Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

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

179 replies

CurlewKate · 11/06/2025 19:36

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?

OP posts:
InsomniacSloth · 12/06/2025 13:53

sprinklesandshines · 11/06/2025 19:47

ive just read and it says surrogacy is not allowed but sperm donation is, the rule is that baby has to come out of mums body to be eligible. Ick. I will say the royal family have told plenty of lies before so I can imagine them keeping it quiet.

Edited

Interesting. So the baby of a gay Queen who had the baby via sperm donation would be a legitimate heir (50% family genetics), but the baby of a gay King who had the baby via a surrogate (50% family genetics) would not be a legitimate heir.

Isn’t that sex discrimination?

I suppose it highlights how absurd the entire thing is to begin with.

PosiePetal · 12/06/2025 13:56

FruityCider · 11/06/2025 20:36

The Mall would be painted in a giant rainbow. Soho would slowly take over the rest of London. The national anthem would be replaced with God Save the Queens. Grindr would become nationally subsidised. Royal decrees would henceforth be delivered via interpretive dance and confetti cannon. The Prime Minister would be required by law to lip-sync for their life during weekly PMQs.

What a glorious time it would be.

Oh, yes please!

Courgettezuchinni · 12/06/2025 14:03

Back in the day they had a lavender marriage to beget the heir and a spare, then carried on regardless with their "favourites" (James 1st). Queen Anne and her multiple pregnancies.

Nowadays they'd probably do the same tbh as royalty is pretty traditional and doesn't really do change as it upsets the horses.

IfYouPutASausageInItItsNotAViennetta · 12/06/2025 14:04

RandyRedHumpback · 12/06/2025 13:45

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.

But if none of Andrew's children had had children - 'approved' or not - it would then end after their deaths.

Pootles34 · 12/06/2025 14:11

Not that long ago they changed the succession rules to allow a first born daughter to inherit the throne even if there was a younger son, that wasn't such a big fuss, so I think they'd just do that again

CatHairEveryWhereNow · 12/06/2025 14:13

IfYouPutASausageInItItsNotAViennetta · 12/06/2025 14:04

But if none of Andrew's children had had children - 'approved' or not - it would then end after their deaths.

First Andrew daughter's do have children already - so they'd have to grow up and have none.

If that happened it would go back up to Edward and his kids. If his kids had no kids then it would go to Ann.

Ann who already has grandchildren - so first her sons kids then her daughters.

If they all die out it goes back to Princess Margaret and her kids - who already have kids. If they all fail it goes back to Queens father next eldest brother decsenants.

To get in succesion line you have to be a legitimate descendant of Sophia of Hanover - she has 5000 - then you need to be protestant. That's a starting pool of 5000 people to wade though for one job.

We aren't going to run out of heirs any time soon.

RareGoalsVerge · 12/06/2025 14:13

Here's the line of succession up to #49. It would be quite startling if all 49 of these ended up dying without further issue (people in italics are already dead and included above their offspring to show where they would have been)

@InsomniacSloth "surrogacy" is a polite euphemism for human trafficking. Purchasing people isn't some kind of magic solution to the biological fact that male people cannot produce offspring, and the real mother of the baby doesn't stop existing when a purchasing parent wants her to. It's not discriminatory for scientific facts to exist, and the very concept of royalty is fundamentally discriminatory and cannot possibly be made nondiscrimininatory without ceasing to exist, so I can't see this being integrated into the rules.

The baby of a lesbian queen would still be illegitimate if she wasn't married. I think the child could be legally legitimate if she was married to a woman though, because under the law the spouse of a woman who gives birth is legally the child's 2nd parent even if they didn't provide the sperm. That might be one for the lawyers.

What would happen if the heir to the British Throne was gay?
DontReplyIWillLie · 12/06/2025 14:18

IfYouPutASausageInItItsNotAViennetta · 12/06/2025 14:04

But if none of Andrew's children had had children - 'approved' or not - it would then end after their deaths.

Then it goes to Edward’s children and their descendants. And then Anne’s line. And in the unlikely event that all their lines completely die out, David Linley and Sarah Chatto both have adult children, before we even look beyond George VI’s descendants.

CurlewKate · 12/06/2025 14:19

IfYouPutASausageInItItsNotAViennetta · 12/06/2025 14:04

But if none of Andrew's children had had children - 'approved' or not - it would then end after their deaths.

Why, when Edward and Ann have children?

OP posts:
DontReplyIWillLie · 12/06/2025 14:20

"surrogacy" is a polite euphemism for human trafficking. Purchasing people isn't some kind of magic solution to the biological fact that male people cannot produce offspring, and the real mother of the baby doesn't stop existing when a purchasing parent wants her to.

This isn’t a debate about the rights and wrongs of surrogacy.

NoNameMum · 12/06/2025 14:23

It just goes to the next in line, so, for example, if Prince George is gay and doesn’t have any children, Princess Charlotte would take the throne followed by her children. If she didn’t have any children it would go to Prince Louis and then his kids. If he doesn’t have any then it reverts to Harry followed by his kids and so on.

upinaballoon · 12/06/2025 15:08

IfYouPutASausageInItItsNotAViennetta · 12/06/2025 10:19

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.

Diana's father said she was a perfect physical specimen.

IfYouPutASausageInItItsNotAViennetta · 12/06/2025 15:13

upinaballoon · 12/06/2025 15:08

Diana's father said she was a perfect physical specimen.

Euugh, what a horrible way to talk about your own daughter.

IfYouPutASausageInItItsNotAViennetta · 12/06/2025 15:16

DontReplyIWillLie · 12/06/2025 14:18

Then it goes to Edward’s children and their descendants. And then Anne’s line. And in the unlikely event that all their lines completely die out, David Linley and Sarah Chatto both have adult children, before we even look beyond George VI’s descendants.

Good point. I suppose they could go back a very, very, very long way if they had to.

Anything other than letting the population democratically elect their leader, eh?!

RandyRedHumpback · 12/06/2025 16:00

IfYouPutASausageInItItsNotAViennetta · 12/06/2025 14:04

But if none of Andrew's children had had children - 'approved' or not - it would then end after their deaths.

No it wouldn't. Which part of the line of succession are you not getting?

CurlewKate · 12/06/2025 16:01

upinaballoon · 12/06/2025 15:08

Diana's father said she was a perfect physical specimen.

Eughh. I do know some very posh people
who talk like that, though.

OP posts:
RandyRedHumpback · 12/06/2025 16:03

InsomniacSloth · 12/06/2025 13:53

Interesting. So the baby of a gay Queen who had the baby via sperm donation would be a legitimate heir (50% family genetics), but the baby of a gay King who had the baby via a surrogate (50% family genetics) would not be a legitimate heir.

Isn’t that sex discrimination?

I suppose it highlights how absurd the entire thing is to begin with.

If she's not married to the sperm donor, the child is illegitimate and therefore not in the line of succession.

RareGoalsVerge · 12/06/2025 16:38

RandyRedHumpback · 12/06/2025 16:03

If she's not married to the sperm donor, the child is illegitimate and therefore not in the line of succession.

I think if she's married to anyone the child counts as legitimate. Normally any child of a married woman is automatically considered the legitimate issue of her and her spouse, regardless of genetics. Which is why if the spouse of someone in the line of succession gets pregnant by someone else it's technically treason and can get you executed. If a future queen is a lesbian married to a woman then children born to either woman would be legitimate regardless of who the sperm donor is. It's the fact of marriage that makes a child legitimate. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, ensures that both partners in a same-sex marriage are recognized as legal parents, regardless of their biological relationship to the child, provided that the woman who is not the birth-mother of the child consented to the IVF as per section 42 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.

RandyRedHumpback · 12/06/2025 17:13

RareGoalsVerge · 12/06/2025 16:38

I think if she's married to anyone the child counts as legitimate. Normally any child of a married woman is automatically considered the legitimate issue of her and her spouse, regardless of genetics. Which is why if the spouse of someone in the line of succession gets pregnant by someone else it's technically treason and can get you executed. If a future queen is a lesbian married to a woman then children born to either woman would be legitimate regardless of who the sperm donor is. It's the fact of marriage that makes a child legitimate. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, ensures that both partners in a same-sex marriage are recognized as legal parents, regardless of their biological relationship to the child, provided that the woman who is not the birth-mother of the child consented to the IVF as per section 42 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.

The point being answered did not refer to a married monarch. In any event, it depends whether a legal fiction providing a child the status of legitimacy and legal parenthood in a same sex marriage also provides the child the requisite status required for him/her to be in the line of succession. Parents who adopt have the full legal rights of biological parents. That child would not be eligible to be in the line of succession, though, as it currently works.

wordler · 12/06/2025 17:15

The monarchy traditionally makes changes at a glacial pace even without taking into account any government debates/law changes that need to take place so I couldn't see any major changes happening quickly.

But hypotheticals aside, as I mentioned on the other thread, in the current state of the line of succession you've got first in line William with three seemingly healthy offspring. If he lives until only his 70s, the George will be in his mid 40s. If William follows his grandparents' good health and lives until 90, then George will be nearly 60 before he takes the throne.

Charlotte and Louis will both be in their 50s.

There's a good likelihood that one or more of those three have had children, potentially grandchildren even by then.

And a good 40 years to decide what to do re line of succession. A gay George and partner might have decided not to have children, or have had children in the acceptance that Charlotte will remain the heir. Same if he's not gay but infertile. He could decide he doesn't want to be the first openly gay monarch and abdicate his place in advance to Charlotte. They will all have plenty of time to think about it and prepare the next potential heirs for the role.

There would be absolutely no need for the shenanigans of past monarchs of hiding their sexuality with a lavender marriage because that was in the days where power grabs could come from foreign monarchs and domestic power hungry people leading to wars, invasions, instability etc, let alone being executed for failing at the 'top' job.

CatHairEveryWhereNow · 12/06/2025 17:28

RareGoalsVerge · 12/06/2025 16:38

I think if she's married to anyone the child counts as legitimate. Normally any child of a married woman is automatically considered the legitimate issue of her and her spouse, regardless of genetics. Which is why if the spouse of someone in the line of succession gets pregnant by someone else it's technically treason and can get you executed. If a future queen is a lesbian married to a woman then children born to either woman would be legitimate regardless of who the sperm donor is. It's the fact of marriage that makes a child legitimate. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, ensures that both partners in a same-sex marriage are recognized as legal parents, regardless of their biological relationship to the child, provided that the woman who is not the birth-mother of the child consented to the IVF as per section 42 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.

Well I found that interesting - as I had to say I did wonder about this situation a Queen regant married to a woman having a baby as wasn't completely sure what situation was there.

I knew in UK marriage make child lawful in hetrosexual relationship even if male isn't gentic father - so good to know it's been thought though and covered.

RitaIncognita · 12/06/2025 17:35

Could they just change the rules?

If by "they", you mean Parliament, the answer is yes. Parliament determines rights of succession. Of course, other laws might have to be changed as well.

RandyRedHumpback · 12/06/2025 17:37

Parliament had the chance to allow transmen holding a GRC the right to inherit a hereditary peerage. They didn't.

WhatYaGottaDoo · 12/06/2025 17:53

How do you know Charles or William are not gay? Having children doesn’t mean you are not gay… especially with their wealth and means.

CurlewKate · 12/06/2025 18:52

RandyRedHumpback · 12/06/2025 17:37

Parliament had the chance to allow transmen holding a GRC the right to inherit a hereditary peerage. They didn't.

Yes-when there’s actually hard cash and castles involved….

OP posts: