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?

The line of succession is the contingency plan. Literally.

quite a few have died without children and it passes on to the next in line

No - it's not an issue for them at all.

But would be why surrogacy could be a problem going forward when IVF would not be.

Public opinion could change before any mythical point it was an issue - and laws can get changed -especially if public attitudes change.

No idea where they'd stand on donar sperm at all TBH - though think within UK law any children born durring a marraige are assumed to be from the couple ie man is father - though don't know if DNA testing has impacted on that.

Here’s a bit of history and the current line of succession.

https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession

your order is wrong I believe the order is William , harry , Archie , lily, Anne, Peter Zara
Andrew Beatrice Eugène , Edward louise James

also I believe the law was changed when Catherine was pregnant do that what ever she had , would be next in line Bsby happened to be a boy so Anne comes after Harry’s and his kids not Andrew

I may be wrong ?

You are wrong @pimplebum- the change was not applied retrospectively so Anne is still behind Andrew and Edward in the line of succession.

My sperm donor kids are still my blood kids just not my partners
same for suragacy it’s the parents egg and sperm in a gestational carrier

if Willian and Catherine had used a donor sperm it egg - that would interesting ?
adoption would traditionally rule you out but I’d hope rules could be changed if that ever happened

I’ve often wondered if William’s first born had downs syndrome or similar , personally I’d love to see the next king have SEN , one day it may happen , who knows 👍

Shame !😆

she would be a great no nonsense queen

Ask Prince Albert

You are wrong.

It's William and his three kids -then Harry and Harry's kids -and if that line fails then goes back up To Andrew and his kids - and down those lines till they run out and then to Edwards and kids and grandkids then to Ann.

When they changed succession act to stop favouring sons it only applies post date - no-one prior changed order - so Ann and her descendants didn't rise.

So as PP said if William had no kids (and he has three currently) then his brother would be next in line - then his kids and their decendents then Andrew.

TBH with three kids increases chances of william having GC so Harry and his kids will just get lower and lower in succession.

It's a total farce that Harry has kept his titles and place in succession. They should be removed.

It sounds obvious, but no one has mentioned it - it’s worth noting that you don’t have to be gay to die childless. You could be infertile, marry someone infertile, or tragedy could strike and your children could predecease you.

Out of seven Stuart monarchs, four died without legitimate issue (and that’s not including the one who was almost certainly gay). Ditto three out of five Tudor monarchs. Yes, there were issues with the line of succession at the end of these dynasties, but these were largely down to religion rather than lack of available heirs.

Why is the sexual orientation of the heir to the throne relevant? There’s a clear line of succession. Being gay wouldn’t prevent them succeeding to the throne and then when they died, the next person in line would succeed to the throne

Given that all three of William’s children would have to predecease him for Harry and Meghan’s children to get anywhere near the throne, it seems unlikely that this is a major worry. That’s before you take into account the longevity in the royal family, which means William will almost certainly live to see his grandchildren. Indeed, if Charles takes after even one of his parents, he could well live to see his great-grandchildren in the line of succession.

Yes, the line of succession was pointed out repeatedly on the other thread where this was brought up, where the OP gleefully hoped to see the day when a gay heir would cause "issues". But the OP "forgot" you see, so started a whole thread about a non matter.

It's just a new way for the OP to put the boot into W&C and their eldest child, with a sweet sprinkling of homophobia too.

If a male King had a child with a surrogate (using his own sperm) while being married to someone else/not married to the surrogate mother, then I don't see how that is (legally) different to an 'illegitimate' child. There must be some royal precedent for recognising an illegitimate child as an heir (particularly where there will never be an 'legitimate' children).

Yes, I have acknowledged this several times! There are still protocol implications, and the issue of the Church of England. And the possibility of the HofS having children who could not be his/her heirs…

No illegitimate children are not recognised. They don't need to be, because the line of succession ensures there is always a next in line. The next in line doesn't need to be the child of the reigning monarch, as demonstrated in the cases of Queen Victoria and George VI.

But it does rely on somebody in the generation having children.

It's unlikely, but if none of the children or their cousins had 'acceptable' children of their own, for whatever reason, that line would come to an end.

Going sideways to siblings only kicks the can down the road before, inevitably, they will all eventually be gone too.

There must be some royal precedent for recognising an illegitimate child as an heir (particularly where there will never be an 'legitimate' children).

There isn't. If there were, I'm pretty sure the successor to Charles II would have been the Duke of Monmouth, who he happily acknowleged as being his son. Monmouth did have quite a bit of support for his claim including those who wanted to have him legitimised, but it wasn't valid and his father knew it.

There must be some royal precedent for recognising an illegitimate child as an heir (particularly where there will never be an 'legitimate' children).

I'm not sure there is.

Henry VII claimed right of conquest ie killing previous King rather than his weak claim though Margaret Beaufort who claim was though later legitimised grandson John of Gaunt.

Henry VIII - there's suggestion he looked at legitimizing his illegitimate son - but he then died - and techncially Mary I and Elizabeth were illegitimate as he'd declared marriages with their mothers void.

Charles II eldest illegitimate son tried to seize the throne - armed uprising and failed.

Parliament does have leyway though - the Hanoverians were way down line of succession - 52nd I think - so any real problems I'm sure they'd fudge round.

Why? They’re still part of the bloodline. Should Andrew be removed too for being a nonce, and his daughters too?

The whole thing is nonsensical.

Going sideways to siblings only kicks the can down the road before, inevitably, they will all eventually be gone too.

Unlike Japan where the apparently need a male line from current Emperor - we can go back and up and down - any protestant descent of Sophie of Hanover who had 7 kids who reached adulthood.

Quick google tells me that around 5000 legitimate offspring from Sophie of Hanover - though not all are in succession probably due to religion. It's a decent sized pool to wade though.

Then you go back up the line, as happened with Elizabeth I. She was the last of her father’s legitimate children, all of whom died without issue, so the line passed to her aunt’s descendants.

No it doesn't. If neither William nor Harry had children, then the throne would go back a generation to Andrew if alive or his eldest living child if he's dead.