Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

MPs to plan for gay royals marrying same-sex partners and their children becoming king or queen

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “Any children born to the couple through artificial insemination or surrogacy would succeed to the throne so long as the couple are in a same-sex marriage or civil partnership.”

    And so long as the child carried the DNA of the royal line, otherwise it wouldn’t be a monarchy.

    The actual prince or princess in the couple would have to be the originator of the genetic material. If it was just the marital partner alone the offspring would not be in line to the throne.

    Very complex. More complex than they realise.

    Better off just having a republic.

    1. Yes, because that would be really simple…

      1. Seems to work in the rest of the world.

        1. Seems the monarchist brigade have given this comment the thumbs down. An undemocratic system like the monarchy should have no place in a modern society and the church and state should be separated.

          1. How the idiots on here can support gay and trans equality and then defend the monarchy is beyond me.

    2. Does anyone know what the law currently is on adoption? Had William and Kate been unable to have children, and had chosen to adopt, could their adopted child have become king or queen? In some ways, it’s a very similar question.

      1. The article says: “Current inheritance laws mean that if the couple had a child through adoption, they would not join the line of succession for the throne and it is not clear MPs would seek to change this.”

        1. D’oh. I should read the article properly next time.

    3. martyn notman 20 Jan 2013, 12:49pm

      so we can have president Boris instead? no thanks!

      1. Because our current system has effectively kept him and people like him out of power so very, very well…

        Better an incompetent privileged aristocrat than an incompetent privileged person chosen by the people? Is that really what you’re saying? That, all other things being equal, you think a quirk of birth rather than the will of the electorate is a better qualification for leading the country? You can’t get away from it – by supporting the idea of hereditary monarchy you’re implying that some people are naturally born better than others, irrespective of how they behave in reality.

        1. The purpose of having a herditary monarchy today is to provide continuity. Politicians come and go, often after a long period of oppositio,n and provides a private souce of advice independent of a rowdy and narrow minded press and party. Just ask Tony Blair, Margeret Thathcher and and David Cameron how important this is

          1. de Villiers 20 Jan 2013, 4:53pm

            France and Germany seemed to have managed well with Presidents.

          2. The problem with hereditary monarchs is that the process is pretty much random, and you often end up with unsuitable people in charge. Since the union of the crowns in 1603, we have already had five occasions on which the transition from one monarch to another failed to go smoothly (the execution of Charles I, the overthrow of James II/VII, the Act of Settlement excluding Catholics and leading to George I becoming king, the regency caused by George III’s mental illness, and Edward VIII’s forced abdication).

            People have long suggested that when Charles becomes king, he might try to get too involved in politics, leading to a constitutional crisis. As an example of how bad things can get: in 2001, Nepal’s crown prince massacred most of his family, and the monarchy was abolished a few years later. Elections tend to weed out people who are that unstable.

            Of course, we don’t know how good the Queen’s advice is, and I don’t feel like I have reason to trust Blair, Thatcher or Cameron.

      2. Depends who you vote for. We definitely will have a king Charles no choice about that.

      3. Rayne Van-Dunem 20 Jan 2013, 11:23pm

        Um, no. The president of Great Britain would likely be a figurehead of a parliamentary, so you’d get a Prime Minister Boris and a President So-and-so, I think.

    4. If Prince William died then Prince Harry would eventually become king. It doesn’t matter who his father was. He becomes king, full stop. No-one has asked for a DNA check on either Wills or Harry. We don’t know what blood they have in them. Princess Di nand Prince Charles weren’t exactly monogomous. Both were having affairs as we all know, they insisted on telling us all.

      1. How do you know they haven’t had DNA checks? Are you an insider at the palace?

  2. The problem with trying to make monarchy fit with a sensible and just society’s values is that the very concept of monarchy is inherently ridiculous and unjust. As with religion, if you try to make an sense of it the whole thing quickly comes unravelled and you find yourself tied up in konts trying to get it straight again. If we truly want to modernise the monarchy there is only one way – abolish it.

    1. Konts? My predictive text will change “and” to “AMD” but didn’t catch “konts”. FFS.

      1. Ben Foster 20 Jan 2013, 2:25pm

        It could be useful. We get plenty of konts posting on here. Keith springs to mind immediately.

    2. A “sensible and just society”? Tell me where one is & I’ll join you there.

  3. Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 20 Jan 2013, 10:13am

    Long overdue, it is 2013 last time I have seen the Calendar!

    However I and others have yet to see the details since the marriage equality bill has not been introduced yet!

    Until I see the marriage equality bill, I will make a statement!

    I have seen the Scotland marriage equality bill and I must say it is an excellent piece of proposed law that has yet to pass the Scotland Parliament!

  4. Another perfectly possibly scenario is that the monarch (or the “legitimate heir”) rejects the Church of England (perhsps becoming a Jehovah’s Witness), or rejects Christianity completely, (becoming an atheist or a Muslim).

    High time to disestablish the C of E! They may no longer support slavery: but they’re still having unholy rows about same-sex marriage and women bishops. But their holy book keeps them firmly rooted in the Bronze Age.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jan 2013, 1:14pm

      Indeed! They’re having unholy rows about unholy civil marriage for gay couples which won’t affect them one iota or the ability of heterosexuals to continue marrying. I always laugh when opponents claim equal marriage will redefine and make marriage less significant, bad for society. My response would be if that’s the case which it isn’t and won’t ever be, then why would heterosexuals continue to marry if they felt it diminished the importance of marriage? It won’t stop serial adulterers like Sir Roger Gale from remarrying or any divorced hetero person for that matter and it own’t stop the CoE from continuing to conduct marriages for opposite sex couples. Life will go on and nothing will have changed except the lives of gay couples.

  5. This will be the last straw for some Tories.

    1. Hopefully, the shock will also kill off Lord Carey and the Pope.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jan 2013, 1:17pm

      Oh I suspect there will be uproar among those back benchers but then they’re bigots anyway pretending to be gay friendly just because they think CPs are enough and that they support them just to give them an excuse not to support equal marriage, kow-towing to religious consituents and trying to disguise their own homophobia.

  6. So the King will actually be a Queen if this law is ever to be put to use?

    1. No, he would simply be a Prince who is married to the King. Or, in the case of two females, a Princess married to the Queen.

      1. Spanner1960 21 Jan 2013, 12:45pm

        Not if the King is gay.
        Try engaging humour mode.

  7. Abigail Brady 20 Jan 2013, 11:31am

    Good luck on getting all the other 15 Commonwealth realms to agree on this: something that would legally need to happen here.

    1. Technically, no, it’s not a legal requirement. Certainly it’s highly desirable for the succession laws to be harmonised across the 16 realms, but there cannot be any requirement for it because each realm is indepdently sovereign, and so there’s no process by which one country’s laws could affect the decisions made by another. (There are a few exception to do with the privy council, which are not relevant.)

      In fact, there’s precendent for exactly this happening. Until 1837, the King of Britain was also head of state of Hanover, which at the time was an indepdent country. (The head of state was called a duke, not a king, but that was for historical reasons.) In 1837, Victoria became Queen here, but Hanoverian law required the head of state to be a man, so Victoria’s cousin George became head of state.

      A similar example is that the King of the Netherlands was also Grand Duke (i.e. head of state) of Luxembourg until they were separated in 1890 by a difference in succesion law.

      1. Cardinal Capone 20 Jan 2013, 2:17pm

        Is it too late to change the law and reclaim Hanover?

      2. The Statute of Westminster (1931) is law in all the commonwealth realms, and requires that changes to succession law are made unanimously. Obviously, they are all independent states and can repeal it if they want, but it would be a bit of a can of worms: nobody wants to end up in a situation where one guy is the King of the UK and Jamaica, while his cousin is the Queen of Canada and Papua New Guinea, for example.

  8. Barrybear1980 20 Jan 2013, 11:50am

    Is this a hoax or are they really jumping the gun? Surely we need to wait for equal marriage to happen before we can start talking about such things as the future monarchy. Really, there are many decades to go before this baby comes to rule

  9. I think this is just trying to stir things up, to gain an anti equality feeling to influence the vote in the commons. I trust that MPs will not be influenced by this stupid move by the anti lobby.

    If we look at the Dutch view of this, they say that part of a monarchs duty is to provide an heir, and therefore does not allow for a same sex couple to take the throne. They have worked it out logically in my view.

  10. Take a look at the Dutch position on this. Part of the duty of a monarch is to produce an heir. So a same sex union is not able to become the monarch.

    I think that this move by the anti brigade is a smoke screen to sway those MPs who are wavering on which way to vote. I hope MPs do not take this as serious and treat it with contempt.

    1. Presumably the ‘duty to produce an heir’ is more a hope than legal requirement, as if an heir to the throne turns out to be sterile or choose not to have kids for some other reason they still have the right to become monarch, and there are plenty of provisions for occasions when monarchs don’t produce kids in any case, as our history shows. In any case, gay couples can have kids – ask Elton John & David Furnish….

  11. Jock S. Trap 20 Jan 2013, 12:04pm

    So it should be though unfortunately we will expect some bigotry from the Church and Commonwealth countries… They just can’t help themselves.

  12. If we ever had a gay monarch we won’t have many other commonwealth nations to consider. But technically could we not just recognise their partner as one thing and others as something else?

    1. Tell that to James VI ;)

    2. Cardinal Capone 20 Jan 2013, 2:20pm

      I think the historical term is the “Favourite”.

  13. Pavlos Prince of Greece 20 Jan 2013, 12:45pm

    700 years too late for Edward II, 400 years too late for James I, and 70 years – for Prince George, Duke of Kent.

    1. and about 900 years too late for William II…

      1. Pavlos Prince of Greece 20 Jan 2013, 3:19pm

        And exactly 32 years for Prince Charles …

  14. martyn notman 20 Jan 2013, 12:52pm

    I thought the “kerflump” noises i was hearing was snow falling off roof, turns out its Daily Mail readers having strokes the length and breadth of the country!

  15. Bill Cameron 20 Jan 2013, 1:05pm

    The name “Paul Flynn MP” behind this proposal leads me to think it is nothing more than an attempt to stir up trouble for and within the current Coalition government. Paul Flynn is the Labour MP recently suspended from the House of Commons:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-19636286
    I’ve written about Flynn an his antics a couple of times before:
    - http://billcameron.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/paul-flynn-mp-on-today-programme.html
    - http://billcameron.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/labour-mp-tries-unsuccessfully-to.html

    As another commenter has written, let’s get equal marriage on the statute books first, before worrying about something that won’t matter for ar least 20+ years, even if in theory it seems to me a perfectly acceptable idea.

    To be fair he has always voted strongly for gay rights, though:
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/paul_flynn/newport_west

    1. The BBC news item you cite quotes Flynn as saying in the House of Commens, “I believe we have had lies from the minister and I believe that our soldiers have been let down”.

      He was then suspended for the rest of the day for refusing to withdraw his words.

      Sounds as though he was just slapped on the wrist for a technical stormette in a tea-cup.

  16. Playing into the Daily Mail’s hands this one.

    At first-I thought it must be April 1st!

    Since when has being gay and in a same-sex relationship ever impacted on producing a genetic heir and spare in our Royal Family?

    They have been doing it for centuries!!

    In fact-if you look at the current Royal Family…………………………….

  17. One queen on the throne at a time please. And one is too many at that.

    1. Gawd, what a humourless lot you are!

  18. Cadinal Capone 20 Jan 2013, 2:23pm

    It sounds like a wrecking amendment.

  19. The fact that they spend time debating a law that affects ONE extended famiy makes a mockery of those MPs who claim Equal Marriage is not worth their attention because it only affects a tiny percentage of the population.

  20. Ben Foster 20 Jan 2013, 2:29pm

    Isn’t it a glorious thought, though! The Unite Kingdom of Great Britain ruled over by King Charles IV and his consort Prince Rupert! (Insert any name you choose)

    Oh happy day!

    1. Rayne Van-Dunem 20 Jan 2013, 11:19pm

      No different from having a First Gentleman to a small-r republican head of state. A President and his First Gentleman doesn’t seem that far off depending on which country you talk about.

      Also, the designation of “Rupert” as a prince consort would make since. But how do you extend titles to gay spouses of peers and nobles? No one’s worked on that yet.

  21. If one grants the premise that there be a hereditary monarchy in this country, this amendment is long, long overdue. It’s a matter of basic equality, no further questions.

    But I don’t, for one second, grant that premise. The very idea of hereditary monarchy is fundamentally insulting to the concept of human equality – because it is based on the notion that some people are born better and more important than others.

    As long as we support the idea of hereditary monarchy, we support the idea of human inequality and discrimination based on arbitrary and demonstrably irrelevant criteria. This may only be a figurehead position, but the principle is still vitally important – all are equal, there is no special privileged class by dint of birth.

    1. Dave North 20 Jan 2013, 4:41pm

      I would say. Allow the Queen to live out her reign. Then abolish the lot of it.

  22. The usual riposte to such republican sentiment is that without the Queen we’d have had Thatcher,Blair,Brown & Cameron etc. as head of state…A small royal family – perhaps nationalised, paid as civil servants – could be a useful vehicle for cultural continuity and a non-partisan focus of national pride, as well as good for tourism. As they don’t depend on being re-elected, it would have been nice if the Queen had played a more visible role in supporting her LGBT subjects though….

    1. Cardinal Capone 20 Jan 2013, 5:28pm

      The perpetual enslavement of one family, to the state, doesn’t sound good. How about the idea of an elected monarchy, from members of the family willing to stand?

      1. They can always opt-out, as Edward VIII did……Electing a monarch from a particular family?…Wouldn’t that turn into something like Big Brother?:-)…..In any case the ‘virtues’ of ‘democratic elections’ are often rather dubious in reality, as most systems seem to be easily hijacked sooner or later by powerful vested interests who retain power just like any royal family of the past, mainly by successfully promoting the fiction that ‘the people’ have some kind of choice in who governs them. In the UK the Tory-Labour ‘royal family’ will continue to govern us for generations to come, the LD’s being safely eliminated at the next election, (rather like Princess Di without the popularity), and any other parties kept out by a rigged voting system which is called ‘democracy’….

    2. Rayne Van-Dunem 20 Jan 2013, 11:34pm

      Um, no. They’d be heads of government, as is the case in most of the EU. Some elder statesperson retired from parliament would likely be elected president of Great Britain with few powers, on constant advice from the cabinet, and with the role of being the formal face of the nation umblemished by the mud of politics. It’s called a “parliamentary republic” as is the case in Germany, Austria, India, Israel, Italy and Finland.

  23. Dan Filson 20 Jan 2013, 5:43pm

    Being gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender should be no bar to the succession. Good luck to him or her.

    But I fail to see that an adopted child or one born by artificial insemination who is not a legitimate child of its two married/civilly partnered parents can have any right of succession, any more than King William IV’s many FitzClarence children had any right to the throne ahead of Queen Victoria.

    So unless the progeny of Wills and Kate give forth legitimate children, it will be Prince Harry on the three after those progeny and party time ensues (if he’s still up for it by then).

    1. Dan Filson 20 Jan 2013, 5:47pm

      “… on the throne after those progeny … ” I meant!

      I wasn’t suggesting Prince Harry was into threesomes, though who knows!

  24. I’m remarkably close to this guys constituency unfortunatly, it doesnt help that the MP for Stone (Bill Cash) where i live (just outside of stoke) is even worse than this guy. looks like i have no chance whatsoever of having my views represented in this so called democracy:(

    1. whoops posted in the wrong window :( (note to mods- feel free to delete the message above)

  25. The monarch is head of the church of england though, the sad truth is that if church of england is not willing to accept them then they can’t be the monarch – either that it will force a separation of church and state.

    1. I really don’t think the Church of England has any influence over who becomes monarch. If they can accept Charles, as a divorcee, as their nominal head, surely they can accept an LGBT person.

    2. Spanner1960 21 Jan 2013, 12:46pm

      Well we can always live in hope.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jan 2013, 6:12pm

      Well, it would have significance for the CoE. Firstly, as head of the church, a gay monarch couldn’t get married in Westminster or St. Paul’s cathedral. Instead, he or she would have to marry in another denomination or simply have a civil ceremony. Then there’s the coronation. The Archbishop of Canterbury would never crown a gay monarch. This could bode well for not only disestablishment, but for civil marriage as the only legal union in the UK.

  26. Rayne Van-Dunem 20 Jan 2013, 7:56pm

    /American

    This follows that private member’s bill from Oliver Colville last Spring seeking to extend courtesy titles to civil partners of gay nobles and peers as well as husbands of female nobles.

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/07/02/tory-mps-bill-calls-for-partners-of-gay-knights-to-receive-honorary-titles/

    I’ve wondered ever since about how that would work, especially for lesbian civil partners (if a woman is designated as Dame or Baroness/Lady, what titles could be more formally inferior than those? Gentlelady? Fellowlady?) And I’m just about to give up and agree with the republicans on this comment thread in saying that it’s easier to scrap the aristocracy because of its fundamental and inherent inequality in class, ancestry and especially gender.

  27. PeterinSydney 20 Jan 2013, 9:46pm

    Good news. And I hope that Edward II is exonerated posthumously too.

  28. Ooh, lots of fiendish republicans on this page. As an Irish (ex) Catholic I should be one too but I like the monarchy. I don’t believe they, as people, are better than anyone else – most of them have proved that – but the institution and all that goes with it is so decorative. Why have your affairs of state conducted in lounge suits when you can have Bavarian fairy tale splendour? Why go to the opening of Parliament in a limo when you can have a gold carriage. I think we would be as dreary as Germany without it.
    Although the Queen is unlikely to be a labour voter her advice may be more balanced than President Crony.

    1. “the institution and all that goes with it is so decorative”

      Ooh! Not ENTIRELY “ex” catholic, then! ;-)

      Having a Royal Family is a bit like keeping animals in zoos. Nowadays it’s considered unkind to keep them in captivity. But it’s also cruel to release them into the wild, to try to fend for themselves.

    2. Fiendish republicans? Or as I like to call them people who don’t want to live in an outdated system and want our government to join the 21st century.

  29. Har Davids 21 Jan 2013, 9:34am

    Really bending over backwards to allow this small group of the over-privileged in business. What if the king turns Muslim and wants more than one wife?

  30. Speaking as a gay American, this issue really is none of my business.

    Speaking as a gay American of English ancestry, I get the guilty pleasure of following stories regarding the House of Windsor without having to foot the associated bill.

    And speaking as a gay man, the fact that these issues of equality between people of different genders, and between people of differing sexual orientations, are being treated respectfully as topics for consideration speaks volumes about the quality of the character of the people of the United Kingdom.

  31. Wouldn’t it be simpler just to become a Republic ….?

    1. Grace Roberts 27 Jan 2013, 11:34am

      In short……NO!!! I think an openly gay monarch would be a Great Leap Forward for equality; and TBH..we’ve had homosexual monarchs before. Edward 11, James 1st, and many more.

  32. I think this is excellent news!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all