If a future British king or queen was gay…

[Sweetchocolatecandy]

Do you think they would be accepted?

What titles would their respective husband or wife be given?

Perhaps if there was a gay king or queen they'd remove the religious aspect of the monarchy and would be a little less out of touch than the current royals are.

James I and VI wrote love letters to the Duke of Buckingham which have survived. They were well known to be banging.

@Nc123

James I and VI wrote love letters to the Duke of Buckingham which have survived. They were well known to be banging.

Yes. Charles I initially hated Buckingham for that reason, but after his father's death he became heavily reliant on him (though there was no indication Charles I was gay - he went on to have 9 children).

I can't see it being an issue tbh we live in the very progressive times ever in one of the least judgemental countries in the world. If George is gay the succession just reverts to Charlotte

I wonder whay will happen if george is a girl

Slight segue but who was the law changed for Kayes first born that hadn't been changed earlier for other generations? Is it just modern life now? And I wonder how it was raised and taken by the older generations of the family. Was it thought that the change was just to keep harry out?

*Kate.

Harrys place has been effected in the Line of Sucession though. Charlotte is above Louis, and I think the Tindal children are effected.

Sorry, terrible typos. I mean WHY was it changed for Kate.

@ChemistryBoggle

Sorry, terrible typos. I mean WHY was it changed for Kate.

All part of modernising the monarchy. It was a very archaic law and incredibly sexist. It had been suggested prior to William marrying but hurried along when he did. A law change wasn't a priority prior as the likelihood of succession passing out of Charles line is unlikely.

The only two 'major' royals that miss out by them not updating are Anne (and descendants) and Edwards daughter Louise.

@Aroundtheworldin80moves

The only two 'major' royals that miss out by them not updating are Anne (and descendants) and Edwards daughter Louise.

Yes, but the idea wasn't even muted in 1948 when Charles was born. Women were definitely not equal. So it's hardly likely they'd have ever considered a law change back then.

Definitely didn't think of it then.

I find it outrageous that all other titles are passed down the male line.

Anne is the biggest lover here. Andrew or Anne, who would you want as monarch?

They say isabella was the most beautiful woman in the whole of the kingdom.

I'm sure they did...

😒 red hot poker up the arse 😏

William was directly asked this two years ago;

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/26/prince-william-id-be-absolutely-fine-if-my-children-were-gay

I think the general public sentiment would be supportive.

I think the bigger question at that point would be whether a monarchy would still be acceptable to the majority.

@ChemistryBoggle

Sorry, terrible typos. I mean WHY was it changed for Kate.

There were four specific changes to the rules surrounding the succession just before George was born:

1. The former rules of male primogeniture were done away with, before this royal sons took precedence over their female siblings, including first-born royal daughters.

1. Members of the Royal Family are now allowed to marry Roman Catholics without losing their place in the succession (although they may not still become the monarch if they are a RC themselves)

1. Changed so that only the first six in line to the throne need the Queen's permission to marry (think it was first ten before?)

1. Queen updated royal warrant to give all Kate and Will's kids a royal title. This was basically to protect the firstborn had it been a girl rather than a boy, because she would have had a lesser title than any younger brothers despite being higher in the line of succession.

lupad

There have already been gay Kings and lesbian Queens of England?

Openly?”

At court, absolutely. Edward II and Piers Galveston.

Gaveston, not Galveston 🙄 predictive text!

I think the public would accept it. I think the royal family would not. They would worry about what it meant for heirs - adopted children and children of surrogates can't inherit titles. And I believe they would consider it a duty to uphold some kind of idealised vision of a the traditional British, Christian family (obviously very hypocritical and a terrible attitude, but you only have to see the way some of them reacted to Archie to know they aren't exactly a decent and welcoming bunch).

I guess there may already be protocols in place in the event of infertility in hetrosexual couples in the line of succession.

I wonder if any tests are done or 'questions asked' in advance about those potentially marrying into the RF? I presume checks would be made into their background, to make sure there are no skeletons in their closets or anything that could bring shame on the RF. Especially considering the relatively small pool of people there have traditionally been among the aristocracy, they would be well-advised to make sure that too-closely-related people don't marry, and it wouldn't surprise me if they also did fertility checks - considering that, along with the fame and the massive privilege, one very major role of the royal line is to keep it going!

Then again, what would they do if any fertility problems were in the actual royal heir themselves (as opposed to the potential spouse)? I suppose, in theory, direct members of the RF could also have skeletons in their closets all on their own, that could bring huge disgrace on the monarchy if discovered/proven...............