LHBTQ+ Royalty

[Madame Royale]

Sexual preference? It is but a small element of what defines someone

 

[morhange]

Britain is too prudish about their RF (trust me, I live in England) and about Spain and Belgium, the day they'll accept a gay monarch would be the day the Vatican aproves gay marriage and adoption of children so it'll never happen

Do you mean adoption of children by gay couples, or adoption of children by any couples?

 

[Henri M.]

So, you think Belgium would openly accept a senior royal who is gay?

It is the Constitution which determines the line of succession to the throne. Whether the Heir(ess) to the throne is homosexual or not, is totally irrelevant for the Constitution.

There is one major exception: in no monarchy, also not in the Netherlands, children from a gay royal marriage are in line of succession. This because two gays or two lesbians always need a third person to create a child. The succession is meant for legal offspring born in a consented marriage. (In the Netherlands even Parliament has to vote about an Act of Consent!).

This 'third person' (the man who delivers his semen in a lesbian marriage or a woman who 'borrows' her womb in a gay marriage) is no part of this marriage. Technically the child is born out of wedlock or illegitimate and therefore the child can never be in the line of succession.

 

[Lord of Cowley]

This is an interesting thread. However, no one to my knowledge has mentioned the fact that in England, the monarch's coronation is a Christian one, with prayers made to Jesus, etc. etc. So, my question is this: how could an English king in good conscience, make the vows to God, Jesus, etc. during the coronation ceremony, while knowingly practicing something that is not condoned by Christianity?

What does everyone else think?

 

[Aurora810]

I know that Monaco's RF is catholic but I kind of tend to think of it as less conservative. Can anyone else with more knowledge of Monaco weigh in? I'm not saying they would accept this of say Prince Albert but would it be a big deal if one of the kids of Caroline or Stephanie was gay?

 

[Madame Royale]

how could an English king in good conscience, make the vows to God, Jesus, etc. during the coronation ceremony, while knowingly practicing something that is not condoned by Christianity?

Though I understand perfectly what you're saying, I do hope you aren't insinuating that a homosexual man (King, lawyer, painter, whatever) cannot have faith just because he is, homosexual.

'While knowingly practicing'! My goodness that line does bother me somewhat. That makes it sound (to me) as if it were a deviate act which can be prevented.

 

[ysbel]

So, my question is this: how could an English king in good conscience, make the vows to God, Jesus, etc. during the coronation ceremony, while knowingly practicing something that is not condoned by Christianity?

What does everyone else think?

Well Richard the Lionhearted did it.

 

[Butterwicke]

...how could an English king in good conscience, make the vows to God, Jesus, etc. during the coronation ceremony, while knowingly practicing something that is not condoned by Christianity?

Well, clearly one should wait till after the ceremony to "practice" such a thing as it could become a bit distracting.


Seriously, though... You say "Christianity" like it's a uniform, homogeneous entity, which could not be further from the truth. There are probably hundreds of individual, distinct denominations within the Christian Church. Several of these are welcoming and accepting of homosexuality, including Unitarian, Metropolitan Community, and several Episcopal congregations, to name a few. So to say "Christianity doesn't condone homosexuality" is inaccurate without describing further the version of "Christianity" to which you are referring.

Granted, the only churches that would matter in your example would be the Churches of England & Scotland, whose stance on the subject (this week) I am not familiar with. It should be noted that a gay king could be celebate, in which case he would not offend the "church" by practicing homosexual acts. This would, however, not change the fact that the king was a homosexual. Though, according to "Christianity", shouldn't ANY unmarried monarch (gay or straight) be celebate until after they have been married?

Yeah, that'll happen.

 

[Henri M.]

No problem

I know that Monaco's RF is catholic but I kind of tend to think of it as less conservative. Can anyone else with more knowledge of Monaco weigh in? I'm not saying they would accept this of say Prince Albert but would it be a big deal if one of the kids of Caroline or Stephanie was gay?

Spain is Catholic, Belgium is Catholic, Luxembourg is Catholic, the Netherlands are (in majority) Catholic and all of them are quite liberal countries.
France is in name Catholic, but the division between Church and State is extreme in France and Monaco in general follows France in everything. The Church might condemn it. The State does not. And the Prince is not the head of the Church. He is the head of state.

 

[Aurora810]

France is in name Catholic, but the division between Church and State is extreme in France and Monaco in general follows France in everything. The Church might condemn it. The State does not. And the Prince is not the head of the Church. He is the head of state.

Interesting! Thanks Henri

 

[Prince of Chota]

This is an interesting thread. However, no one to my knowledge has mentioned the fact that in England, the monarch's coronation is a Christian one, with prayers made to Jesus, etc. etc. So, my question is this: how could an English king in good conscience, make the vows to God, Jesus, etc. during the coronation ceremony, while knowingly practicing something that is not condoned by Christianity?

What does everyone else think?

Well, I suppose you must figure that nobody is perfect. Everyone (royalty included) does things at various times that are "not condoned" and even condemned by Christianity. Straight royals have certainly been given a lot of room to do things that are un-Christian. Why should being homosexual be any different?

 

[Butterwicke]

There is one major exception: in no monarchy, also not in the Netherlands, children from a gay royal marriage are in line of succession. This because two gays or two lesbians always need a third person to create a child. The succession is meant for legal offspring born in a consented marriage.

This 'third person' (the man who delivers his semen in a lesbian marriage or a woman who 'borrows' her womb in a gay marriage) is no part of this marriage. Technically the child is born out of wedlock or illegitimate and therefore the child can never be in the line of succession.

I realize we're dealing with some very ancient traditions here, but surely these laws would deserve some measure of renewed reconsideration in light of 21st century reproductive medicine. Even straight couples who face problems sometimes require a surrogate to carry the couple's own embryos to term. Bloodlines remain uncompromised as the only genetic contributors would be the married, royal couple. In this case, certainly there should be no questions of "legitimacy". (I cringe at using the term "Illegitimate" to label any child.)

In the case of gay couples, there would obviously be a need for donation of reproductive material from a third party; and that donor's genes would combine with the parent's genes. As long as those parental genes carried the desired royal bloodline, why should there be any objections to the child having full succession rights? They were brought into the world through the efforts of their committed, married parents. Part of the process required a third party donor, but in many cases these donors are anonymous, so there is no question as to whose "legal offspring" the child is.

I'm doubt that if indeed faced with such a situation today, any monarchy would be quite so progressive, at least not without lengthy debate and controversy. Of course, debate and controversy often accompany issues of royal succession. At least in that respect, some things never change.

 

[LadyK]

I think you both bring up good points, which make me think. I personally, believe that gay people are just like heterosexuals, but they are just attracted to someone of the same sex. If a royal became a monarch, and was homosexual, then who cares? They would be just as strong, as intelligent, and and loyal and dedicated as anyone else. All that would happen would be that the throne would then pass to a younger brother or sister, or to a niece or nephew. That-thrones passing to a sibling or other blood relative- has happened throughout history, although not always due to homosexuality. I honestly think that the only time in which a royal's sexuality should be an issue is when that royal is a monarch, or the heir to the throne, and is also the last of the line of sucession. Then, because the throne would end up empty, or could pass to a different house, might it be an issue, but only then. If anyone, royals included, comes out as a homosexual, that is their personal life, and well, it's just that-personal.

 

[Henri M.]

I realize we're dealing with some very ancient traditions here, but surely these laws would deserve some measure of renewed reconsideration in light of 21st century reproductive medicine.

If I may reply it from the Netherlands situation, this is not really possible. You need to know that for any marriage of the King of a successor, a special Act of Consent is required.

This means that the Government offers and defends a Bill of Consent for the marriage of the King or a successor with person X or person Y. The two Chambers of the States-General (Netherlands Parliament) assembles together in a joint session, to read the Bill and a qualified majority is required to pass the Bill. See a pic of such a joint session with the 225 parliamentarians.

In this given situation it is hard to see how the States-General, who in word and in deed has given its nihil obstat to a marriage of a successor with specific person X or Y, can accept that a child is born in a marriage for which the involvement of a third person (the sperm or egg donor) who was no any part of the marriage about which the Act of Consent is speaking.

 

[Butterwicke]

In this given situation it is hard to see how the States-General, who in word and in deed has given its nihil obstat to a marriage of a successor with specific person X or Y, can accept that a child is born in a marriage for which the involvement of a third person (the sperm or egg donor) who was no any part of the marriage about which the Act of Consent is speaking.

(btw - great post... thanks for including the pic!)

Their acceptance (or not) of a royal heir born through surrogacy would perhaps ultimately depend upon the kingdom's respective laws regarding surrogacy. I cannot speak to surrogacy laws within the Netherlands. I do know that according to many state laws within the USA, couples becoming parents through surrogacy are named the child's legal parents before birth... 180 days after conception. Of course, with gay marriage rights only allowed in one or two US states, (and what with us not having a monarchy and all) it is kind of a moot point. It does point to the fact that surrogacy issues are still a relatively new and somewhat uncharted territory in regard to law and the rules can vary widely from one country to the next.

The institution of Monarchy and the rules of dynastic succession are both slow to change; and given their roles, this cautious approach makes sense. For those monarchies allowing females equal succession rights after centuries of male primogeniture exclusivity, such change came after very lengthy debate and deliberation. I am sure the consideration of any crown couple's issue by surrogacy (whether they be straight or gay) would be met by many with strong resistance. Change, though, however slow, is also almost always inevitable.

In any case, were such a scenario ever to play out in reality, it would no doubt inspire a succession controversy hot enough to rival the Jacobite movement!

 

[Henri M.]

I am sure the consideration of any crown couple's issue by surrogacy (whether they be straight or gay) would be met by many with strong resistance. Change, though, however slow, is also almost always inevitable.

Apart from gay marriages, already offspring conceived in a normal intercourse between a man and a woman but outside the approved marriage is not in line of succession. See the halfsisters of Queen Beatrix (Alicia de Bielefelde, Alexia Lejeune), the halfsisters and -brothers of King Albert (Alexander of Belgium, Maria-Esmeralda of Belgium, Marie-Christine of Belgium) the halfsister of Prince Philippe (Delphine Boël) or the children by Prince Albert of Monaco.

This makes clear that a royal marriage, no matter gay or straight, is approved between person X and person Y and their offspring born inside this consented marriage of these two persons are in line of succession.

This automatically excludes anyone born outside the marriage between X and Y, namely an extramarital affair, a child out of wedlock or a child with the necessary help of a third person. With this is not meant artificial fertilization, as this still is about the semen and the eggs of the persons X and Y from the consented marriage. It is about the semen or the eggs from someone outside the consented marriage which excludes their offspring from the line of succession.

The lawmaker is so precize with this because otherwise also a halfbrother like Alexander of Belgium, born in a perfectly lawful marriage, could claim his succession rights when the product of a donor who is not even part of a lawful marriage would have been approved as a successor to the kingship.

 

[Butterwicke]

This makes clear that a royal marriage, no matter gay or straight, is approved between person X and person Y and their offspring born inside this consented marriage of these two persons are in line of succession.

This automatically excludes anyone born outside the marriage between X and Y, namely an extramarital affair, a child out of wedlock or a child with the necessary help of a third person. With this is not meant artificial fertilization, as this still is about the semen and the eggs of the persons X and Y from the consented marriage. It is about the semen or the eggs from someone outside the consented marriage which excludes their offspring from the line of succession.

Ok, so you make an exception for cases where fertilization took place outside the womb, provided the genetic material of that fertilization came only from married persons X and Y.

What if X is then unable to carry this embryo created from her and her husband Y? What if the only hope they have of successfully seeing their union become fruitful requires the implantation of their embryo into the womb of a surrogate? Would you say then that the resulting offspring of X and Y should have succession rights? Clearly, there is no involvment here of semen/eggs from anyone outside the consented marriage. Yet this biological child of X & Y could not have been born without the hospitable surrogate womb of the third person. Do you still consider this child to be "born inside this consented marriage of these two persons"?

 

[Henri M.]

This is a very hypothetical question and it is hard to believe that a miss Smith bearing the eggs and semen of The Prince and Princess of Wales and giving birth to it, is technically not the natural mother, etc. while the baby has been grown in her womb, and was delivered via her body.


This is simply excluded in the existing laws. Do also not forget that the kingship (in the Netherlands, and also in Britain, is Dei Gratia (by the grace of God). All these technical and artifical help are not really meant. If it is the Lord's will that the Queen or the Princess can not bear a child, so be it the Lord's will.

 

[Warren]

After taking out some posts it's time for another reminder that unsubstantiated "rumours" and gossip will be removed. We will not be outing those who choose not to out themselves, and we won't allow speculation or fishing expeditions along the lines of "I've heard xxx is gay. Is he?"

thanks.

Warren
Royal Forums Administrator

 

[acid_rain3075]

Ok so I've been through this thread (ok well, not all it because i got to page 5 or 6 then got bored after a while but I then took it up at pages 11 and 12) but I've been wondering, merely as a hypothetical, what would happen if lets say Charlotte, Princess Beatrice, or better yet Crown Princess Victoria came out (or even Infanta Leonor 18 years from now)! I only ask because it seems like everyone goes on and on about homosexual men but there doesn't seem to be very much discussion on homosexual women in the "royal circle", (but once again I only got to page 6 so maybe I'm wrong). but anyways I suppose my real question is would it make a difference in Sweden or the Uk, or even Monaco if any one of these women came out.

 

[Henri M.]

Ok so I've been through this thread (ok well, not all it because i got to page 5 or 6 then got bored after a while but I then took it up at pages 11 and 12) but I've been wondering, merely as a hypothetical, what would happen if lets say Charlotte, Princess Beatrice, or better yet Crown Princess Victoria came out (or even Infanta Leonor 18 years from now)! I only ask because it seems like everyone goes on and on about homosexual men but there doesn't seem to be very much discussion on homosexual women in the "royal circle", (but once again I only got to page 6 so maybe I'm wrong). but anyways I suppose my real question is would it make a difference in Sweden or the Uk, or even Monaco if any one of these women came out.

No, not really. In none of the named countries homosexuality is prohibited or whatever. Contracting a royal marriage and having offspring with 'help' is another story.

 

[scooter]

This is a very hypothetical question and it is hard to believe that a miss Smith bearing the eggs and semen of The Prince and Princess of Wales and giving birth to it, is technically not the natural mother, etc. while the baby has been grown in her womb, and was delivered via her body.


This is simply excluded in the existing laws. Do also not forget that the kingship (in the Netherlands, and also in Britain, is Dei Gratia (by the grace of God). All these technical and artifical help are not really meant. If it is the Lord's will that the Queen or the Princess can not bear a child, so be it the Lord's will.

Henri, in this day and age you are not really suggesting that if a royal couple who cannot 'deliver' the child themselves, but can make a geneticly legitimate baby trough reprodutive medicine, should not do it because it is 'God's will' that the royal house die off???

 

[BeautyLeonor]

Good question ... I believe that in principle my reaction out of surprised, it would be something incredible .. but he would not be the first man gay, far from it the last one...
__________________

" *Love Is Like A Rose In Winter, Only The Strong Survives* My Favorite Rose: Felipe & Letizia "

 

[hofburg]

That's news to me

I dont think William is gay. If he was his family would probably know about it and they would be grooming Harry instead. Also William promised Harry he would never renounce his rights to the throne or abdicate. He assured Harry he would not give him the burden.

That's a very interesting piece of information, indeed. Never have I heard anything of the kind. Probably, just my ignorance.

Would you be kind enough, Princejohnny (or anyone else, for that matter), to inform me of your SOURCE to this very interesting statement of William?

Thank you.

 

[Elspeth]

This is a source for that comment, although I have no idea how authoritative it is. If the source is correct, Harry is supposed to have said that William told him this.

Prince William of Wales photos, info and news - People

 

[hofburg]

This is a source for that comment, although I have no idea how authoritative it is. If the source is correct, Harry is supposed to have said that William told him this.

Prince William of Wales photos, info and news - People

Thank you, Elspeth

 

[RoyallyRich]

I am wondering what is the status of the institution of Hereditary Monarchy in the global gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/and transgendered community.I am wondering if by any means Royalty has gay icon status like popular celebrities.I have read and have spoken with officials from glbt organizations,they consider Diana,Princess of Wales,and Princess Grace the Princess of Monaco admirable gay icons.And is the gltb community opposed to Hereditary Monarchies?I know Prince Carl Philippe is a gay icon in Sweden and a gay man here involved in the community's cultural dept.told me that Prince William is fast becoming one like his mum in the USA.Princess Margaret supposedly had a huge gay following.And the Queen Mother was friendly with many famous gay men.So I wonder with all the dazzle of Monarchy,is Royalty a gay icon?

 

[Warren]

It's more the case that certain people become gay icons, not institutions.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I am wondering what is the status of the institution of Hereditary Monarchy in the global gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/and transgendered community.I am wondering if by any means Royalty has gay icon status like popular celebrities.I have read and have spoken with officials from glbt organizations,they consider Diana,Princess of Wales,and Princess Grace the Princess of Monaco admirable gay icons.And is the gltb community opposed to Hereditary Monarchies?I know Prince Carl Philippe is a gay icon in Sweden and a gay man here involved in the community's cultural dept.told me that Prince William is fast becoming one like his mum in the USA.Princess Margaret supposedly had a huge gay following.And the Queen Mother was friendly with many famous gay men.So I wonder with all the dazzle of Monarchy,is Royalty a gay icon?

As Warren said, it's more individuals who get the status of icon and even then it's more a diva thing. Grace Kelly, Princess Di and to an increasing extent Camilla, Royals who have suffered but look glamorous or Royals who are extravagant and wild seem to qualify for the Gay Factor. I don't think Carl Philippe and William are gay icons, they're really just guys that gay guys fancy and so they're given a special following.

The Queen Mother did indeed have alot of gay friends and in fact, it was she who decided to introduce a policy of only recruiting gay men because they wouldn't leave to get married or get the maids into trouble. She seemed to love being surrounded by gay men - I think because it was illegal and she liked the danger aspect of it all. As to whether the LGBT community is oppossed to monarchy, that's sort of like saying all people with blonde hair like sushi. The LGBT is so diverse and for every one person to object, there'd be one who supports the idea. Having said that, it does seem alot of gay men are into the Royalty scene and I think for the very reason you say - they like the glitz.

 

[serenissima]

Gay Royalty

I understand that Umberto II of Italy (the last king of Italy) was known to be a bisexual whose marriage to his wife Queen Maria José (a daughter of Albert I, the King of the Belgians) ended in separation after the Italian royal family's exile. The king consort of Isabelle II of Spain, Francis of Spain, was rumoured to be homsexual. Later, the couple separated but amicably.

Re: the King of England being "gay"

I have a feeling that the general public will not make too much of a fuss about the sovereign's sexual orientation (even if he may be accompanied by his male partner) though it will be talked about in the media & press all the time. However, some extremely conservative wings within the Church of England such as the REFORM etc may denounce the king as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Since the same sex union is legal in the United Kingdom and the Prince of Wales's civil marriage to Camila Parker-Bowles was legally permissible in the eyes of the British government & the Archbishop of Canterbury also accepted it (though this union is a matter of dispute due to the nature of the Royal Marriage Act), in the future should we ever receive a gay man or woman as our monarch and s/he wishes to register his/her union to his/her companion as a civil partner, the government & the Archbishop of Canterbury should accept that union, too.

[ed fishing expedition - Warren]