If only he was this exciting irl.I can’t think why
Re the heir, historically not all monarchs have had children so it would just go to the next in line so if George were gay then Charlotte would be next in lineIf only he was this exciting irl.
This has got me thinking though, do you think people would ever accept a gay monarch or heir and what would it change.
Eg if George turned our to be gay and got married, his husband couldn't also be a King, would they use Prince as a title?
Or if it was 2 women, Queen and Princess Consort?
How would providing an heir work?
Would that still be the case if he fathered a child?Re the heir, historically not all monarchs have had children so it would just go to the next in line so if George were gay then Charlotte would be next in line
No. If he fathered a child they would come before Charlotte in line to the throne.Would that still be the case if he fathered a child?
Only if it was legitimate.Would that still be the case if he fathered a child?
The legitimacy thing would be more awkward if the regent had a same sex marriage though as that child could not have both parties as it’s biological parents, then again, I don’t think they’ve got their heads around adoption either so who knows.Only if it was legitimate.
Anyway, plenty of gay men have had children with women and been married to women. James VI & I was notorious for his male lovers yet had several children with his wife, Anne of Denmark, and was very fond of her, referring to her as "my Annie".
I think it's one of those things that everyone is ok with in theory but in reality it would throw up a lot of sticky questions about children, adoption, surrogacy and that could bring the whole house of cards down. It would bring too much focus on the reason why the rf are the rf - random accident of birth - and that wouldn't be a good thing for them really. I don't think being gay would be the problem but succession would be a huge problem.A gay Monarch would not be accepted, that’s not my opinion because I wouldn’t care less but no way would it be acceptable to hardcore Royalists.
As it stands at the moment, I think a gay monarch who had children would actually just be regarded as childless and the succession slip down to the ‘official’ next in line.I think it's one of those things that everyone is ok with in theory but in reality it would throw up a lot of sticky questions about children, adoption, surrogacy and that could bring the whole house of cards down. It would bring too much focus on the reason why the rf are the rf - random accident of birth - and that wouldn't be a good thing for them really. I don't think being gay would be the problem but succession would be a huge problem.
That would cause uproar though. It would draw too much attention to the fact that it's a completely random accident of birth that has put PW or PG in the positions they're in and people will question the logic of it more and more. I know everyone knows that it's an accident of birth anyway but it's different if it's being regularly discussed in the media or online because a gay monarch has had a child.As it stands at the moment, I think a gay monarch who had children would actually just be regarded as childless and the succession slip down to the ‘official’ next in line.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?