What would happen if the heir to the British Throne was gay?

[CurlewKate]

I wonder if there are contingency plans. Would he or she appoint an heir? Would there be a King/Queen and a King/Queen Consort? How would the GBP receive the idea? I’m sure that in the past he or she would have been pressured. Into a lavender marriage, but pretty sure that wouldn’t happen these days…. Is there any precedent in the House of Lords?

You find me a narrative involving the RF that isn’t complicated and I’ll give you a million pounds!

I agree strongly with you @RandyRedHumpback. The tone of this thread is distasteful and homophobic.

Yes, this.

For most of us, children are a natural result of a loving marriage or partnership; but for the royals, the romantic relationship and the birth of heirs are an entirely separate thing - with the latter being far more important than the former.

Even though Charles appears not to be gay, it was still obvious from the start that Diana was never the woman he actually loved - and that she was only chosen as a 'brood-mare' to provide him with heirs.

The wife of the first son had IVF but had a girl and then her mental health declined.

The second son wife who had two girls then had a boy - possibly IVF and sex selection as she was 39 years old.

This rule is relatively recent - Imperial Household Law of 1947 - while still occupied by USA - that only sons of current emperor can inherit throne and pass it on. Prior to that there were cadet houses princess could be married into to stay royal and succession could be more flexible. The royal family have had a dearth of male heirs since then as well.

In UK - we have a line of succesion - Parliment in control it and ammended it prior to Geogre birth to stop putting sons above daughters. We've skipped round all over the family lines thoughout history.

C of E could be an issue for an openly gay monarch but likely they'd adapt- but I think general UK public would be fine.

I wonder if we'll ever have a monarch who identifies as non-binary?

It was weird enough for those of us of a certain age getting used to saying 'King' instead of 'Queen' for the first time in our lives. For some time, loads of people sang the anthem as 'God save our gracious quee-ing'!

How would we get used to somebody demanding the title 'TRH'?!

In the past, it would hav ebeen impossible for a member of the royal family to be openly gay. I imagine that is changing but I suspect it hasn't changed as much as we'd all like to think it has.

On the subject of heirs, don't they also have to be "legitimate" currently? ie so even if George was gay, chose to have a baby with a surrogate or willing woman, without actually marrying her, that baby wouldn't be in the line of succession anyway? Or has that changed too? Certainly in the past, illegitimate children were not routinely in the line of succession.

James I was definitely gay. He married to produce heir and that was that. His favourites at Court were handsome young men, not a woman to be seen anywhere.

William II, Richard I, Edward II, James I (&VI) and Queen Anne were well known at court to be in homosexual relationships. But they didn't have the paparazzi and social media to deal with, and it was normal and expected for royal marriages to be with people they'd never met before, might be vastly different in age and may not speak the same language, and might not see eachother much. I imagine it would be a lot more difficult now than it was in the past.

But you are right that it would be impossible for any homosexual monarch of either sex to have a legitimate child without having a marriage of convenience with a member of the opposite sex. But that's not even remotely a problem for succession.

It’s interesting that (forgive me if I’m completely misunderstanding Irish politics!) that Leo Varadker was popular-until he wanted to make some constitutional changes that were though very slightly broadened the definition of family life and the position of women. So his sexuality wasn’t an issue-his pro women attitudes were!

James I of England and sixth of Scotland is famouslsy supposed to be gay or at least bisexual.

Queen Ann - may have been.

It's thought Willian III may have been (of William and Mary Glorious revolution and cousin to Ann and Mary).

It's really hard to know if they were or not because it wasn't a neutral thing in their times so could be attacks by poltical enemies - plus they were under poltcial and social pressure to provide heirs or at least marry.

I think surrogacy would be an issue - IVF I doubt would be - there are rumours that artificial insemination may have help conceive Elizabeth II and her sister Margaret but they are just that rumours and speculation.

Surrogate law in UK differs to USA. In UK surrogate is considered the mother so genetic parents have to adopt - and I think you can't inherite titles though adoption. It's also much more controversial in UK than in USA.

In the past, it would hav ebeen impossible for a member of the royal family to be openly gay. I imagine that is changing but I suspect it hasn't changed as much as we'd all like to think it has.

In the past, it was impossible for anyone in the UK to be openly gay, since it was illegal in England and Wales until 1967, in Scotland until 1980 and in NI until 1982. And illegality aside, homosexuality was still socially unacceptable until attitudes changed in the late 80s/90s. Why would the royal family be any different to wider society? How many government ministers and other public figures have hidden their sexuality right up until the present day, and why would that be? Could it be because of some of the attitudes on this thread, do you think, where sexuality is weaponised against a person?

I’d forgotten him. I didn’t know about Anne. This is so interesting.

Surrogate law in UK differs to USA. In UK surrogate is considered the mother so genetic parents have to adopt - and I think you can't inherite titles though adoption. It's also much more controversial in UK than in USA.

Surrogacy is banned outright over much of Western Europe or confined to cases of altruistic surrogacy. In the UK, a surrogate may not be paid anything other than "expenses", and the woman who carries the child is legally the mother of the child. In the USA, surrogacy is a big business commercial enterprise.

Some people were openly gay - when they had poltical connections or money to protect them - though it was always dicy and most had to be discrete so most people could ignore.

Monarch tend to be most poltcial powerful and rich people in a country so get a bit more leayway though also have more politcial critics and poltics to navigate.

I know Lesbain wasn't illegal in victorian times when homesexuality still was - apparently it never has been despite efforts to make it so.

I am surprised first law dates back to 1533 for men - as thought it was a later crime than that though Church has always been against it.

https://theweek.com/87213/a-timeline-of-gay-rights-in-the-uk

My point was in USA I believe the gentic parents are considered the parents in most states - (seems to depend on conrtacts and varies) - not the woman giving birth as in UK- so there's no need for adoption.

Here the surrogat would have to be legally married to the royal man for baby to be considered an heir so they can't do surrogacy with non married partner and then adopt and inherit titles.

Which is why I think it's an issue for the royal family currently even if the baby was gentically related to royal family member.

Not to mention the differing attitude towards it than in USA.

The same thing that has happened through history when a King/Queen hasn't provided an heir (which they absolutely could if using a surrogate. Which would be very rich-people vibes anyway) - their sibling would take the throne, or their cousin/uncle etc......the usual pointless shite the country has been subjected to for millennia, but now with way less war.

This lot may be a BIT of a shower of cunts, with the bitching and arguing and petty press leaks and making hundreds of millions a year off land they never paid for but inherited under a feudal system started by another massive cunt of a King, but at least they're not beheading anyone or writing books about 'witches' that lead to the subsequent murder of a shit tonne of women.

It's not an issue for the royal family currently, since the heirs to the throne were born from the bodies of their respective mothers within marriage.

They would probably marry some unsuspecting aristocrat and have the heir and spare then divorce.

Probably many monarchs have been gay historically and had a fake hetero relationship. I'd like to think we've moved on these days.

Isn't everyone born from the body of their respective mother?

The issue for the royal family doesn’t relate to the monarch’s sexuality, it relates to whether they produce children to carry on the line.

And there’s lots of reasons that might not happen, the Monarch could die before producing any heirs, they might be infertile, they could (as happened historically and could still happen today) have children who didn’t survive to adulthood.

The line of succession is very clearly set out. They just move on to the next (otherwise we would not have had QEII)

Well, yes. But if it’s a surrogate, not from the body of the royal mother. I’m not sure how royal-or non royal- sperm fits into this.

Not necessarily as a matter of law. As someone has pointed out above, in some US states, no, if a surrogate is used. And if you are adopted, no, your legal mother adopted you. And in the UK, the woman who grows and births you is your mother, even if she is not genetically connected to you.

Yes-as I said, I kind of forgot about the line of succession when I asked the question. It does seem that from what others have said that the child of a gay couple, from adoption or sperm donation couldn’t be heir, but there is a grey area around surrogacy.Thinking about it, it’s possible that the Church of England might have to change to match the new circumstances…

Yes but the magic of being Royal is like the magic of transubstanciation. Having Royal Blood simply doesn't happen if your mother ain't Royal, and that pretty much only happens if your mum and dad are (a) married and (b) already Royal at the time of your birth. Children born without those thongs in place simply do not have royal blood no matter how royal their parents may be. Don't start trying to apply concepts of logic or fairness to it, because if these concepts are applied properly the whole concept of royalty has to be abandoned in full, it is intrinsically illogical and unfair.

There has been very occasional precident for illegitimate children to be retrospectively redefined as legitimate (the children of John of Gaunt, 3rd son of Edward III with his mistress Katherine Swynford were retrospectively legitimised when their parents eventually married)