LHBTQ+ Royalty

[Blog Real]

The gay royals from history
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/12/19/the-gay-royals-you-arent-taught-school/

LGBT+ royal histories
https://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london/history-and-stories/lgbt-royal-histories/#gs.5i0b8g

 

[An Ard Ri]

King Charles I of Wurttemberg reigned from 1864 to 1891. The American Charles Woodcock became the favorite of the King.

Yes he was king Karl's chamberlain and the king granted him the title Baron Savage .It all caused a huge scandal and the king later had to part with his favourite who returned to the USA.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Richard I of England had "one male lover, a young knight and fellow crusader, Raife de Clermon, who he freed from Muslim captivity".
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/secret-history--gay-kings-queens-england

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Hadrian was Emperor of Rome. He ruled 117 to 138 AD. Hadrian was interested in his male lovers.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Hadrian was Emperor of Rome. He ruled 117 to 138 AD. Hadrian was interested in his male lovers.

Antinous was Hadrian's favourite

 

[An Ard Ri]

The Archduke Ludwig Viktor of Austria was openly gay and never married he lived 1842-1919

He was a regular visitor at the Central Bathhouse Vienna but aftera scandal he was banished from Court and lived at the to Klessheim Palace near Salzburg and also where he died in 1919.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Ludwig_Viktor_of_Austria

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I find it interesting that Emperor Maximilian asked Emperor Franz Joseph to order Archduke Ludwig Viktor to marry Duchess Sophie Charlotte.
Who would want to order one gentleman to marry a lady?

 

[An Ard Ri]

I find it interesting that Emperor Maximilian asked Emperor Franz Joseph to order Archduke Ludwig Viktor to marry Duchess Sophie Charlotte.
Who would want to order one gentleman to marry a lady?

The Archduke rejected every marriage offer for very obvious reasons

 

[tihkon2]

This is a great thread. I've learned about a lot more royals than I had heard of before!

 

[JR76]

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2514556

As I posted in another thread last night, the lesbian Princess Abigail Kawãnanakoa passed away on the 6th of November.

 

[JR76]

Who would want to order one gentleman to marry a lady?

Royals being ordered or at least "pressured" to marry someone suitable has been a common occurrence up until the later decades of the last century. For instance Josephine Charlotte of Belgium famously cried all through her 1953 wedding to Jean of Luxembourg.

 

[Blog Real]

Royals being ordered or at least "pressured" to marry someone suitable has been a common occurrence up until the later decades of the last century. For instance Josephine Charlotte of Belgium famously cried all through her 1953 wedding to Jean of Luxembourg.

Yes, that's true, but as it seems Princess Josephine Charlotte after her marriage seemed to be in love with her husband, they probably learned to like each other.

 

[lucien]

I've just realised that Radu III the who was known as Radu the Handsome/Beautiful was the brother of Vlad the Impaler

Oh dear,that´s an open gate.....They were very much alike weren´t they?
Oh,the things we learn from history.?

 

[JR76]

Oh dear,that´s an open gate.....They were very much alike weren´t they?

Oh,the things we learn from history.[emoji2]

Impalements seems to have played a big part in both of their lives.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The reason why the obvious homosexuality of Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria's brother Archduke Ludwig Viktor was not a matter of public knowledge can be found in the strict press censorship that prevailed at the time. The press had to be extremely cautious when publishing reports about the imperial family.
http://www.habsburger.net/en/chapter/ludwig-viktor-archduke-luziwuzi

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I’m sure everyone who knows of the House of Wittelsbach is aware of Duke Franz von Bayern and he’s the Head of the family and is gay.

 

[Biri]

Ellen Mary Lascelles (born 17 December 1984) [daughter of Jeremy Lascelles (b.1955) {himself son of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood, paternal cousin of QEII (1923-2011) & his first wife Marion Stein (1926-2014)} & his first wife Julie, nee Bayliss (b.1957)] has just announced on her Instagram account (which is private) her engagement to her partner, who is named Chan, Peerage News site reports.

Ellen has a son Jack Marley (21-3-2016) and a daughter Penny Moon (1-1-2018) with her former partner Michael G. Hermans.

Source: https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/202...endant-to.html

From this announcement is obvious that Ellen Lascelles is bisexual.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Shouldn't the title of this thread be LGBTQ+? I am unclear on what the H stands for.

The percentage of people, especially under 35, who now identify as "non-strictly heterosexual" is considerably high by historical standards in western countries. But that includes many people who identify as bisexual, gender fluid, and so on, and not only people who are just gay.

So, yes, statistically the probability of a non-heterosexual heir to a European monarchy in the next decades is now higher if the royal families follow the same trend of the general population. Would an heir be, however, openly gay or contract a same-sex marriage? To be honest, I don't think we are at that stage yet, not because of the marriage per se (same-sex marriages are legal and socially accepted, even normalized, in most western countries), but because there is still this notion that a king or a crown prince must produce legitimate heirs to the crown, even when he has siblings (with issue of their own) who can inherit the throne (and, therefore, having children is, strictly speaking, not necessary for him).

As for Christian. We can be shockingly frank in DK and leading politicians have already been asked what their stance would be, should Christian be gay. The answer among Danish (and I think Greenlandic as well, but it's a bit more complicated for the Faeroe Islands) politicians is that they can't be a favor of granting homosexuals the right to marry and have children, including various forms of manipulation to obtain that goal, and not extend that right to Christian. So should a gay Christian wish to marry the man of his life, the politicians cannot and will not object. As for the State Church, individual priests can object but the church itself cannot and will not.
Most of the public would be in the same situation. There is an overwhelming public support for gay rights in DK, so while a lot of people deep down will have considerable reservations, most would find it very hypocritical to voice that openly.

On the other hand: Partners having children out of wedlock or marriages between Christians and non-Christians, for example, have become common and legally and socially normalized in European countries, and also to the extent that most politicians and members of the public would be reluctant to voice objections if it happened in their royal family.

Nevertheless, it remains very rare for members of European royal families to (openly) have children out of wedlock or engage in a Christian/non-Christian interfaith marriage. (Only a few years ago, it was treated as mildly scandalous for a British princess to even marry a man who had a child out of wedlock with someone else.)

Similarly, marriage between partners of the same gender has been legally recognized for years or decades in much of western Europe, but no member of a European ruling family has even casually dated someone of the same gender (openly). Even in the non-reigning Bavarian ducal/royal family, the head of the family only publicly introduced his male partner of 40+ years a few months ago.

So as Mbruno's post suggests, I think it still remains very much an "if" marriage and partnership trends in the general population will be transferred to European royal families in the near future.

And in regard to Muhler's post, if the question about royalty and same-sex marriage in Denmark is usually posed as "if Prince Christian were gay", that seems telling. The phrasing could be taken to imply that Prince Christian marrying a man would only be acceptable if he were gay (i.e., if he had no other romantically compatible options), whereas if he were bisexual, etc. he would be expected to try to fall in love with a female spouse.

 

[Muhler]

The questions were about Christian marrying a biological man. - Making having biological children problematic in regards to the Law of Succession, but not impossible.
The Law of Succession also means that the DRF is by law discriminated, not having the same rights as everybody else in DK.

And the leading politicians (including the current PM, Mette Frederiksen) have stated that they cannot and will not prevent Christian from marrying a man. That would be hypocritical.
And as stated elsewhere the general public will be in the same moral position. Most wholeheartedly support gay rights to marry and have children and can as such not be against Christian marrying a man without being hypocrites.

- There are however a number of considerations.
Not least dynastic. The Danish monarchy (and the Danes) prides itself by tracing the lines of kings for more than a thousand years through the same extended family. So the bloodline does matter, I believe, in regards to the public opinion. Otherwise the monarch of Denmark becomes a mere heredity title, rather than something very special only a very select few can become. And that "dilutes" the whole thing. - Hence why adopted children are not accepted either.
There is also the question of representation. The DRF very much being used to both represent traditional core values, also in regards to family values but also very much abroad. Keep in mind that most of planet does not share the Western values in regards to Homosexual marriages. And here a more traditional, even conservative form of representation by the DRF might be preferable.
- That certainly was my main-objection against a Danish monarch marrying someone of the same sex ten years ago. Cynically speaking that is was better for the monarch to be married to someone of the opposite sex, in regards to representing DK abroad. And as such Christian should either step down as heir or monarch, for the benefit of the country. I also believed that the first homosexual heir/monarch would be a worldwide hate-figure. Again, not something I wished for someone to go through, nor would it be to the benefit of DK to have too controversial a couple as the regent couple.
Ten years ago, I believed it would take a generation more for the general public to accept a same-sex regent couple in any monarchy.

I have personally moved over those ten years.
I did not have anything against same-sex marriages (including such couples having children) except when it involved the DRF. In fact I was and is proud that DK was the first country to legalize same sex partnerships. I have now realized that it is not a problem for other countries where the head of state is married to someone of the same sex and that the world moved a lot faster towards tolerating such marriages than I predicted back then. And also that protocol wise it hasn't created problems worth mentioning, not even when dealing with very conservative countries.

I still believe there will be some controversy when the first senior royal marry someone of the same sex but I don't think they will be as big and harsh as I thought back then.

Not that I personally believe Christian to be gay, I understand he has shown interest in girls. I just don't think it would be a particular big issue today, should Christian marry a man. And I will of course support his right to marry a man. - I may not like that man, but that would be because I don't like the person.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The questions were about Christian marrying a biological man. - Making having biological children problematic in regards to the Law of Succession, but not impossible.

The requirement with regard to having children in Denmark's Law of Succession is:

§ 5
Kun børn født i lovligt ægteskab har arveret til tronen.​

The government translates this into English as

§ 5
(1) Only children born in lawful wedlock are entitled to succeed to the throne.​

Are there any legal experts here who could elaborate on the legal definition of "født i lovligt ægteskab"?

- There are however a number of considerations.
Not least dynastic. The Danish monarchy (and the Danes) prides itself by tracing the lines of kings for more than a thousand years through the same extended family. So the bloodline does matter, I believe, in regards to the public opinion. Otherwise the monarch of Denmark becomes a mere heredity title, rather than something very special only a very select few can become. And that "dilutes" the whole thing. - Hence why adopted children are not accepted either.

You are probably right in regards to public opinion, but the truth is that while the monarchy's legal line of descent is indeed traced through the same extended family for a millennium, their biological bloodline is unverifiable. The royal lineage has mostly descended through men, and so it is possible that among the hundreds of Danish kings and princes, some of them have not been the biological fathers of their legal children. (I understand that most historians consider King Christian VII's daughter Louise Augusta to be the biological daughter of his physician Struensee.)

 

[Muhler]

The keyword being born.
It ought actually read conceived rather than born.

So that leaves out adopted children and children born outside marriage.
So basically the child has to be the biological offspring of both the monarch and the consort. (Alternatively prince and princess.)
Surrogate mothers are illegal in DK, for profit that is, but as I understand the law, the surrogate mother is considered the biological mother of the child she gives birth to, regardless of the DNA composition of the child. - So surrogate mother = illegitimate child. Egg/sperm-donor = illegitimate child as well.

Even QMII has talked about Christian VII's children. But the child was accepted and acknowledged as the biological child of Christian VII, so that's it.
And of course over more than 1.000 years QMII is hardly much more related to Gorm the Old, than I am, the DNA-line being pretty tenuous by now. But the dynastic link is there, and that's important! Both for the DRF but certainly also for the Danish tribe. I dare say ask any ten adult Danes on the street about the DRF and I bet that within five minutes it will be pointed to you out that QMII can trace her lineage back to Gorm the Old.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The questions were about Christian marrying a biological man. - Making having biological children problematic in regards to the Law of Succession, but not impossible.
The Law of Succession also means that the DRF is by law discriminated, not having the same rights as everybody else in DK.

And the leading politicians (including the current PM, Mette Frederiksen) have stated that they cannot and will not prevent Christian from marrying a man. That would be hypocritical.
And as stated elsewhere the general public will be in the same moral position. Most wholeheartedly support gay rights to marry and have children and can as such not be against Christian marrying a man without being hypocrites.

- There are however a number of considerations.
Not least dynastic. The Danish monarchy (and the Danes) prides itself by tracing the lines of kings for more than a thousand years through the same extended family. So the bloodline does matter, I believe, in regards to the public opinion. Otherwise the monarch of Denmark becomes a mere heredity title, rather than something very special only a very select few can become. And that "dilutes" the whole thing. - Hence why adopted children are not accepted either.
There is also the question of representation. The DRF very much being used to both represent traditional core values, also in regards to family values but also very much abroad. Keep in mind that most of planet does not share the Western values in regards to Homosexual marriages. And here a more traditional, even conservative form of representation by the DRF might be preferable.
- That certainly was my main-objection against a Danish monarch marrying someone of the same sex ten years ago. Cynically speaking that is was better for the monarch to be married to someone of the opposite sex, in regards to representing DK abroad. And as such Christian should either step down as heir or monarch, for the benefit of the country. I also believed that the first homosexual heir/monarch would be a worldwide hate-figure. Again, not something I wished for someone to go through, nor would it be to the benefit of DK to have too controversial a couple as the regent couple.
Ten years ago, I believed it would take a generation more for the general public to accept a same-sex regent couple in any monarchy.

I have personally moved over those ten years.
I did not have anything against same-sex marriages (including such couples having children) except when it involved the DRF. In fact I was and is proud that DK was the first country to legalize same sex partnerships. I have now realized that it is not a problem for other countries where the head of state is married to someone of the same sex and that the world moved a lot faster towards tolerating such marriages than I predicted back then. And also that protocol wise it hasn't created problems worth mentioning, not even when dealing with very conservative countries.

I still believe there will be some controversy when the first senior royal marry someone of the same sex but I don't think they will be as big and harsh as I thought back then.

Not that I personally believe Christian to be gay, I understand he has shown interest in girls. I just don't think it would be a particular big issue today, should Christian marry a man. And I will of course support his right to marry a man. - I may not like that man, but that would be because I don't like the person.

Well I mean technically speaking, the family even though legally speaking are the main line ruling branch of the house of Oldenburg, and can trace its line to Gorm the Old, once Queen Margarethe passes on, the Monpezants (Oldenburg) will reign so line will be broken at some point.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well I mean technically speaking, the family even though legally speaking are the main line ruling branch of the house of Oldenburg, and can trace its line to Gorm the Old, once Queen Margarethe passes on, the Monpezants (Oldenburg) will reign so line will be broken at some point.

I expect the family will continue to be Oldenborg and Glücksborg after Margrethe II passes on, but even if they begin to identify as Monpezats at some point in the future, the legal and biological lineage from Queen Margrethe II to her heirs Frederik and Christian remains unbroken.

If you meant to say "male line", that will not be a new development, as the Danish royal lineage from Gorm the Old has not always followed an unbroken male line historically.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I expect the family will continue to be Oldenborg and Glücksborg after Margrethe II passes on, but even if they begin to identify as Monpezats at some point in the future, the legal and biological lineage from Queen Margrethe II to her heirs Frederik and Christian remains unbroken.

If you meant to say "male line", that will not be a new development, as the Danish royal lineage from Gorm the Old has not always followed an unbroken male line historically.

I said they are legally they are recognised as Oldenburg/Glücksborg but agnatically Monpezant and because they rights as Princes are via their mother not their father.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I said they are legally they are recognised as Oldenburg/Glücksborg but agnatically Monpezant and because they rights as Princes are via their mother not their father.

You did not say "agnatically" in your previous post. But I accept that is what you meant to say.

 

[Muhler]

Well I mean technically speaking, the family even though legally speaking are the main line ruling branch of the house of Oldenburg, and can trace its line to Gorm the Old, once Queen Margarethe passes on, the Monpezants (Oldenburg) will reign so line will be broken at some point.

Hmm, not really.

The DRF has traditionally been above noble dynasties for I don't know how many centuries and as such the monarch, his heir and the children of the heir (the core-DRF-family) had no family name. Younger sons and daughters eventually reverted into nobility, unless they married a royal.
So the DRF being Oldenburg or Glücksburgs is strictly speaking a foreign construct, for historical references and for people who study dynastic lines. But QMII, Frederik, Christian etc is neither. They have no family name.
Joachim's children have one now, Monpezat. And Isabella, Josephine and Vincent (Even though I think there will be a semi-role for Isabella) or at least their children are also likely to revert into Monpezats.

Frederik and Christian is not and will not be Monpezats. As I understand it (at least in DK) Majesties and Heir trumps noble titles, because they already are a monarch or is destined to become one. So the dynastic name, even if it's not used in practice, follow the majesty, not the husband.
Otherwise Princess Margrethe should have become Countess Margrethe Monpezat upon marrying PH. She didn't, Heir trumps Count.

There are several examples of female monarchs marrying but not taking the name of their husbands. Mary I springs to mind. - And he was also told to mind his own business in regards to England!
She cynically speaking married her husband for political reasons and because she needed a sperm-donor. She certainly did not marry into his family.

- And with that very simplified post, I bid you goodnight.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I copied your post and continued the discussion at Surname of the Danish Royal Family, since we are beginning to move away from the topic of LGBTQ+ royalty.

Interesting. In regards to the paragraph I've bolded:

As the website of the Royal House explains it, the Queen belongs to a continuous Danish royal line which extends as far back as Gorm the Old in the mid-900s; however, this thousand-year royal line is subdivided into direct and cadet line. The Queen belongs to the house of Glücksborg, a side branch of the house of Oldenborg, which itself is a side branch of the original royal dynasty from Gorm the Old.

The Glücksborg dynasty, to which Her Majesty The Queen belongs, is the fourth and youngest branch of the Danish royal lines that descended from Gorm the Old and Queen Thyra in the mid-900s.

The currently-reigning Glücksborg dynasty descends from Christian IX (1863-1906) and Queen Louise. Thus, it is the youngest branch in the royal lineage, whose roots go back more than a thousand years.

When Frederik VII (1848-1863) died without leaving heirs, his successor was, as a result of the Throne Succession Law of 1853, Prince Christian of Glücksborg, who belonged to a side-branch of the House of Oldenborg stemming from Christian III (1536-1559).

https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/menu/news/150-years-of-the-house-of-glcksborg
​

Note that the arms of the Queen (and the arms of the Crown Prince) use the arms of the house of Oldenborg as the inescutcheon (the superimposed smaller shield which traditionally represents the bearer's family heritage).

https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/the-monarchy-in-denmark/the-royal-symbols/the-royal-coat-of-arms/#