Boris
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 2,202
- City
- Los Angeles
- Country
- United States
Now THIS is funny!I admire your straightness, Boris.
I take it as a very tongue-in-cheek compliment... Thanks.
Now THIS is funny!I admire your straightness, Boris.
True...as long there are other heirs in the line of succession. then providing the heir would not be a big deal. But I guess the bigger question is....would be the public be open to a gay heir. And I don't think they will.
Actually, no, not everywhere. As it happens, in Japan there is but one single heir in the second generation after the present Emperor Akihito, five-year-old Prince Hisahito, the only son of the emperor´s second son, Prince Akishino. There is no hope that another heir of his generation will be born. If Prince Hisahito should turn out to be gay or remain childless for whatever reason, that will be it for the Japanese monarchy.There is always an heir, yes?
I would have thought the same but our foreign minister since 2009, Guido Westerwelle, is openly gay, and - admittedly to my surprise - this does not seem to be a problem at all. He does not take his partner with him on official visits to countries where homosexuality is considered a crime, but that´s as far as he´ll go with making compromises. By himself, he visits even countries like, for example, Saudi Arabia, expects to be treated with respect and is, as far as I know. Nobody dares to say that they won´t receive him because of his sexual orientation. On his trips to China and Japan, he took his partner Michael Mronz with him. (We do not have gay marriage in Germany but it is possible to register as partners.)...the foreign ministry of his country will face some interesting diplomatic challenges as homoseksuality is not accpeted in the same way everywhere and certainly not among heads of states.
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.
Definitely, there are lots of problems that a gay monarch would face that are not at all relevant for a foreign minister or even a president. They have been discussed in detail in this thread, and I absolutely agree that, all in all, it would be a problem in many respects.As you pointed out yourself, there is a considerable difference between an elected political figure, minister or head of state, and a royal head of state...
Yes, it is indeed ironic, but if you come to think about it, it´s basically a question of power. As long as kings had political power, they could afford to do whatever they wanted. For example, as far as I know, people were very sorry and angered that Henry VIII would divorce Catherine of Aragon. But King Henry did not need to be popular, he just did what he wanted even when people would strongly pity his first wife and his daughter. Nowadays if royals do something „wrong“, there will soon start talks about abolishing the monarchy. At the time of Henry VIII, that was not even an option.Ironic, isn't it? Considering that royals just 200 years ago were known, and infamous for breaking almost every contemporary moral value themselves.
I do not think that there is such a big difference between royals and politicians. Remember Clinton, for example. ("I never had sex with that woman." ) Besides, I would not bet on it that there will be a gay US president before we see a gay monarch ascending a throne. I´d suppose that it is more a question if it is „our“ royal/politician or a foreign one. If, say, Felipe of Spain were gay, I am sure he would have a harder time with his family and with his country than abroad. Concerning foreign heads of state, people are usually not spoiled. As you say: „If you can roll out the carpet and welcome a foaming mad dictator a gay politician is hardly a problem.“ But it is not the same story if the guy - whether royal or politician - is from your own country. Then you´ll take him personal, so to speak.ADDED: In politics there are all kinds of bedfellows. It's widely accepted that you overlook a politicians race, gender, religion and nowadays sexual orientation. If you can roll out the carpet and welcome a foaming mad dictator a gay politician is hardly a problem.
But a king with his prince consort? His "queen"? Why, it's almost like welcoming Caligula! (Yes, that was satirical and Caligula by the way may have been the victim of a very successful character assassination).
One of the princes in the series "undercover princes" is gay and went to the UK to look for a partner.
Who is he?
Wow, that is really one very courageous guy. Even if there are no emotional bonds with his biological family, it must be difficult to be an outcast to the people you come from and still somehow belong to. After all, family is usually an important part of a person´s identity. Whatever he does, he will always remain the son of his parents - who disown him...crown prince Manvendra Singh Gohil
Here's an article about him: Gareth McLean meets Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil, star of BBC series The Undercover Princes | Life and style | guardian.co.uk
Seriously? What makes you think that? As far as I know, there are still stereotypes in circulation about lesbian women being ugly men-hating unfeminine unnatural creatures. I doubt that, all in all, a lesbian monarch/royal would get less hate mail than a gay male royal.I also believe a lesbian monarch/heir would get a much easier break. Pretty unfair, actually.
Some very interesting points. Definitely the debate of the title of the spouse is an interesting one. Only time will tell I guess.I think the partner would get a title, simply because it would be politically incorrect, not mention a political minefield, not to. What kind of title is debateble...
It's because he was shy and sweet and boyish, and unmarried. Therefore he had to be gay. All the usual nonsense.
Same with Edward: "A job in the theatre? That proves he's gay!"
Just more stereotyping.
There was a documentary about the life of Rock Hudson on Dutch tv last night and his secretary said that Grace called him one night to say that Rock was drunk and crying. Rock told him that he was crying because Grace did not approve of his being gay and she was worried that her son was gay. I have never considered it but was surprised his mother would.
I'm kinda wondering where you all have been about the attitude of the Church of England.
They are openly tolerant of gays and many leaders of the church are pushing for gay marriage, same as in the Episcopal Church in the USA. The Episcopal Church in the USA has more than one gay bishop at this time, one a male and one a female, and they have adopted a ruling to be able to "bless" gay marriages if a priest desires to do so, by his own conscience. The Church of England might be the last to object to this situation, unless they suddenly realized that it might undermine their support, and then they might get tenuous.