Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay men to be banned from becoming Queen ahead of first same-sex marriages

  • Harry Underwood

    So what should happen to same-sex spouses of knights/dames and peers? What titles should they get?

    I know that a Conservative MP put forward a bill on this for civil partnerships in 2012, but it wasn’t taken up. Perhaps this is the best moment to debate this in the UK (and other monarchies with active peerage systems such as Spain). http://www.advocate.com/news/world-news/2012/07/02/spouses-and-partners-gay-knights-may-get-honorary-titles

    • Robert W. Pierce

      Yes, that issue still has not been addressed I believe a Tory MP raised it during during the equal marriage debate. Just think, if we didn’t have the monarchy none of this would matter.

      • Harry Underwood

        Perhaps, but I think that whatever monarchist integration of gay couples happens will be most beneficial to writers of fantasy fiction, what with its obsession with monarchic trappings, palace intrigues and wars between kingdoms. What if aristocratic gay couples were thrown into the mix? Where would they fit into a system based upon privilege, inheritance and subordination, the sort of stuff that people still fond over here in the states?We adopt and raise children, so can they make use of inherited titles based upon ancestry?

        Or are we a purely-republican phenomenon, fit only to live in a system in which inheritance and privilege are reduced?

    • Rehan

      The difficulty is that the courtesy titles women get from having titled husbands imply lower/dependent status. Husbands of female life-peers, titleholders in their own right and dames don’t get any title, after all. If the husband of a lord were also to be called lord, there wouldn’t be any distinction between titleholder and spouse.

  • JackAlison

    yes well Her Majesty has never mentioned the word gay in her long reign. She presides over and is head to a collection of countries that torture maim kill murder and imprison gay ppl. as head of the Commomwealth. She and her mother were very explicit in wanting to hire single men without the constraints of family as servants and underlings (code for gay) and by all accounts the love the company of gay men(channel Noel Coward). But when it comes to being OUT in the sunshine she appears to hold the establishment line. In her speech to parlaiment being sparred the “indignity” of mentioning groundbreaking legislation enshrining gay marriages laws.

  • doug

    Oh, well, they had to find suitable title for Camilla as she apparently couldn’t be called the princess of Wales. The Duke of Cornwall would be an equally suitable title should any future gay prince of Wales ever get married.

    • Rehan

      The problem is that duke of Cornwall is one of the Prince of Wales’s own titles, but it’s not a bad idea – I believe the duchess of Alba (Spanish and Scottish women can inherit titles) handed over one her 80+ spare lower-ranking titles to one of her husbands.

  • Mike Dalgarno

    When I first saw this article, I couldn’t help but smile at the tongue-in-cheek of the article.

    However, there is still a sign of anti-gay about it. The title “Queen” is a female role so if it was a gay guy I wouldn’t expect them to receive the title of Queen. The question, which seems to have been ignored (unless I’ve missed it), what would they be called instead? Prince? Or is it hinting that they wouldn’t receive a title?

    What about transgendered? Would they eligible for the Queen title?

    In relation to the Dame/Lady et al titles – I’ve never understood this. Surely it should work both ways.

    • Jones

      I do not know but I would guess that the husband of the King would be given the title something along the lines of King consort. Either way King must be exclusively for one person.

      • Rehan

        Why not Prince Consort like Queen Victoria’s husband, or indeed the Queen of Denmark and the former Queen of the Netherlands?

        • Jones

          I suppose either would work. However Prince consort is used when the monarch is female so as the male is not seen to outrank the sovereign monarch. If a man marries the male heir to the throne then he would be entitled to be crowned alongside his husband (the King), just as would happen if a male is the heir apparent and they have a wife.

          This is where my thinking came with the King consort.

          • Rehan

            So many aspects of our lives are predicated on the assumption women are inferior to men, aren’t they? I suppose there’s no reason why the title King Consort couldn’t be invented, but King would normally imply equal rank, as with William III and Mary II.

          • Thomas Ranzenberger

            William & Mary were the exception rather than the rule. William had a claim to the throne only slightly less than Mary & neither was the first in line if heredity was the only consideration.

          • Rehan

            That they were the exception, as joint monarchs, was actually my point.

          • Mike Dalgarno

            Spot on in relation to women seen as inferior, and looking at titles is a prime example.

            Why can the wife be called Lady if husband becomes a Lord, but not the other way? That just sniffs sexism by making a title rank lower than another.

            And why can’t it be two Kings/Queens? Surely if we crown a King and his wife becomes Queen then it should work all other ways. I know it doesn’t at the moment, but why shouldn’t it?

            A husband should still be King, while the Queen still head of Monarch. So ranking King & King/Queen & Queen is no different…surely?

          • Jones

            The whole British system is based on an old system which goes off the idea women are inferior to men. Our order of precedence is a prime example, where women who hold high offices (such as Theresa May) not having equal standing to their male counterparts.

    • speedgeek

      Several Kings of England had their “favourites” (not just Edward II). Good enough title?

    • Jake

      he would be called Prince Consort just like Phillip and Albert and if it was a woman she would be Princess consort, they have to change rules to make way for new ones, it doesn’t just happen at once, oh my

      • Mike Dalgarno

        Taking same-sex marriages out of the equation for the moment, there has been a huge debate about sex equality for years…and titles of peerage has been on the agenda for a while to be rectify.

        A Lord & Lady are meant to the same level peerage why, but it’s current stance shows it isn’t. A Lord can have a Lady, but a Lady can’t have a Lord.

        It’s also been changed in law (I believe), that King/Queen’s first child (instead of first son) would be first in-line to the throne. So taken that into account, if the next in line was a daughter, then her husband should be entitled to be called King. The Queen would still rule the monarch.

        Once these sex discrimination is eradicated, then the question of same-sex couples could be dealt with at the same time (as it should be seen as part of everyday society). This is what I meant from my previous comment.

  • dave

    I think this nonsense story is part of a homophobic campaign in the lead-up to “gay marriage” in Britain. IMO the pink media are foolish to give it any extra publicity.

    • Ian M

      Same sex or “gay Marriage” has already been passed in the UK and comes into force next month

      • BennieM

        Only in some parts of the UK. It’s been passed in England & Wales, where it comes into force next month, and Scotland where it will hopefully come into force in the autumn. It has not been passed in Northern Ireland.

  • Lord Haw Haw

    Now look. I come on here and get nothing but adverts. I can’t read
    the topic and I can’t read the comments. You are wasting my time so I will not
    come on here hardly at all until you stop FLOODING THE PLACE WITH ADVERTISING.
    Advertising has it’s place, but this is bad, really bad.

    As for the topic. I don’t want this country to be a laughing stock in the
    world with two men or two women on the throne. I’m sorry, but that is it.

    • Rehan

      Don’t worry, you won’t be around to see it.

      Far be from me to encourage you to linger here, but adblock.com usually works.

      • Lord Haw Haw

        Thank you. But it came up with red warnings. I haven’t had a PC for long. I will ask a friend who knows much more than I will ever do.

  • Maryland Kid

    The monarchy has always been slightly offensive in my eyes. The divine right of kings establishes the royal family as being ordained by God with the right to rule. I dislike any doctrine of ideology that upholds any person as intrinsically superior. The idea that a person is simply better than you because they were born into the right family falls into a similar vein of thinking as the idea that someone could be better because they are white or because they are straight. I’ve never understood why Republicanism hasn’t gained more traction in the U.K. Maybe I just don’t understand the issues properly.

    • Jones

      I think people are happy with the monarch keeping the power check and having a President would just give too much of the power to one person. In effect the British Prime Minister is probably more powerful than the President of the United States but because of the monarchy this power is kept in balance.

      • Harry Underwood

        What about Ireland? They have a president and a prime minister at the same time, and the president is a figurehead.

        • Jones

          Republic of Ireland is a different bag. They have never considered themselves British hence why they got independence.

          • speedgeek

            Irish Free State had George V as its King. The civil war was fought over that very issue.

      • Paul

        This is complete nonsense. The monarchy does nothing to curb the power of the British Prime Minister. Indeed, it is the existence of the monarchy that gives the Prime Minister such power, since that office has taken over most of the monarch’s prerogatives.

    • Rehan

      I completely appreciate the theory of equality, but it seems an ineradicable aspect of human nature to see leaders as superior and those connected to them by heredity as somehow important – look at the way the Kennedys were and are treated in the US, and the Bushes, even the degree it works in Hollywood.

      • Maryland Kid

        I agree with you that this as a whole is a major problem. Political dynasties can be found in any country, and the growing divide in income inequality is starting to create a new elite class of citizen that we haven’t seen since the Gilded Age or Victorian England. So I guess my question is, why would you exacerbate these problems by continuing to support such an archaic institution? The monarchy isn’t by any means necessary, nor have it’s members really done anything to justify their disproportionate power. Now, I agree that the same thing could be said, say, for instance, about people like the Koch Brothers, but then again, I’m not a huge fan of them either. It seems silly to enshrine that type of elitism and inequality into law simply out of tradition.

    • Ian M

      We are not a republic because to dismiss the sense history and continuity having an heredity monarch allows the country far far out weighs the instability which can be viewed across the world.

    • Robert W. Pierce

      As I stated in an earlier post, we had a civil war in 1642-51 under dictator Oliver Cromwell when the monarchy was temporarily abolished. It failed dismally and there is very little appetite today for republicanism in the UK. There are plenty of flaws with republicanism too. It hardly creates equality or removes class structure as some like to think. It just doesn’t. Nobody is equal anywhere. Just look at income inequality in the U.S. with the richest 1% controlling all the wealth and paying very low taxes or none compared to the rest of the population, a pattern that is trending now in the UK and elsewhere around the world.

  • Max

    Can’t we just abandon monarchy and aristocracy?

    • Desmond Starr

      it’s just there for traditional reasons, they’re mostly formal versions of celebrities.

      • bob

        Can we just abandon celebrities?

  • That There Other David

    Abolish the monarchy and all the nonsense that goes with it, peerages included, and this problem goes away entirely.

    • Thomas

      Thankfully the anti-monarchists are a very small minority in England and long may that remain the case – we love our Queen – long may she rule.

      • That There Other David

        Speak for yourself on that score. I’m completely indifferent towards the woman, seeing as I don’t actually know her at all.

        Neither do you either.

        • Thomas

          I don’t know you but I don’t wish to abolish you or wish anyone else to either.

          • That There Other David

            LOL. Are you accusing me of wanting to abolish Elizabeth Windsor rather than the institution of the monarchy? :D

          • funkinwolf

            I like Prince Harry, William and was fond of Princess Diana. Yet i’m a Republican. Why? because liking the person is not the same as disliking the institution. Elizabeth and Charles will still be around if we, the UK, abolished the Monarchy. They don’t get teleported back to some magical realm never to be seen again.

      • Jock S.Trap

        Hear Hear Thomas

      • Ra

        Only fools, buffoons and idiots follow. The monarchy is just form of low IQ entertainment, just like the gods of religious people.

        • Rovex

          The Monarchy is like a long running reality TV show, and about as smart and interesting.

          • Jake

            reality, bizarre comment,

          • Rovex

            not really, since Reality TV isnt very real.

          • Jake

            ur cat , go cough up a fur ball , actually it is very real, it exists

      • JackAlison

        ‘off with their heads’
        yes but the potency of anti monarchist feeling is not in numbers. It is in a growing tide of pent up resentment that will eventually be unleashed and it will not necessarily b with the monarchy. Thatcher laid that groundwork when she centralized London as a commercial power base and disenfranchised the north….think Scotland and its yearning for true selfhood and slowly but surely that resentment will break as THE PEOPLE, just ordinary citizens reclaim their own sovereignty and not that found in the caricature of priviledge and lineage espoused by the charmeleon house of Windsor or Montbatten or orange. Its the 21st century and this charade needs to end.These laws “protecting” the throne illustrate 1 rule for them and 1 rule for us.

        • Jake

          thank you

        • funkinwolf

          Agreed. We should start by turning the Royal family households into state boarding schools for children from poorer backgrounds.

        • Truth

          Apathy is the curse of democracy.

      • Truth

        Nonsense. The monarchy is completely anachronistic in a modern democracy. It remains as a constant reminder of a class structure which should have died centuries ago. Even the honours system sets some people above others with its differing ranks. We could get around all these silly issues of titles by abolishing royalty, disestablishing the church and becoming a republic. Seems to work in most other grown-up democracies ….

        • Robert W. Pierce

          Well, we tried that in 1642-51, the Civil War under Cromwell when we were a republic for the first and last time but subsequently failed.

          • funkinwolf

            We? Funny, I’m sure I was alive post 1990’s. Just because our ancestors were too foolish to know how to set up a constitution, doesn’t mean we are.

      • Jacob Dunbar

        Well, we don’t all love our Queen.

      • BennieM

        The Queen isn’t just the Queen of England, you know.

      • funkinwolf

        We’re not that small, a sizeable chunk are just ambivalent towards the Monarchy. They enjoy the celebrity, like Americans do over Angelina and Brad. However, if she is so popular surely she’d win in an Head of State election? hint hint.

      • Daniel

        So the 35% of people in favour of abolition of the British monarchy… that’s a really small minority. (source MORI).
        Her and her offspring are simply a bunch of parasites living on exorbitant state benefits, bringing nothing to the UK. And before you trot out the tired old refrain of “good for tourism”, Bucks Palace gets less visitors each year than the Jorvik Viking Museum in York (source Visit England). If she’s just a tourist trap, then cease the government funding and make her and her offspring fund themselves like any other business.

    • de Villiers

      Surely that is a democratic issue? It was my understanding that a majority of the English people were in support of the monarchy.

      • speedgeek

        I think it is more inertia. Most people could not give two figs whether we have a monarchy or not, it barely impacts on our lives, so we prefer the status quo. As a nation we are highly resistant to change, we still use imperial measures, ffs.

    • Jake

      and so does half of Great Britannia and all its history, culture and face, its tourism, face it without them, whats left between England just being another European country, and why do you carry around photos of her in your wallet if you don’t know her, as an Australian i can quite clearly tell you, you are in the noisy barking mad minority, there here to stay, deal with it !

      • speedgeek

        So because they have no monarchy, there is no tourism in Ireland, France, USA???? Do you really think tourists come here on the off chance they will meet Elizabeth Windsor? Barbara Windsor, possibly….

        • Jake

          stupid argument, they all have their own attractions its the institution that she heads and all its heritage and history that people flock to see..even if at a distance..and no if you come to OZ you probably wont meet Skippy ! stupid

          • speedgeek

            There is far, far more to see in this country, Jake, and i am tired of people saying all we have to attract tourists are the Windsors. That’s like saying all Australia has is Skippy and the Opera House. You use the phrase “even at a distance”. Exactly my point. You cannot walk around the Royal Palaces, except Buck House and then only at certain times of the year. Go to France you can walk around the Royal Palaces, same with Russia, Germany, Austria…also we DO have other attractions. Our heritage goes back thousands of years, just as Australia’s heritage did not start with Captain Cook, so ours did not start in 1066. We have Roman, Saxon sites, Stonehenge, Cheddar Gorge, York Minster. Royalty (in the sense we understand it today) is a one small part of British history. Not that I am a republican -I have the same surname as one of the Saxon Royal houses- I am just tired of people saying all we Brits have is the Royal Family.

          • Jake

            you don’t know your own country very well at all, ..there isnt one palace of note that i have not entred,half of your history, and you live there, believe it or not, most people have never lived in a kingdom THAT IS YOUR MAIN ATTRACTION, trust me you don’t have much more, i lived there for a year, every major event revolved round the Royal Family. the one constant thing that has and will keep your little country together

    • Rumbelow

      And ban the Queen from becoming a gay man, it’s only fair.

    • Robert W. Pierce

      Are you aware that a law still exists that can get one arrested for calling the abolition of monarchy and considered treason to this very day?

    • Chris S

      Come on a little pragmatism is required here!

      Yes, I realise (as I suspect most Britons deep down do) that the monarchy is an out of date construct that made sense thousands of years ago but is frankly a bit ridiculous in 2014.

      Clearly the most forward-thinking, egalitarian thing to do would be to abolish the monarchy and transform the country into a republic. However this would be such a monstrous undertaking I don’t imagine a government having the balls to do so in the near future.

      Think of the immediate expense alone, the country’s very identity would be changing, We would no longer be The UK, (maybe The UR -The United Republic). The constitutional DNA of this country would be fundamentally changed forever.

      Now I’m not saying that this would be a bad thing at all. But the fact is there is only so much each successive government can achieve and a change of this magnitude would require a LOT of demand from the general public.

      The Royal Family is a welcome distraction to a lot of Britons. Their popularity is very high at the moment. Most people either love them enjoying the pageantry and spectacle of things like royal weddings, jubilees etc. or don’t really care much about them. Republicans are very much in the minority. Whilst the monarchy continues to be relatively inexpensive (I think they cost us about 50p a year each) relative to their importance to things like the tourism industry.

      It seems like when dealing with something as important as equal marriage changing a few rules about titles etc. Is preferable to demanding the monarchy be abolished (because it isn’t going to happen any time soon).

      • funkinwolf

        1. The cost of the monarchy is hidden, because that 50p each figure ignores security costs for example. Not to mention events, for example CBI estimated the Royal Wedding lost the UK economy over £5 Billion due to the extra bank holiday. Even George Osborne tried to blame the poor economic figures around that time, because that day lost us business (no one working!)

        2. The most popular tourist attractions in London and the UK are not reliant on us having a Monarchy. The London eye and Parliament will still continue to attract numbers. People are not going to stop coming to see Stonehenge because our OAP head of state is no longer the head of State. Britain has actors, films, tv, books and great musicians that can sell the country all by itself thank you. JK Rowling Harry Potter Books and their films did more to attract tourism than Prince Charles ever will do! Buckingham Palace will be like the palace in Paris, people will still flock to visit because it’s grand, old and has a lot history. In fact by abolishing the Monarchy we will have made new history for people to take interest in.

      • speedgeek

        Very true. i suspect active support for the monarchy is quite small, most do not care either way, but the upheaval of becoming a republic would be too much for most people.

    • gingerlycolors

      And have a president like Robert Mugabe, Vladmir Putin, Yoweri Museveni? The Monarchy is not broken so don’t try to fix it.

      • speedgeek

        Or the wicked dictators like Mary Robinson in Ireland or Barack Obama. If we had a President like Francois Hollande, it might get young voters interested in politics again.

        Another canard from monarchists is “Do you want Tony Blair as President?” Wtf, any President would be elected, so if Blair wanted to stand that very question would be put to the vote. To suggest otherwise implies a President imposed without the consent of the people. In other words, it would be, de facto, King Tony I.

  • IAN M.

    I am sorry but, getting a bit bored with the LGTB over reaction – This is about the right of succession. One of the main duties of a monarch is to produce an heir – now unless somebody changes nature 2 men or 2 women can not reproduce on their own. So they could not produce a “legitimate” heir on their own. The third party involvement could lead to many constitutional issues. Its not blatant homophobia – its common sense

    • That There Other David

      Having a monarchy at all has nothing to do with common sense.

    • cw

      “One of the main duties of a monarch is to produce an heir”. Now that implies that the purpose of the monarchy is to continue to have a monarchy. So, if that’s really their main duty, it must surely be time to get rid of the lot of them.

      Perhaps someone could explain why it is good to have a system of kings/queens/barons/baronesses etc. whose sole purpose is to exemplify inherited privilege.

      • Alex

        The point is having a monarchy is to have a non-political head of state…would you really want a politician as the head of state instead?

      • DanFilson

        Baronetcies are hereditary knighthoods and were invented solely as a money-spinner for King James VI and ! who was a bit pushed for cash and thought making kinghthoods hereditary would be a good earenr, as it was until he debased the currency by creating too many. Some other peerages have over history been sold, in more recent decades for the benefit of the ruling prime minister’s party.

        At one stage – roughly from the Norman Conquest to the start of more orgnaised taxation – the King made money for the crown (on top of rents from crown lands etc.) simply by giving away parts of the kingdom in exchange for duties like keeping the Welsh out of England or ditto the Scottish, or for dowries for his daughters. Cahs for access, you might say, on a grand scale.. The lands so given gave rise to titles which were, initially, territorial i.e. the Duke of York had lands in Yorkshire. But as time moved on, the link between title and lands got separated, as those with power tended to hang around the court which was usually in and around London.

        Frankly, the debate is purely academic, since many monarchs have had mistresses as their real squeezes even if they did their duty by their spouses by producing an heir or acknowledging as theirs whatever child was produced by her.

        The title of the spouse of a monarch is academic – if you are married to the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, just bask in the glow and enjoy being the Countess of Hohenlohe or whatever; just don’t join him when he visits the Balkans.

    • Thomas Ranzenberger

      They would not be the first monarch not produce an heir. Unless all of the possible candidates were in the same situation there is no problem. back in the 60’s I looked at a book listing all 50.000+ legitimate descendants of James I; there will be no lack of heirs.

      • Ian M

        I know, but if like so many LGBT person they wanted to become parents then it opens a can of worms – these decisions should not be made to appease one pressure group or another – I am getting sick and tired of the erosion of “Britishness”

        • Thomas Ranzenberger

          i don’t believe that adoption is an option for strait monarchs so the king & spouse wouldn’t be a problem. The queen and her spouse might be more of a problem, but the treason act might apply.

        • That There Other David

          “Britishness” is an artificial construct in the first place. We are English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish. The rest is just what we’re constantly told we need to be.

          • PaulBrownsey

            Englishness, Welshness, Scottishness, etc, are artificial constructs, too. Stop making a fetish of these strange things, countries, usually coming into being via accidents, force, and the machinations of crooks and thugs.

        • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

          I have no problem with tradition, but we shouldn’t retain things without thought. Contemporary standards are no less “British” than traditional ones. If we believe that there are worthy aspects to our traditions, then we must also believe that those aspects will withstand scrutiny and change.

        • Heroic Hal

          I’m sick and tired of people giving exalted status to abstract concepts like “Britishness” that they’ve imbued with properties that are, in different cases, unfair, restrictive, or downright repressive, and giving those concepts precedence over doing what’s right.

      • speedgeek

        True, we would have the same monarch if Edward VIII had never abdicated, as he had no offspring.

    • Paul

      It is not about the right of succession; it’s about the title of the monarch’s and heir to the throne’s partner. It is discriminatory, and therefore homophobic, that the straight partners of these people get a title, whilst gay ones do not. Just as it is sexist that Prince Andrew’s sprogs are styled Princess, but Princess Anne’s daughter was Miss Zara Phillips. I admit to not caring much what these people want to call themselves, but the whole thing does show how anachronistic such things as titles are in the 21st century.

  • Concerned

    That’s hardly fair or equal in rights! Quite frankly I’m disgusted. Instead of barring gay spouses from titles why not just change the law to include them! It’s quite easy. Say Prince a Harry was gay and married a ma. Harry’s title is actually HRH The Prince Henry of Wales. Obviously you don’t want two Prince Henry of a Wales’. So the male spouse could be allowed to assume one of Harry’s other names such as David! Upon marriage The Queen would most likely make Harry a Duke most likely Suffolk or Clarence. Let’s go with Suffolk. Harry would be HRH The Duke Of Suffolk. A gay spouse could be HRH (David) The Duke Of Suffolk. It’s quite simple really.

    • de Villiers

      Really? Are you really disgusted? It seems not something particularly important about which to become upset.

  • Liz R

    For me it just shows the ridiculous sexism in the system. They have only just got round to changing the succession to the throne to include women equal to men, but we still are not allowing titles to be inherited from women, and still have gendered titles. The reason why there is a problem with LGBTQ+ people entering is because we are still unequal in the binary gender system. If it was non-gendered (Monarch, Spouse, Knight, Peer – we have terms already!) then it would not be a problem, if there can be a Duke and Duchess of the same place why not two Dukes? There is a lovely children’s book called King and King about a Prince looking for a spouse and ends up with a male one. It does not have to be an issue. As for producing an heir, what about the Kings and Queens who did not do so, did they get their positions revoked? It could easily go along to the next in line, if we are so worried about blood succession.

    • Rehan

      But the ridiculous sexism starts with something that affects far more people: the way most women take their husband’s surname, and most children their father’s. We can’t really expect equality in antiquated social systems unless we address it in a wider context, can we?

      • Liz R

        This just highlights more – I am not saying that we do not also have other problems, such as it being the norm for the woman to take the man’s name. We also cannot expect to do nothing just because the whole system cannot not fixed in one go. (At the very least a couple can choose their surname, in this situation there is no choice for inheriting titles or not – I also do not think that is where sexism starts)

  • Jock S.Trap

    Completely unnecessary and more just the nasty discriminating elements doing this to prove themselves in some perverse way.

    As this would never happen why do it? Pathetic

  • tanyatanya100

    Can i still be king then. ;-)

  • PaulBrownsey

    What a hoo-hah about nothing. There is nothing whatever in the story to suggest that Harry’s male spouse wouldn’t have a title, only that he wouldn’t have a woman’s title. What’s the problem?

  • Chris S

    Come on a little pragmatism is required here!

    Yes, I realise (as I suspect most Britons deep down do) that the monarchy is an out of date construct that made sense thousands of years ago but is frankly a bit ridiculous in 2014.

    Clearly the most forward-thinking, egalitarian thing to do would be to abolish the monarchy and transform the country into a republic. However this would be such a monstrous undertaking I don’t imagine a government having the balls to do so in the near future.

    Think of the immediate expense alone, the country’s very identity would be changing, We would no longer be The UK, (maybe The UR -The United Republic). The constitutional DNA of this country would be fundamentally changed forever.

    Now I’m not saying that this would be a bad thing at all. But the fact is there is only so much each successive government can achieve and a change of this magnitude would require a LOT of demand from the general public.

    The Royal Family is a welcome distraction to a lot of Britons. Their popularity is very high at the moment. Most people either love them enjoying the pageantry and spectacle of things like royal weddings, jubilees etc. or don’t really care much about them. Republicans are very much in the minority. Whilst the monarchy continues to be relatively inexpensive (I think they cost us about 50p a year each) relative to their importance to things like the tourism industry.

    It seems like when dealing with something as important as equal marriage changing a few rules about titles etc. Is preferable to demanding the monarchy be abolished (because it isn’t going to happen any time soon).

  • Dorian Gray

    “gay marriage” and ” royal family” in one ? Its even bigger nonsense than “gay” and “family” in one

  • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

    All this says more about the passive sexism that’s built into titles and orders of precedence than anything else.

    The simplest solution seems to me to be having a rank below knight, which cannot be awarded. Then everybody’s spouse can be called by the next rank down the ladder without worrying about who has which bits.

    Actually that’s not quite true, the simplest solution would be to do away with titles all together.

    • Jones

      The order of precedence certainly needs to be changed or updated to a 21st Century form.

      We will never have an equal society in the UK when us commoners have to bow our head to a more superior being. But I support that in most ways and wouldn’t want to get rid of our monarchy.

  • Lord Haw Haw

    If the heir to the throne did find a same sex partner, they should stay
    away from road tunnels

    • JackAlison

      Lord Haw Haw I have 2say thats really very very perceptive with dark humour
      Sincerely not kidding….its quite true and I also find it so strange the heir to the thrones deceased mother has been completely airbrushed from royal history. Even on his wedding day I cant even recall Diana being mentioned.

      • Lord Haw Haw

        Nothing surprises me with the Royal Family. The stakes they play for couldn’t be higher. It was rumoured she may have been carrying an Egyptian playboys Muslim child. Enough said then.

  • Erica Cook

    Can someone please explain to this ignorant yankee why it would be so bat to have two kings? Yeah, okay no hare, but that’s what the line of succession is for. Isn’t it?

  • Ciaran

    The whole culture and system is deeply patriarchal society still views women as inferior to men because of this.

  • Mark Y

    How can anyone who believes in democracy also believe in the monarchy? How can anyone think an unelected genetically superior head of state who interferes in all political affairs is a good idea?

    The monarchy is a joke of the worst kind, an elite leader for the weak minded passive slaves who think they need to be a servant of a master to survive. It’s a form of social sadomasochism.

    Hopefully this law will soon have no meaning as the people of this country will realise how vulgar an institution the royal family are.

    This law is also something that the majority of tories who voted against same sex marriage are pushing forwards as some sort of ‘anti gay’ joke. I’m surprised the BBC news haven’t picked up on it as the main headline. Pathetic.

    • de Villiers

      I am a Republican (as is nearly everyone in France) and not a Royalist. However, in the UK it seems that there is a democratic majority in favour of having a monarchy.

      There seems something wrong in suggesting that the majority of people who support the monarchy and the democracy are unable to do so.

      • Mark Y

        If you could let me know that last date that the UK were given the chance to democratically vote on keeping the monarchy, that would be great.

        • Thomas Ranzenberger

          England is a representative democracy. Parliament can abolish the monarchy any time it wishes and probably will anytime the majority of the electorate is in favor.

  • allancsn

    Next week the House of Lords debates several changes that ‘need’ to be I place before marriages can take place in March – I think there is much being pushed through – other than pension equality of course- to make sure we don’t get too much and I fear other ‘bits and pieces’ will appear to start to placate the tory hardliners before the run up to the election campaign.
    It still and always amazes me that if CP & Marriage were so similar – other than name why it’s taken over 6 months to get to the stage and looks like over 15 month to convert existing CP’s.
    The politics of equality are far from over – would any other group, any, wait so long for new laws to be implemented. We are never far from the next attack on our freedom.
    Don’t let your mum buy that hat for the March wedding just yet or make sure it’s timeless.

  • Andre

    Surely they’d be banned from becoming King since a gay man is, well, a man.

  • Common sense

    I am guessing that he main reason for this is because of the monarch’s position as head of the Church of England so that until the CofE accepts same se marriage there can never be a same sex married monarch.

    Really they should be explaining this a bit more carefully though. The Church will change on this issue in a generation or so so if little Prince George grows up gay and marries a man, i rather doubt it will be a problem.

    • p

      I like your user name ‘common sense’ unfortunately you do speak to much ‘common sense’ in the irony that we are talking about the British monarchy here. There are dark forces – without me sounding like an idiot here – would not allow this to happen. I’m not trying to sound like a conspiracy expert but they would make life very difficult for any future homosexual monarchs to claim power. You only have to look at history, any anomaly that does not set right within there wisdom either gets covered up or they just remove them. Look at the Wallace Simpson drama with the divorcee, look at the religious aspect with Catholics, its still illegal to be raining monarch and be a catholic at the same time. In terms of the common wealth its still not official whether women and men are equal in the line of succession in other countries. We are still on dodgy ground where more than one person would have claim to the throne, which could lead to war if we have an older female and a younger male vying for it. Thinking about it how many countries in the common wealth is there where homosexuality is still Illegal? I think a homosexual monarch is bridge to far Inter and intergenerational zeitgeists. A generation is usually 15 years I would be incredibly surprised if this system changes by then unfortunately.
      I really do wish we could follow all our common senses but I doubt it, there are too many far right religious zealot conservatives :(

  • p

    Prince Phillip is the Queen’s husband so surely if George grows up to be homosexual his partner would be Prince __________ Duke of ____________. Same if we had a future Queen as a lesbian her partner would be Princess_____________ Countess of___________. Its not that hard to figure out!!!!

  • Rumbelow

    Queen to be banned from becoming a gay man, it’s only fair.

    There is a children’s book called “King and King”, seems to me it’s the perfect solution to this situation.

  • James!

    Just in case you really believed marriage will make you equal. Think again your still the fag when you leave the room

  • ktah10

    If there was a future gay Prince of Wales surely his male partner could be called something like the Prince Consort of Wales. When he became king surely his partner could be called the Prince Consort. Aren’t they already in a similar position with Camilla where they are saying she will be known as Princess Consort rather than Queen. And if there’s a sense of embarrassment about the notion of a gay or childless monarch, there are some rumours the unmarried Queen Anne might have had a female romantic interest and don’t forget Victoria came to the throne because her uncle William IV never had children.

  • http://www.transportevolved.com/ Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield

    Well, they have obviously NOT read King and King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_%26_King

  • kane

    technically uk might never have gay monarch, after all it is possible to alter the line to succession when all 16 states, where british monarch is head of state, agree to the change.
    and with the majority of commonwealth realms countries not being keen on homosexuality it shouldn’t be a big problem to ‘exclude’ gay offspring from becoming a monarch.

    • Thomas Ranzenberger

      Many English monarchs have been said to be gay or at least have gay tendencies: William II, Richard I, Edward II, James I & William III. allegations about Richard I and Edward II seem most likely to be true. The rules of succession say nothing about the sexual orientation of the monarch. This controversy is not about gay monarchs but about their consorts.

      • kane

        ‘…Many English monarchs have been said to be gay or at least have gay tendencies…’

        hearsay is not exactly what i had in mind, we talk about possibility of uk having openly gay monarch taking advantage of equal marriage. such possibility can be eliminated by altering the line to succession

        • Thomas Ranzenberger

          All history is of course hearsay. Hearsay about Richard I and Edward II is pretty convincing. Parliament can do anything It wants about the succession, whether it should is the subject of this controversy. The other 16 nations can do whatever they wish about the succession. They do not bind the UK and are not bound by the decision of the UK.

          • p

            Yes but if we have a homosexual monarch that is next in line and that particular regime do not agree with homosexuality they will do anything to get rid. The Royal Family are not normal like the rest of us they have great power and they will use it whenever they want.

      • p

        Yes but the powers that be have tried to air brush this out of history and will continue to do so and will do so in the future…

        • p

          *Sorry for the double posts*

  • https://www.facebook.com/people/Ar-U-Gaetü/100006483932228 Ar U. Gaetu

    This is nothing. Wait until they sit down and try to work out the transexuals in the lineage. Do pre-ops and post-ops have different rules? Is there a ceremony when a royal changes sex, thus their title? Does the new royal penis get anointed? Perhaps a cock ring with rubies and diamonds? Maybe an 8-gun salute, one for each inch (regardless if it is being added or removed).

    I keep envisioning a Monty Python sketch showing a medieval ceremony, “Let us all hail the phallus man-parts, brought from afar in Cockfield, passed unto the Earl of Shagwell of County Hunglow, presented to the eminent Lord Dr. Johnson. Let us all hail the new King Peter.”

    I don’t think all of London has enough Gin to fuel these late night meetings.

  • ChrisDC

    You know what I think is incredibly cool beyond belief? On one level, some people might view it as sad for me to be happy about this. But, at 50, as a gay man, I grew up in a time when people didn’t know, or pretended to not know, that people like me even existed.

    Gay people in the U.K. are now apparently important enough for governmental leaders to have to consider how to treat us respectfully. And they want to. This is as far from bad news as it’s possible to get.

    I won’t pretend to be an expert in this area since, as an American, I’m not exactly well-versed on monarchy, but I would think that, as others have suggested, adding the appellation “Consort” to a title would take care of the issue.

  • josepholeary

    An Onion story?

  • Jesus_Mohammed

    “The Treason Act of 1351 will also be altered meaning it is still treason
    to have sex with a King’s wife – but that it would not be treason to
    have sex with his husband.”

    You can f*** a king’s husband and not be charged with treason! But if you f*** a king’s wife you will be? This is grossly unfair. This is really putting the queen on a pedestal. I say “F*** the king’s wife and to hell with the consequences!” :-)

  • Daniel

    I’m sure that this is crushing blow to all the gay men out there who were so dearly hoping to well and truly hole the title of “Queen”. But perhaps there are opportunities elsewhere? What do the laws in countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain or Sweden say?

  • Alex

    They could just name them appropriately… The King inheriting the throne as “King-Regent” and his husband as “King-Consort”… The Regent is the Reigning King…

    • Rehan

      That would be ‘regnant’, since a regent is a substitute ruler in the event the monarch is incapacitated or a minor.

  • Paul – Canada

    Meh, as soon as we have a gay King or Queen, almost certainly these anti-gay amusing laws will change anyway!

    • ChrisDC

      Speaking as a gay American to a Canadian. The fundamentals of your laws don’t need to change. You folks were among the first in the world to get everything right. The rest of us are attempting to catch up with you.

  • Phil

    It seems perfectly clear to me that the King’s husband is teh King Consort and the Queen’s wife is the Queen Consort and as to knights, they being Sir’s their husbands would be Sirplus….

  • speedgeek

    Have we resolved the problem of Camilla’s title? Will she be Queen? Until then, these other issues are irrelevant, though I have to say, suggesting a gay man be called Queen is insulting, degrading and borderline homophobic.

  • Daniel

    This archaic institution of titles, doffing the cap and a parasite monarchy is out of date and has no place in a modern country. It’s beyond time that this ridiculous money-pit of a family are removed from public life and made to find their own way like the rest of us.

  • Simon H

    Well you have to see the funny side of that. We wouldn’t want the two definitions being confused would we? :) lol

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all