How would the United Kingdom deal with a Gay Monarch today?

[brooklynite]

The UK recognizes Gay Civil Unions, and the Church of England recognizes Gay rights, but it seems you still need a blood heir to keep the Royalty show going.

[teenagebambam]

1. Being gay is no barrier

To producing a blood heir

[Posteritatis]

8. Hell, not having kids is no barrier either

They've had quite some time to hammer out orders or succession.

[brooklynite]

2. In the case of a male, you need a surrogate; in the case of a female you need a sperm donor...

Both add a measure of complexity to the arrangement.

[NYC Liberal]

4. But wouldn't they need to be married

for the children to be "legitimate"?

[RandomThoughts]

3. That is the most fascinating wrongnees LOL

Can't figure out if it is more wrong on concepts of nobility mattering, or the items of untruth used as smear.

It is very funny that you can loop a wrong into a wrong.

Very finely crafted, since a comment on the wrong, validates the wrong of thinking in terms of blood lines.



However if you look at history, and you believe in blood lines, then you have to address what is spoken of in most stories, and bloodlines is a story also, but you have to address the most nobility is in form of Obi-won hiding the children, or Man in Iron mask, or Mark Twain story of prince and the pauper, or thousands of other stories, or Aragon the Ranger.

And you will never find them, although they might find you, if you believe in either wrapped looped wrongness of your statement. LOL

It is a delusion in a smear, or smear in a delusion, and very fascinating, but I can speak crazy so can respond to comments about bloodlines that do not matter.

Here how is this.

Excalibur (1981) -- Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI6YJPAh8eQ

Beware the nouns in that clip :)


LOL, how many of you let racism define the meaning of that clip? LOL See what I mean about blockers.



If you fail the land will perish, as you thrive, the land will blossom.

Putting on death ground.

Luther did not know the hearts of men, nor know his own heart.

Know your enemy know yourself.

[ikri]

5. Many wouldn't bat an eyelid

Most people wouldn't really care that much, the monarchy just isn't that big a deal for most people. But I expect that they'd never become monarch - they'd be under too much pressure from the establishment to pass over the crown to the next in line.

The Church of England might recognise Gay rights but I think that they'd still have a fit if they were likely to see a gay head to the church.

[yardwork]

6. Really. I wonder how the monarchy survived after Queen Elizabeth I died without an heir.

Oh, that's right! James I took the throne. Google him. You might be interested in his affectional orientation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. "the Church of England recognizes Gay rights" is a bit of an exaggeration

For instance, they do not yet propose to carry out civil partnership ceremonies in their churches, when it becomes allowed:

Gay wedding ban in church may be lifted
...
The Church of England, which has said it will not allow any of its churches to be used for civil partnerships, said the reported proposals could lead to "inconsistencies" and "confusion".

A spokesman said the church had yet to see the plans, but added: "The proposal as reported could also lead to inconsistencies with civil marriage, have unexplored impacts, and lead to confusion, with a number of difficult and unintended consequences for churches and faiths. Any change could, therefore, only be brought after proper and careful consideration of all the issues involved, to ensure that the intended freedom for all denominations over these matters is genuinely secured."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/13/civil-partnership-church-wedding-ban

The British monarch is also the nominal head of the Church of England, but since Prince Charles got married to Camilla in a registry office wedding, and no-one is saying that disqualified him from succeeding, a civil partnership itself, even if not started from a C of E ceremony, wouldn't be a problem. And the 'need' for a blood heir doesn't have to apply to a monarch themselves; you just go to the closest relative (eg William IV had no surviving children when he succeeded to the throne, and he and his wife were too old to have more; his niece, Victoria, succeeded him).

The fun part would be deciding the status of a child of one of the civil partners. In Britain, a non-biological parent does not automatically get parental rights at birth; they have to apply for them through the courts, or adopt, or have a formal agreement with the birth mother. I suspect there would be need to be a law passed for the specific situation for the monarch, since the existing rules of succession don't apply to any other circumstances, so there's no 'obvious' law already in place . And it would be a nightmare discussion in Parliament.

[WatsonT]

9. They'll never run out of monarchs

There's always a cousin tucked away somewhere and if not they can just pretend.

[mysuzuki2]

10. Edward 11 managed to get married and produce

an heir - Edward 111. Of course, then they killed him by shoving a red hot poker up his bum. History is full of gay monarchs.