to convince the common man, slowly and gradually to get their acceptance.

Monarchs are regular humans like everyone else. They bleed; they have morning breath; they use the toilet. Besides, monarchs do a great job of reminding their subjects that they are just as human as everyone else.

Sorry for coming out of freedom rights books and living in real world.
Are royals regular human beings? No they are freeloaders/reptiles/leeches/shop-mannequins.
Do they have brains? No they arent supposed to..
Do they have hearts? No they arent supposed to..
Can they speak their minds? Never. How dare they?
Should they have privacy? No way. They are living off my money..Their every moment is mine.
Then what are they supposed to do? Just smile, and adorn the latest fashions and tiaras and necklaces and entertain us. And once we are too bored, make a scandal and give us our money' worth.Nothing more than that.

Who are we to tell anyone--monarch or otherwise--that he/she does not have a basic, fundamental, human right to have someone pick him/her up if he/she slips and falls in the bathtub, or to be brought a cup of hot tea on a sick bed? Everyone deserves to live his/her life. And everyone has a right to share his/her life.

No one can/will take away that fundamental right. They can always have their partner to do all those things.

PS: I would be happiest to see a gay King and his husband on the balcony. But thats not going to happen as simply as we want. We need to be patient and let things go as gradually as they should..We are already in a great transition phase. Just give it some more time. Too much screaming wont do any good..

 

[Ish]

I've understood your point of view, but if the religion of a heir is Catholic, Muslim or another? Then, the Church (or other institution) could be very much against such a monarch, despite all his other achievements, what he will be supposed to do in such a situation?

I think when one's sexuality and one's religion are at odds, regardless of position in life, they have to make a personal decision as to how to proceed. Some chose religion over their sexuality, others chose sexuality over religion, and others try to grapple with both. Unfortunately for a monarch who is connected with the church in some official capacity, this becomes even more difficult.

For example, if the CoE has a negative stance on homosexuality (I say if because I'm not sure of their official stance) and the British monarch, who is the nominal head of the CoE, was openly gay there's going to be a problem between the two, one that may result in a change of the church's stance, a separation between the two, or an abdication.

 

[NGalitzine]

...Strategically, cogent arguments can certainly be offered in support of the "gradual introduction of the concept of gay monarchy." But that step-by-step approach seems troublingly similar to the arguments offered to end Apartheid gradually. Either people have a right to marry whomever they choose or they don't. And if they have that right--which I firmly believe they do--then that right is as much the right of a monarch as it is of his/her subjects...

Obviously thisw is an issue that is very important for you but I think you miss some points that have been made in response to you.

In a monarchy people take a rather traditional and perhaps old fashioned view of their monarch and royal family. What people expect and want for themselves is not always something they expect and want for their monarch and royal family. Royalty live rather constrained lives compared to the general population and do not necessarily enjoy the same rights and freedoms as the general population.

You say laws come about because the people demand them. I would say that is not always the case. The laws on gay marriage have come about as the result of legislative changes and court rulings, which have not always received majority support by the voters. Californias Prop 8 is the most obvious response of voters rejecting such laws. Obviously at the time it was not something the majority of California voters were ready for.

Western society is slowly changing regarding the LGBT community and same sex marriage, but again I would argue that what a society may want and accept for itself it might have a harder time accepting in its leadership such as the monarch and its royal family. That will take more than just passing a law. It will take time for people to accept such an idea. Even in a republic such as the US I imagine it will be quite some time before voters elect an out Governor or President, let alone accept a same sex First Gentleman or First Lady.

In the UK we have a government that wants to pass same sex marriage legislation. Many MPs on the government side do not agree with the legislation. The proposed law has a specific exemption which actually would ban the Chirch of England from performing same sex marriage and the CofE officially disapproves of the whole idea. The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the CofE, so a gay monarch would present some constitutional difficulties should they wish to marry their same sex spouse.

 

[Muhler]

Vkrish & NGalitzine are absolutely right.

There is a huge difference between law and rights and what the general population want from their monarch.
There are at present nine monarchies and larger principalities in Europe, all of them are fairly safe - for now.
But it doesn't take much to change the mood, and then the monarchy itself can be in serious danger.
A monarch is a focus point for the population, representing continuity, stability, tradition and being living model for conservative and/or religious family core values. You cannot underestimate the importance of this.
Mistresses, something that previously was common, is now unacceptable. Even a divorce would be a serious "stain" on a monarch. Because a monarch must not become too ordinary or they will lose their "royal magic".

In other words, monarchs nowadays are preferably as uncontroversial as at all possible. - Simply in order to be accepted by as wide a segment of the population as possible. Better safe than sorry.

Homosexuality resulting in a same sex marriage for a monarch or future monarch is hugely controversial!
A lesser royal can away with it, and may even be applauded, but the monarch or the CP? No. - Not now, that will take time.

Homosexuality, open homosexuality in particular, and same sex marriages is for all sorts of reasons still frowned upon by a large segment of any population in any European country.

Let's toy with the idea:
A CP comes out and says: "I'm gay and here is the love of my life". That CP will become an icon for gay communities and people who consider themselves progressive. The CP will also become a major hate figure, not only in his/her own country but worldwide.
Also, you can be certain that the foreign ministry in that country will hate the idea. Because it's one thing to send an elected gay politician to countries where homosexuality is frowned upon or even outlawed. There are ways around that one. It's another thing to send a gay monarch, because the monarchy by it's very nature is a conservative institution. Sorry, but a gay monarch simply wouldn't carry nearly the same weight as a monarch who adheres to traditional family values in the present world.

Many, including myself, would look at same-sex,marriage-monarchy as being too modern. A monarchy is seen as an anchor embedded in history and traditions going back centuries, in a rapidly changing world. If the monarchy becomes too modern, or too ordinary for that matter, then the monarchy seize to be an anchor and instead it's part of the changing world.

Look at your own country, Wayne James. You live in a republic where homosexuality is widely accepted, even though same sex marriages is not.
Will a homosexual in a same-sex-marriage have a serious chance of becoming president of USA within the next say twenty years?
So far not even women have been serious contenders.
As I see it to have a chance of becoming president you have to be a man, religious (i.e. Christian), be married, have a family and preferably live a model-family life.
If you are a woman, an atheist or hindu, single, transvestite, deaf, believe in open marriages, homosexual, been divorced more than once or have children out of wedlock you are pretty much disqualified from becoming president in the eyes of the majority of the American people. - The same people who accept homosexuality, have gay friends and believe in women's rights.
But the President? Nah, the president shouldn't be too modern.
It will I'm convinced take some time before an open gay president will be accepted in USA.

And the monarchy is an institution that is a lot older and surrounded by a lot more tradition.
You see where I'm getting? It's not the legislation that matters, it's even not about tolerance. It's about people being very conservative in what they expect from their heads of state.

 

[sirhon11234]

...This, sadly, is true, and expands beyond just homosexuality. There will always be people who believe that being *insert difference* is wrong. It's a fundamental flaw in humans...

I agree 100%

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Tolerance towards gays and gay marriage is increasing more rapidly than I expected in the Western world. I thought it would take several more generations, but now I expect widespread acceptance (though never 100%) in my lifetime. I don't see an issue if, say, one of the European children who are in line to inherit one day come out and want to live openly with a same sex spouse and children with full inheritance rights.

 

[Wayne James]

First of all, thank you for welcoming me to your forum. I joined last night and have enjoyed every minute of it. I am especially pleased to participate in this discussion on same-sex marriage vis a vis royalty (and, by extension, people in general). The root of the issue--marriage equality--is this decade's equivalent of the civil rights, sexual revolution, abortion rights, and women's rights issues that faced the Western world during the 1970s and '80s. It is, therefore, an honor to participate in a discussion on an issue which will shape society as we know it for the foreseeable future.

I think part of the fundamental problem with discussing marriage equality (or any other issue which involves sexuality for that matter) is our oftentimes diametrically opposed views on the "rightness" and "wrongness" of the various expressions of human sexuality. Many of us, for example, were raised to believe that only two forms of human sexuality exist: heterosexuality and homosexuality. And it wasn't until recently--not until the late 1990s-- that many people even began truly acknowledging the existence of bi-sexuality. (In the minds of many people, "bi-sexuality" is just a euphemism--of sorts-- for homosexuality, According to those people, bi-sexuality is masked homosexuality). Today, however, people are increasingly becoming aware of the fact that sexuality occurs on a spectrum, ranging from 100% heterosexuality (which occurs very rarely) on one extreme, to 100% homosexuality (equally rare) on the other extreme, with 100% bi-sexuality (also equally rare) in the middle; and that most people are somewhere along that spectrum, gravitating either towards the heterosexual extreme, the homosexual extreme, or the bi-sexual median. And it is only when people come to terms with the fact that human sexuality is comprised of much more "gray" matter than black-and-white definition that people start to become more tolerant of other people's sexuality. Once people grasp the "Sexuality Spectrum Model," they become more tolerant of others because they see themselves as more sexually complex than they had previously acknowledged. And once people realize that sexuality is neither "right" nor "wrong"--that, instead, it just "is," then the discussions can truly move forward. But discussing marriage equality with people who view heterosexuality as the only valid sexuality construct is futile. Such persons, as they say, "simply need to be left at the foot of the cross."

Discussing such issues also requires acknowledgement that "reasonable minds will differ." Some people, for example, are of the opinion that same-sex marriage is appropriate for "regular people," but not for royals--at least not at this point in time. I fundamentally and wholeheartedly disagree with such a position. I believe in equality. And as such, I believe that what is good for the goose (even those that lay golden eggs) is good for the gander.

America was wise when it embraced the concept of Separation of Church and State. For gay monarchs who are the titular heads of state religions, they need to seek guidance from the brave precedent set by Henry VIII. Whoever said that being a prince or a king was easy? Like the rest of humanity, kings and queens must also face difficult decisions in life. And like the rest of humanity, they must let their consciences and their intellects serve as their guides. Also, they must be brave. It is amazing what undaunted defiance will produce in the face of adversity. Who would ever have thought that the King of Spain would embrace same-sex marriage? Or who would ever have thought that marriage equality would become the law of the land in Argentina before in the United States? And while the circumstances are different for each country, such precedent serves as guidance. Monarchs who serve as titular heads of religious institutions routinely depart from religious tenets: three of Queen Elizabeth's four children divorced their spouses; the prince of Monaco had a child out of wedlock; Prince William and Kate Middleton lived together before getting married. What is the difference between the "departure" of gay marriage and those other departures?

Certainly, cautious, measured, incremental advancement of the notion of married, gay monarchs is a prudent and sure approach. But haven't gay people already waited long enough for marriage equality? Since it was outlawed in Rome in 342 C.E. and more comprehensively by the Justinian Code in 533 C.E. in what remained of the Eastern Roman Empire, gay people have been waiting for marriage equality to return. Hasn't that wait been long enough? Haven't enough gay people--including monarchs--gone to their graves without ever being able to fully embrace themselves and the people they love? Besides, many young people today don't even see sexuality as relevant to anything other than when engaging in sex. In their minds, sexuality has no bearing on whom they befriend, whom they hire or work with, whom they choose as their leaders. And if the concept of monarchy is to survive, it, like the Catholic Church, is going to have to address the needs of the upcoming generations. Young people have already seen Prince Harry in the nude--all over the internet. They already know that he is human just like they are. So for whom are we preaching a measured, conservative approach? For the future generation? Or for ourselves who keep grasping to the specter of a noble nobility which never truly existed? Very few people are truly capable of being more noble than other people: Jesus; Ghandi; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Mother Theresa.... But some prince who became a prince by birth? Come on.... Let's be for real here.....

People who think it is right to "expect more" from their monarchs (and even from elected leaders) need to "get over" their expectations. Leaders, elected or otherwise, need only follow the laws of the land--no more, no less. And if they choose to go beyond the call of duty, then so be it.

Furthermore, it is the general public that keeps insisting that the royals are not and should not be "normal" people. The royals on the other hand, knowing that they are charged with a task that they cannot uphold, try at every turn to assert and re-assert their "normalness." And as such, they "act out" and behave like normal people every chance they get--so much so that they sometimes go overboard.... Like Prince Harry. (I mean.... really....Which decent man takes off his clothes at a party? His grandmother the queen should have put him over her lap and given him a royal whipping). And wasn't one of the Infantas of Spain recently implicated in some financial matter? Time after time, the royals insist upon being normal. But their subjects refuse to accept their declarations of normalcy. The crown princess of Sweden married her former personal trainer. He is now a "Duke." Should people really expect him to be anything other than a personal trainer? (People also like to insist that clergy should be "above" other people. And we have all seen the results of that. The moral of the story, then, is not that the emperor has no clothing.... The moral of the story is that the emperor is just a man to begin with--and should, fundamentally, despite the trappings and traditions to the contrary, be regarded as such--nothing more, nothing less). Furthermore, royals are the last people on Earth who should be held to a higher standard of anything. After all, they do not arrive at their positions based on merit. They are handed their positions at birth, regardless of their abilities. So for society to expect people who have not been tried and tested to perform above and beyond is, at best, ludicrous.

Any royal who sits on the throne of a country with laws which allow same-sex marriage should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex if he so chooses. And when laws reflect the will of the majority to the detriment of the minority, many countries have constitution or allow for judicial review to ensure that the rights of the minority are protected and preserved. We have all seen throughout the course of history that the majority can be wrong. And it is for that reason that countries have constitutions which codify the supreme laws of the land, their aim being to protect all people, regardless of their minority or majority status.

The Unites States Supreme Court will soon consider the long-overdue issue of marriage equality. And if the Court rules in favor of marriage equality across America, American people will gladly embrace a gay president and First Gentleman. That is the American way.... America is built upon the concept of talent, not privilege. Who would have ever thought that a black man named "Barak Obama" could have ever been elected president of the United States? Americans did. And that's why he won and then won again. And the same will be for a qualified woman, Jew, homosexual, or atheist. At the end of the day, America celebrates talent, freedom, equality, and fundamental rights. And just as other countries, during the course of history, have served as the models for certain cultural accomplishments, America is the country that will not only enact laws for marriage equality, it will truly allow those laws to be applied to its citizenry--from the person occupying the White House, to the person living in public housing. That is the nature of America. In America, intolerance is rapidly becoming intolerable.

 

[Lumutqueen]

At the end of the day, America celebrates talent, freedom, equality, and fundamental rights.

Oh you certainly celebrate fundamental rights. I actually just watched a program the other day about American Conversion Camps which attempt to convert Gay people into being straight people because being gay is just an 'idea'. Those people, will always exist in society and just like racial disputes, religious disputes, sexuality will always be disputed until we all become robots! It will never be fully accepted by any country.

Currently we won't have a Gay monarch anywhere in the world as far as I am aware, being a gay president is a different matter frankly. Until the time comes, if this certain person is honest about his sexuality, we cannot guess what the response will be.

 

[Roslyn]

I believe in, and support, the right of same sex couples to marry, and I would like to think that if the heir to the British crown were gay, that that person could live an openly gay life with their partner. I would also hope that if that monarch had a child with the assistance of a surrogate, in the case of a king, or donor, in the case of a queen regnant, that the child would remain in the succession, for it would carry the important genes.

 

[Ish]

The problem, so to speak, with surrogates or donors comes down to legitimacy. On a very basic level, the idea of an heir has to meet two requirements:
1. They have to have the so-called royal genes
2. They have to be legitimate (either born in wedlock, or born out of wedlock but subsequently legitimized by marriage in some cases)

Personally, I have no problem considering someone born via a surrogate or donor to be legitimate so long as their parents (at least one who contributed genetic material to the child) are married. But I don't know what the stance is from a legal standpoint.

Does anyone know what the various rules regarding the inheritance of peerages when surrogate/donor children are involved? I.E. if the Earl of X is married to the Countess of X and they have a son, Hon. Y, is Y able to inherit the Earldom if he was born via a surrogate, but using his father's swimmers?

 

[Roslyn]

The problem, so to speak, with surrogates or donors comes down to legitimacy.

Any issue regarding legitimacy could easily be cured by legislation. As long as a child is the biological child of the monarch, I see no reason why it should be discriminated against solely on the basis that it was conceived using a turkey baster.