Suppose the current heir to the throne married someone of the same sex. And then soon after that person ascended the throne. What would their spouse be called? King and King? Queen and Queen? The King and his Royal Consort?
I know such a situation is unlikely. But I am serious as to wanting to know what would happen if this were to occur. Would the heir be able to become Monarch while in a same sex marriage?Gay Marriage is legal in the UK. What would happen if the heir to the throne married someone of the same sex?
Firstly, not going to happen.
Secondly, not going to happen.Gay Marriage is legal in the UK. What would happen if the heir to the throne married someone of the same sex?
The same as if they married an African prince or princess. or worse, an American.
Not gonna happen. Just can't. They have to reproduce to keep the lineage going.
You gotta think more into it.
I don't think a King or Queen would get himself into this situation.
People seem fascinated by this question. Well think of the planned marriage of Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson in 1936. There was nothing illegal about the marriage, not was their a law specifically prohibiting the king from marrying an American. However, the 14 royal consorts after Henry VIII had all been a 3rd cousin once removed or closer from the sovereign.
-----------------
Actually Edward's brother marrying Elizabeth (the queen mother) who was a 13th cousin was considered radical. Edward simply resigned because he did not want to reign over a public that didn't want him.
---------------------
In the case of a same sex marriage, the king would be heavily pressured into resigning since it would be difficult to reign. Also their adopted children would not be eligible to succeed. I think that the pressure would be very intense.
============
As to the more general question of a same sex marriage within the extended royal family, I think the citizens of UK would be reasonably tolerant (with a lot of sniggering). Everyone knows that there have been a number of homosexuals or bisexuals within the royal family. In general (I think) the educated British citizenry has been more tolerant of homosexuality for far longer than in the US or Germany. In 1953 the newly knighted Sir John Gielgud was arrested for soliciting homosexual sex in a public rest-room. His public remained loyal and gave him a standing ovation upon returning to the stage, The newspapers pilloried him, but his career had no lasting damage. He couldn't perform in the United States for at least a decade until the event was long forgotten.
-------
Only tiny Iceland has elected an openly gay individual as their head of state.
There is no legal reason why a king could not do this, however the king would need a blood heir (an adopted child would not do) and the child would have to born in wedlock ( a child from a surrogate mother would not do) the easiest thing then would be for the person in succession after the king to reign after him, so like his brother or his sister followed by their children.
The spouse would probably be given a dukedom so they'd be called so and so the Duke of whatever.
Another issue would be the Church of England, but they're so liberal now I hardly think they could complain.
I don't think it would be as big a deal as people like to assume it would be.
Then I would become a royalist of Sweden.
would not be allowed to happen.Early English Royalty has been a hybrid of European royalty
and the newly formed House of Windsor was designed to keep Eng
The monarch would be the King/Queen. His/her same gender spouse could be King/Queen Consort; or could assume some other royal title as did the Dutchess of Cornwall. Don't know about the heir thing. I would imagine that something could be worked out.
As the government pointed out at the time, gay marriage is not legal in the UK. It's called civil partnership. But the rights and responsibilities are almost exactly the same.
The line of succession is what it is and who the monarch is married to has nothing to do with it. Who the Crown would pass to after them would work exactly the same as if the monarch married someone of the opposite sex and had no children - their younger brother or sister would be King or Queen, or whoever the next nearest relative is.
Titles are the interesting problem. You couldn't have 2 kings or queens... I suspect the monarch's civil partner would be a prince or princess consort.
Public opinion would, as in 1936, be a big feature as to whether a homosexual monarch could stay on the throne. And having to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England would be an interesting position to be in... but so many clergy of that church are homosexual anyway (a somewhat little-known fact!)
I imagine there would be a weeping and wailing in 10 Downing Street, and the Archbishop of Canterbury would make some comments. One thing is sure, the Press would have a field day! Also this section of Yahoo would be snowed under!
I doubt that the heir to the throne would marry someone of the same sex, even if they could. Gay marriage negates the whole point of marriage, which is to form a stable family unit in which children can be raised. Royalty tend to be very conscious of their dynastic responsibilites, so I can't really imagine the heir to the throne indulging in this pointless activity.
1. Not going to happen.
2. Not going to happen
3. Not going to happen
....
9999999999999999999999999. Not going to happen
%26gt;_%26gt;
Seriously, it's highly unlikely this will happen.
Gay marriage in the UK in not legal, what is legal is ';civil partnerships'; which accord the same rights as marriage (e.g. rights to your partner's pension, no inheritance tax on the death of your partner). It does not change your surname and does not entitle you to a title if your partner is titled, therefore if the monarch was in a civil partnership it would not accord their partner a title.
It is indeed fortunate that Edward is not the heir to the throne, I'm sure you'll agree.
The King would be executed by his own loyal men.
No comments:
Post a Comment