Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

First royal baby born into new age of gay equality

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Scraping the barrel with this article. I hope the monarchy is gone before this baby boy becomes king.

    I don’t know why you find significance in the Queen signing the equal marriage bill into law, it’s little more than a formality. She also gave royal assent to the Local Government Act of 1988.

    1. Exactly. Is there a royalist agenda here?

      This is an irrelevance!

      1. It almost wants a voiceover saying:
        “And that was a Party Election Broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party”

    2. Exactly. Is there a royalist agenda here?
      This is an irrelevance!

      1. Duplicate post born into an era of equality! Hurrah!

      2. What a miserable lot of individuals you all are – if you can’t make a positive comment why bother for goodness sake!

        1. Rich spoiled sprog copulate with rich spoiled sprog results in new rich spoiled sprog.

          Who cares. Get a life.

    3. Sorry Stuart N and Patrick – you are even more out of touch with contemporary British society than the minority of Daily Mail reading homophobes who opposed equal marriage – the latest opinion polls this week confirmed that the vast majority of the British people love the Queen and the monarchy and look forward to a King Charles, a King William and Will and Kate’s son on the throne after them. If the birth of the royal baby curdles your milk please keep such bitter thoughts to yourselves and leave the rest of us to celebrate!

      1. The vast majority of Germans supported the Nazi party during the 30s and 40s, the majority isn’t always right.

        The monarchy has no relevance to me whatsoever. As for “keeping our bitter opinions to ourselves” aren’t we allowed to express our opinion? That’s called freedom of speech.

        1. David Waite 22 Jul 2013, 9:47pm

          I thumbed you down for Godwinizing the discussion, even though I agree with everything else you wrote after “40s.”

        2. Ben Foster 23 Jul 2013, 2:32pm

          why is there a problem with ‘Godwinising’. This is something not to be forgotten, especially by those of us who would have been victims of the concentration camps.

          chris is quite right that mass public opinion isn’t a guarantee of quality opinion. look at some of the idiots voted into parliament!

      2. Yes, perhaps we are out of touch. I’m not interested in royal babies, Cheryl Cole, Justin Bieber, X Factor, Hello magazine, religion or whether people will be buying more or less mayonnaise after a nuclear holocaust.

        I am a fully productive member of society ( with the benefit of a tertiary education and a professional job) who wishes for its advancement through secularism, republicanism and equality. I have paid taxes for years, adopted two little boys, I am civil partnered, own my own house and teeth. I even read the Guardian!

        If that is being out of touch Thomas, you touch royaly all you like!

        1. Ain’t you the special one Patrick, & modest to boot! If you are not interested in royal babies why bother to even acknowledge the birth? The fact you have bothered to comment says a great deal about you & your “perfect” family unit!

          1. one doesn’t mind royal babies, its the moronic live bbc coverage that makes people puke

          2. That is easy to solve, don’t tune into the BBC, surely you at least have a freeview box, which gives you a choice of viewing?

          3. It says I’m a republican who has a voice.

            My response wasn’t bitter or nasty. Yours verges on it.

            If you are ignorant of my cultural references, so be it. I merely illustrate how a life can be lived without this pointless waffle about people who have no impact on our lives. Don’t shout that down.

            Life is sweet when you think for yourself – republican life is sweeter.

          4. What has having 2 children & your own teeth got to do with being a republican – nothing at all!

            You are entitled to your views & a voice as a republican, but the point has been made that the majority of the population will be wishing William, Kate & their son well – just like you would expect the majority of people to wish you & your family well.

            Every News outlet will be carrying this story, why should Pzn be any different?

          5. ‘…That is easy to solve, don’t tune into the BBC…’

            you always this clever or is it just a sudden surge of neuron activity?

          6. It would seem you do not possess the neural capacity to switch channels away from the BBC, try Sky News I think you will find the coverage there would perfectly suit your taste much better!

          7. Jock S. Trap 23 Jul 2013, 9:00am

            Can’t stand the BBC watched it on Sky…. much better though think Kate Burley had had a few glasses of champers!!

            And the reason for the roaming reporting is because the Royal Family are Very popular and most people in this country & around the world are Very interested.

    4. And it’s been sickening here at the start of my last week in New Zealand to hear the country’s most prominent announcer kick off the news by advising that “the Monarch of New Zealand has said she is delighted with the birth”! The Monarch of New Zealand, for goodness’ sake! And then they get the NZ Prime Minister on simply to have him cluck over the new royal parasite! But at least the Prime Minister did say that he believed that by the time this new royal is an adult New Zealand will be a republic. Let’s hope! Because where NZ has made major legislative changes, other nations have eventually followed.

      Bring on the republic. Tune out this royal-baby NONSENSE!

    5. I think it was collective hysteria, all that praising the Queen. It smacked of deference and gratitude.

      Your point that she gave royal assent to the Local Government Act illustrates the stupidity of praising her.

      Maybe now things have calmed down a bit, people will realise how daft they were being with that ‘Thank you, ma’am’ s****

    6. Jock S. Trap 23 Jul 2013, 8:51am

      I don’t. I’d hate to think this country will become just another run of the mill boring country.

      I am proud of the fact we have an Excellent Monarch and now 3 in line for the throne.

      Very proud indeed!!!

    7. Can you name any other family on this planet that the entire world tunes in to watch a wedding and to be part of a baby being born. There are millions of people around the world who envy us for having them and want to be part of such things.

      Having so many people look up to you has power, so formality or not, our Queen signing the bill will affect the thoughts of others around the world in a positive way towards us.

      The Royal wedding boosted the British economy through tourism to the tune of 2 billion pounds just at a time when the country needed such a boost. You may not like them but they do a lot for this country.

      1. Anybody interested in ssm is going to be aware enough to realise that the Queen is a figurehead and gives Royal Assent to ANYTHING the government decides; please do not forget that Her Majesty did NOT make a stand and refuse to sign section 28 paperwork.

        For or against ssm, the idea that the Queen is directly involved in ssm is just silly.

      2. They all look up to monarchy so much? So why are they all republics then?

        Oh yes they don’t have to pay for our real live “Dynasty” show.

  2. Congratulations Pink News for bringing a new, utterly pointless article into the world.

  3. A desperate attempt to find a “gay angle” on a story that has no gay angle at all. Very shoddy “journalism” by Pink News.

    1. It’s by “Staff Writer” – the actual person was obviously too ashamed to put his/her name to it – and so they should be.

    2. Let’s hope it does not plummet to the bbc’s depths of shoddy journalism..

      1. Nothing beats the Daily Mail for atrocious, inaccurate journalism.

        1. You’ve obviously never read the Daily Star.

          1. The difference is James that the Mail is responsible for a lot of hatred, divisiveness and prejudice in society, Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

  4. Let’s hope he does/doesn’t fall in love with a catholic man from Northern Ireland – could be constitutionally tricky

    1. surely not as tricky as falling in love with muslim boy from bangladesh

      1. wasn’t that why William’s mother was assasinated?

  5. While I’m a staunch republican too, I’m also a coparent of a young woman and I know how I’d feel if it was her and her partner (although they’ve decided to put back children until she’s established in her career). Congratulations to the Royals.
    Good point, anyway, Stuart N.

  6. Republican… not bothered… I just hope that Pink News doesn’t ram this down our throat all week like the BBC will no doubt. I hope this child never becomes king. Monarchy is as outdated an institution as the Catholic Church and irrelevant in a modern civilised society.

  7. Must be a slow news day here.

  8. Funny isn’t it? The sitcom ‘Vicious’ came under attack for it’s stereotypical portrayal of gay men as bitchy queens.

    And then you see some of the comments on here about the birth of this child, and you think, “Actually, ‘Vicious’ wasn’t that far off the mark.”

    1. you don’t need to be gay to be bored with this story all day. It reached the real pits with ‘Duchess in labour while World waits.’ Reality Check! The World has other things to do. Just for one example, there’s a region of China where an earthquake struck. I think the royal birth is not the main topic of conversation there! Too much media hysteria!

    2. Oh please, the vast majority of my straight friends are just as bored with this story as any gay person would be. BTW this board isn’t made up of gay men it consists of a wide variety of people so your comparison is hardly fair.

      The BBC and other news outlets use stories like this to fill up the airpspace with “what a wonderful day today is” and “look how happy everyone is” whils’t ignoring all the bad things that went on today like the government handing over all POWER to the police to scourge the internet and prosecute people as they please as part of his 15-years-too-late clamp down on internet pornography.

      They’ve used this birth as a way to distract people from bigger issues, like the gradual erosion of their freedom/privacy etc. etc. etc.

      1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jul 2013, 8:57am

        And luckily you’re a minority… The Majority are supportive of the Queen and Family…. Just like I am very proud to be.

        This country would be a lot worse without them.

        1. I agree Jock. The Royal Family do a lot for this country, if you choose to ignore all the things they do then they would look like a drain and a waste of time, luckily some people are more enlightened and read. The irony is, religious people use ignorance against us all the time.

          The Royal Family have never hurt us, be happy for them and for us. There are so many people around the world who are interested in this little island because of them.

          Do you think the Royal Wedding happened by chance when we were in a recession and brought 2 billion pounds into the country through tourism?

    3. None of the comments above is vicious. There are millions of republicans in the country and these views are shared by most of them. Nobody was wishing the child ill. I am not a republican but do feel that the article in question has no place in Pink News. Even if the the baby had been a girl there would be no relevance for the GLBT community.

  9. Trannysaurass 22 Jul 2013, 10:13pm

    Surely we don’t know whether it is really a boy until it decides for itself what gender it is. It may decise by age 23 that it is a girl. This would make it a future Queen and not king would it not?

  10. hows this story relevant to gay matters? gosh, will have to switch to syfy channel to avoid idiotic bbc coverage of royal birth.

  11. We may yet get a queen on to the throne!

  12. Let’s hope that if we do have a monarchy in the decades to come that this child, and other royals, don’t feel constrained to act a certain way, but are open to the idea of being who you are. Let’s face it, being a royal couldn’t be more of a straight-jacket. Even though Prince Harry isn’t gay he knows how to be real.

    Let’s hope this baby doesn’t grow up in a straight-jacket.

  13. Hopefully by the time he’s old enough to understand this article, the institution of monarchy will be dead.

    PS – what a sycophantic fawning article.

  14. This news article is utter drivel. Trying to link 2 separate news stories without any real connection apart from the fact they both took place in July 2013.

  15. Since most of the 15 or 16 countries this boy will be King of still don’t have marriage equality at the time of his birth, including Scotland & Northern Ireland here in the UK, the headline is not entirely accurate.

    1. cromer resident 23 Jul 2013, 1:15am

      Good point! Won’t he also be the eventual King of Jamaica? Hardly the age of gay equality there.

      Anyway – this is a nonsense article which is not a gay news item. Seems to be a few of these non-gay news items recently.

  16. Congrats to the Duke & Duchess of Cambrige.
    I have mixed feelings on the Royal family, but this is not the right place to elaborate on that. And I’ll wait until you’ve actually bulldozed PN with articles on the Royal baby, before, like some others have, complain about the one you’ve written.

  17. WHAT?? There won’t be a lesbian Queen having IVF?

    It’s been a bad month for the bigots in the House of Lords.

    1. This is satire, right? You can’t be that desperate to fill another page of cyberspace.

      1. funny thing is it is not, ‘lesbian queen’ was one of the arguments used against equal marriage in the house of lords debate

      2. 5 para from the bottom of the article, right before he announces that, were SSM to pass, he’d quite like to marry his brother. I kid you not!

        http://www.bigissue.com/features/interviews/2438/lord-tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen-full-interview

  18. Wow, PN, I didn’t think it possible, but you’ve come up with an even less relevant article than the one about them pulling the ice cream named after Lady Gaga…

  19. Many of us non-UK citizens are bemused… so some guy and his wife had a baby in England. What exactly is the big deal?

    Is child-bearing such a rare occurrence in the UK that it merits pages and hours of media coverage?

    How exactly do you Brits procreate?

    *******
    I’m sorry, I just don’t see the excitement over two people having a baby, who inherited their wealth and positions, who are “famous” because of who their progenitors were and for no other reason.

    I really don’t understand how people can NOT be disgusted by the very idea of “royalty”.

    1. I think you can tell by most of the comments here that not all people in the UK are dripping with excitement about another true benefit scrounger being pushed out into this country.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jul 2013, 1:11pm

      Well, the same could be said for any celebrity. America has more than enough of Hollywood royalty and their offspring born into a life of privilege and equally famous for no other reason. How many more times do we have to suffer the nonsense about the Kardashian and Hilton dynasties as two examples among many?

      1. Robert, I think most of those who are so perplexed by the unabashed adoration the royal family garners are more than likely ALSO annoyed or outright disgusted by the rabid fascination for those media whores you mentioned.

        I’m not sure what you mean, however, by “Hollywood royalty”.
        There are actors I admire for their work.
        They merit my admiration through their work, through their efforts, through the work product they put out there for all to see.

        The two examples you cite, however, aren’t “Hollywood royalty”. None of them are actors. They are plain and simple media whores. They DO nothing, they live from their “fame”. In essence, true royalty.

  20. Michael 2912 23 Jul 2013, 8:04am

    I despair of this site. This must rank as one of your most idiotic and reactionary pieces for quite some time.

  21. Jock S. Trap 23 Jul 2013, 8:49am

    This is great news and another day to be proud to be British!!!

    1. Yes, I take personal pride in my role in generating another Windsor. Not.

    2. Not the best paper but for those negative about our Royal Family, you name another family on this planet who can have this much impact globally.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374793/Kate-Middleton-gives-birth-Royal-baby-boy-lightning-strikes-London-Eye.html

      1. The Saudis royals.

        When our snobbish and undemocratic royal family do things, people (regardless of the genuinely harmful consequences) only seem to care about them as celebrities.

        On the other hand the Saudi royals have the world’s leaders timidly refusing to seriously criticise their horrendous, repressive and bloodthirsty regime by being handily placed on top of vast amounts of oil.

        The Clintons have had far more impact in far more lives than our royals.

        The problem with our royal family is that degenerate, snobbish, elitist, anti-democratic and unaccountable though they are, them being reported on as little more than AAA list celebrities (with a sprinkling of supposedly “wonderful” “uniting” political skills) means they’re seen as too benign by much of the population to chuck them out, something which should have happened long ago.

        1. GingerlyColors 23 Jul 2013, 11:17am

          I’d rather have our own Royal Family to that of Saudi Arabia’s.

          1. So would I. I would also rather have the flu than a terminal illness. But that doesn’t mean I should want to have the flu.

  22. I think he should be named Dong William Arthur Philip Louis.

    Then we can all look forward with glee to a future King Dong.

  23. I agree with the sentiments of several who have commented here that this story is poorly pitched. Rather than offering a lame attempt to talk up the monarchy’s position on matters LGBT, which throughout Elizabeth II’s reign has been marked only by a deafening silence – it would be more appropriate to identify the institution as the final frontier for LGBT equality, the last area in which an explicit demonstration of the country’s commitment to LGBT equality has yet to be made manifest. There really is some considerable inertia on the matter to ‘get over’. I wrote to the Cambridges some time ago suggesting they fly the rainbow flag at Kensington Palace each year for London Pride and had a very stuffy reply stating that the Cambridges had no authority over royal flags. I also wrote to Nick Clegg to see if he could pursue the issue and had no reply at all!! LGBT remains a VERY sensitive issue for the royals; surely that is the real story Pink News?

  24. i always find it funny when hundreds of people come on and start saying “this is an irrelevant story” “this is not news” etc

    it happens loads with the WBC ones – but they are clearly some of the most read and most commented on articles, so it makes sense for pink news to write them – just responding to reader demand

    lol – bring on the thumbs down

    1. It’s a bit of a Catch 22 situation, though – Pink News commenters and editors sometimes come into the comment sections to address complaints, so there’s a sense that ou feedback could be constructive (doesn’t seem to have much impact though).

      The other thing is that you get a lot of people coming into WBC articles to post vehement anti-WBC stuff and royalists coming into royal articles to post vehement royalist propaganda. By not responding, it’s giving them an unanswered monopoly of the comments.

      I agree in principle though that the most effective method is to vote with your mouse.

  25. GingerlyColors 23 Jul 2013, 11:25am

    Although I think that the birth of the Royal Baby seems irrelevant to a gay news site such as Pink News, I must express disappointment at all the ‘thumbs downs’ given to postings here in support of the Royal Family.
    Please remember that this baby had as much choice about being born a Royal as we did being gay and that child, just having being born in a blaze of publicity will spend his entire live under public scrutiny. Also remember that this child will never get to meet his grandmother who was chased to her death by paparazzi.
    Royals may never have to worry about things like money but I wonder if they wish they can give it up so they can live ordinary lives. At least I can fall out of a pub drunk without having a gaggle of paparazzi waiting to get my picture into the Sunday tabloids.
    As for a Royal child turning out to be gay who knows. One day there will be an openly gay Royal, it is only a matter of time.

    1. If they want to give it all up, they can. Let them renounce their state support and ask to be treated as private citizens and they should be so. They don’t do this because they are greedy.

  26. Sorry, I thought I was at the Damily MAil’s site….

  27. Daily, Dammit!

    1. Michael 2912 23 Jul 2013, 12:39pm

      That was some typo. I had the same thought. Have a nice day.

  28. Really not seeing how some straight royal giving birth is a LGBTQ story…

  29. concidering this baby got the headlines for not being born yet instead of the same-sex bill comming into law. Why does this need to be on pink news? Will every first after the new law be put on pink news?

  30. Mattress Fever 23 Jul 2013, 2:55pm

    open up down the hatch hope it doesn ‘t burn yer snatch http://getoffmydress.blogspot.com/2013/07/doma-r-e-got-ta-go.html

  31. Seems like republicans have quite a lot in common with opponents of marriage equality – in the minority but gobby enough that you wouldn’t know it.

    1. Is being “gobby” a problem? My problem with equal marriage opponents isn’t that they’re “gobby”, it’s that they’re bigots. I address their arguments, not their willingness to voice their arguments.

  32. Amusing to read the comments as an American the whole thing seems anachronistic. I hear there is quite an industry following the customs and events of the “Royals” this event should boost the profits of this business.

    1. Kay Julia, I think you fail to appreciate just how much your country is driving the industry you refer to. Check this out:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23413359

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
Tag Code: