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?

Um, interesting thanks @CatHairEveryWhereNow . Bed sharing between men certainly didn't necessarily have the connotations it does for us. He spent very little time with Queen Berengaria being permanently on Crusade/elsewhere fighting so the no kids is understandable. I got a bit cross reading some recent comments on the last thread because they were so stereotyping of gay men. Richard (whatever his sexuality really was) does not fit such a stereotype.

The Angevins/Plantagenets are never less than fascinating (and make the current royals look like the Waltons)

The Angevins/Plantagenets are never less than fascinating (and make the current royals look like the Waltons)

I do wonder why there are more TV historical dramas set round them - the poltics, wars and interpersonal relationships all have drama and would make a changed from yet another Tudor one.

I THINK that in a typically Anglican fudge they bless the individuals but NOT the actual union. I’ve been to what I thought until recently were blessings of marriages, but apparantly not. angels and heads of pins spring to mind…..

Several churches within the Anglican Communion solemnize same sex marriages, including the Episcopal Church (US). Perhaps the CofE will follow these more enlightened churches at some point in the future. Having a gay monarch might just be the impetus they need. Or perhaps disestablishment might be another possibility.

Yes-either or both of those outcomes would be desirable. Preferably both!

Hard to beat " The Lion in Winter".

Given they re-make everything these days and it does seem to have escaped that fate I think many must agree.

Though did see a lot of historical clothing people on youTube getting very het up about a TV show being filmed about the Norman invasion - the costumes were wrong apparently- so perhaps there are some historical period TV shows in the pipeline.

Is The Lion in Winter still worth watching? I remember it from a million years ago….

Yes but now the heir would expect to marry someone of the same sex. It would totally change everything. Two men or women sitting on adjacent thrones, the wedding would be a very different spectacle and there would be no issue other than adopted or surrogate children which would create issues too. Also very few women or men would settle for being a partner in name only in a marriage of convenience.

My family watches it every year for Christmas. I was also talking to a customer the other day who had just watched it. Still a great portrait of family holiday disfunction.

this is such a cool question!

because it calls into question the legitimacy of a "line of succession" that relies on blood/DNA (which has already been broken so many times in history)
and it also calls into question the notion of "parenthood", which has undergone a massive societal shift in recent years

ultimately, does it perhaps shake the foundations of how/why ANYONE could be born into such a ridiculously exalted position?

(Full disclosure - i'm an anti-royalist 😂)

Honestly, I think if he or she were gay, they’d end up in some kind of arranged or lavender marriage, something to cover their true love or orientation. Because let’s be real: the people who fiercely support royalty today are often the same ones clinging to "traditional values", and queerness still doesn’t fit comfortably into that narrative.

I know posters here are being positive and imagining a world where everyone would be okay with it but in reality? They wouldn’t. The baby boomer generation, the establishment media, and the royalist tabloids would make that heir’s life hell.
Women in heteronormative royal roles already face endless scrutiny and harassment, now imagine being openly gay under that spotlight. The pressure would be suffocating.

At that point, their only real options would be a carefully managed cover-up marriage or walking away completely. And even then, it wouldn’t come without backlash.

Bit of a relief Charles and William arent gay, we could have been looking at king Andrew or king Harry and Queen Meghan.

Not that Charles or William are perfect bit...

Alao, i have a gay son, so not in anyway homophpbic, but to do with the crown and hereditary constitutional monarchy.

Andrew is a pedophile, member of Royal family and not gay.

Meghan and Harry are straight and not Queen or King, they left the Royal family to live in California. Its Catherine and William next in line and they are also married with children, in what world do you live? Are you ok?

No he isn’t a paedophile. Do you understand the meaning of the term? He doesn’t have a sexual interest in children. .

He is a pedophile.

And dont dare putting Catherine and William and Meghan and Harry in the same lane.

Ok so why do you think so? What evidence is there he has assaulted children?

do you have evidence of this? In the event that he slept with VG when accused: she was 17 years old. Which is above the age of consent in the UK.

Now you’re just playing dumb and defending a man accused of sexually abusing a trafficked minorz trying to lump that in with Catherine and William, a married couple who never abused anyone, and Meghan and Harry for choosing to leave the Royal Family? Twisted.

There’s a world of difference between abuse and autonomy. One involves harming others. The other is people choosing to protect themselves and live freely.

I’m not saying that he didn’t sexually assault VG. I am saying that there is no evidence there is a peadophile. A 17 year old is not a child

You’re trying to split hairs over terminology to defend the indefensible. Virginia Giuffre was 17, trafficked, and legally a minor under U.S. law. That makes her a child in the eyes of the legal system and Andrew a powerful adult man exploiting someone in a vulnerable, coerced position.

Whether you call it pedophilia, ephebophilia, or plain sexual abuse of a trafficked minor, its still abuse.

I’m not defending sexual abuse. I’m clarifying that it does not mean he is a peadophile.

Yes , the use of the term “ peadophile” provokes a certain reaction and response in people!
possibly on purpose, what he is accused of is bad enough without embroidering it.

In many laws he is. Also what is has to do with a heir being being gay?

@TrutherwokeAndrew isn’t a paedophile as far as we know. He is a vile sex abuser and either a direct or indirect trafficker with very dodgy friends and no financial morals who should by rights be in prison, though.