NationStates Jolt Archive

What if…

Prince William, in addition to breaking up with Kate Middleton, had called a press conference, and without consulting the Royal Family, announced to the world that the reason he split with her, was due to his homosexuality.

Okay, ladies, calm down for a second, this is just a hypothetical.

First of all, other than the millions of young women bawling their eyes out, and the incredible feeding frenzy for the media, how do you think this would affect the institution of monarchy in the UK and in other commonwealth countries? If such a debate were to surface, what would your opinion be?

Would you look at this as the final nail in the coffin of monarchy? Would you suggest that Prince William renounce his claim to the throne? Or perhaps embrace the possibility of the UK’s first openly (to my knowledge) homosexual King? Would the King’s consort be considered a ‘Queen’? Would there be riots in the streets? Or would the entire commonwealth happily embrace the idea of transforming a conservative institution into a symbolic show of liberalism, immediately changing their currencies to display their openly gay monarch?

More important than how the ‘world’ would react, what would you like to see happen?

Hmmm?

Would the King’s consort be considered a ‘Queen’?*groans*

I'd laugh.

*groans*

I'd laugh.

I couldn't resist... :D

Actually, I was reading a paper that was a couple of days old and joked around with someone that Prince William broke it off due to his enormous man-love. And then it occurred to me... what if it were true? What would happen then?

I accidentally skipped over the "what if" the first time I read and poured right into the main part. I think you should add what if at the bottom and erase it at the top, so people can examine their true feelings before knowing its a hoax. For me, that feeling was amusement.

He'd still be more of a man than 90% of the royal household (male).

I would exploit it as much as possible towards my goal of being elected first president of the United Republic.

First of all, other than the millions of young women bawling their eyes out,



He is hardly the best looking chapie in Britain. He is proberly better off gay.:D

He'd do what every proper gay heir has done in the past. Keep it a secret and marry some woman in order to reproduce.

First of all, other than the millions of young women bawling their eyes out,



He is hardly the best looking chapie in Britain. He is proberly better off gay.:D

It ain't all about looks ya know. Seeing as he stands a good chance of being the heir to the throne of the United Kingdom plus the rediculous amount of wealth he already posesses, he's probably the most eligible bachelor in the world at the moment.

Perhaps Europa Maxima would get to see Big Ben? I was going to say Fass.. Where is Fass, anyway?

He'd do what every proper gay heir has done in the past. Keep it a secret and marry some woman in order to reproduce.

No doubt that's what would most likely happen. But we're living in a more liberal age... so hypothetically, if a closet Prince William came out to the world, what would happen next?

Considering what happened to Edward VIII, I'm not sure it would be allowed, but I'd hope we are living in a more tolerant society.

A huge debate regarding acceptance of homosexuality within the Anglican church, since he'd become head of it once he's crowned. While it's likely he'd be forced to abdicate, it'd probably split the country. The more liberal of society (primarily the young/affluent/educated) would probably stick up for him even if they don't agree with the monarchy itself. People who're for gay rights but anti-monarchy would be conflicted, especially if they identify with gay rights strongly.

In reality, he wouldn't be able to hold a press conference without the other royals being informed. He'd need to organise it, and through that organisation someone's going to pass the message along, and the family would probably suppress it.

Considering what happened to Edward VIII, I'm not sure it would be allowed, but I'd hope we are living in a more tolerant society.

It would be a major pain for the Royals. We might live in a more tolerant society. I don't think *they* do.

Still as a staunch republican I can't wait to see their ruling status be abolished.

No doubt that's what would most likely happen. But we're living in a more liberal age... so hypothetically, if a closet Prince William came out to the world, what would happen next?
He'd shack up with Prince Albert of Monaco.

Down with the monarchy! Get that hag off my coins.

He'd shack up with Prince Albert of Monaco.
Prince Andreas is far superior material.

Perhaps Europa Maxima would get to see Big Ben? I was going to say Fass.. Where is Fass, anyway?
Fass is not fond of monarchies, and I doubt he is fond of Prince William. So I get dibs on any princelings.

He should be shot for lying and if he's not lying he should be shot for telling the truth.

What if…

Prince William, in addition to breaking up with Kate Middleton, had called a press conference, and without consulting the Royal Family, announced to the world that the reason he split with her, was due to his homosexuality.

Okay, ladies, calm down for a second, this is just a hypothetical.

First of all, other than the millions of young women bawling their eyes out, and the incredible feeding frenzy for the media, how do you think this would affect the institution of monarchy in the UK and in other commonwealth countries? If such a debate were to surface, what would your opinion be?

Would you look at this as the final nail in the coffin of monarchy? Would you suggest that Prince William renounce his claim to the throne? Or perhaps embrace the possibility of the UK’s first openly (to my knowledge) homosexual King? Would the King’s consort be considered a ‘Queen’? Would there be riots in the streets? Or would the entire commonwealth happily embrace the idea of transforming a conservative institution into a symbolic show of liberalism, immediately changing their currencies to display their openly gay monarch?

More important than how the ‘world’ would react, what would you like to see happen?

Hmmm?
hmmm... not knowing the mechanics of how the Royal Family functions within the British society/government...

I mean, if William is gay, doesn't he still have to produce an Heir? or would an Adopted Heir work? Will he be required to be married? or will the crown fall on the next relative?

hmmm... not knowing the mechanics of how the Royal Family functions within the British society/government...

I mean, if William is gay, doesn't he still have to produce an Heir? or would an Adopted Heir work? Will he be required to be married? or will the crown fall on the next relative?

Queen Elizabeth I didn't produce an heir and yet she was able to reign. She had been approached by her half sister, Mary's, 'ex'-husband, Philip of Spain but refused him. The chain was broken with her since Mary didn't produce either and Edward failed to shoot the load. The line went to James I.

There have been homosexual kings before in British history. Edward II comes to mind, and I think James I (of England) and VI (of Scotland) was bisexual.

All that would happen is that Harry and/or Harry's currently hypothetical children would some day inherit the throne, and life would go on.

Queen Elizabeth I didn't produce an heir and yet she was able to reign. She had been approached by her half sister, Mary's, 'ex'-husband, Philip of Spain but refused him. The chain was broken with her since Mary didn't produce either and Edward failed to shoot the load. The line went to James I.

ah, I thought so. but if P-Willie doesn't produce an Heir, who would be next in line?

EDIT: Nvmd... Dishonorable Scum answered it.

There have been homosexual kings before in British history. Edward II comes to mind, and I think James I (of England) and VI (of Scotland) was bisexual.

All that would happen is that Harry and/or Harry's currently hypothetical children would some day inherit the throne, and life would go on.

I know that there is a definite order of succession (and I felt pretty sure Harry would be next, followed by his children), so the need to present a biological heir would not be necessary.

However, the media-heavy age we now live in is substantially different from the era of Edward II. Would all of the commonwealth countries be okay with planting King William's mug on their currency? I don't think it would be an issue in Canada, but who's to say for sure.

If anything, it would be an interesting way for the Royals to cement their place in the commonwealth. A large argument against the monarchy is the steeped-in-tradition conservatism and lack of 'keeping with the times'. Part of the argument of keeping the monarchy, is a cultural/heritage factor. The monarchy is a matter of symbolism now.

An openly homosexual monarch in a media-heavy age would be an act of demonstrating to the world that the monarchy is capable of reflecting the values of a modern society. However, I doubt that something like this would be allowed to pass. We like to think of ourselves as a 'tolerant' society, but I think that's the problem; homosexuality is 'tolerated', rather than 'accepted' by society in general. Society may be ready to 'tolerate' homosexuality, but not to 'accept' a homosexual monarch. (And by this, I mean a conservative element of society that barely 'tolerates' homosexuality.)

Well, at least we'd have one of the first openly gay heads of state.

There would be nothing anybody could do if William was gay, you can't force him out. Unless he wanted to abdicate, we would have a gay King. That would be great.

Down with the monarchy! Get that hag off my coins.

Oh come on now, you wouldn't trade it for a fag on your bill?

No clue whatsoever.

First of all, I do think there will be a big outcry, however, I don't think it will be as bad as with Edward VIII. What did not help him was his Nazi sympathies, and of course Simpson gave the British Government the excuse to get rid of him.

With regards to the heir, if William dies without an heir, then the throne will pass to Harry who would become King Henry IX - of course that would continue the tradition of Dukes of York either becoming Kings or having no heirs (except for the first creation)

With regards to the heir, if William dies without an heir, then the throne will pass to Harry who would become King Henry IX - of course that would continue the tradition of Dukes of York either becoming Kings or having no heirs (except for the first creation)

Well, considering the current Duke of York (unfortunately he is neither grand nor old) is Andrew, I really don't see how Harry matters for that.

Well, considering the current Duke of York (unfortunately he is neither grand nor old) is Andrew, I really don't see how Harry matters for that.

He may not be grand or old, but he will die without an heir. Therefore, it is likely that the Dukedom of York will pass to Harry when Andrew dies.

Oh come on now, you wouldn't trade it for a fag on your bill?Actually, I have no quarrels with a fag on my money. We certainly could put the space to more use by putting KD instructions or dead baby jokes where their heads currently are, but I pay for almost everything via debit so our money could have a dildo on it for all I care.

The idea of wasting shitloads of tax money to appease them whenever they feel like stopping by seems stupid when you look at all the people who actually need that money and contribute something to society.

Actually, I have no quarrels with a fag on my money. We certainly could put the space to more use by putting KD instructions or dead baby jokes where their heads currently are, but I pay for almost everything via debit so our money could have a dildo on it for all I care.

The idea of wasting shitloads of tax money to appease them whenever they feel like stopping by seems stupid when you look at all the people who actually need that money and contribute something to society.

Ah, we waste money on all kinds of things. Tradition can't hurt.

Although, if I recall, you and I settled on a TimBit as King of Canada, and Emperor of All Things Awesome? You know, 'God Glaze The King'?

Ah, we waste money on all kinds of things. Tradition can't hurt.

Although, if I recall, you and I settled on a TimBit as King of Canada, and Emperor of All Things Awesome? You know, 'God Glaze The King'?
How often do Timbits go on vacation?

Plus, think about what it would mean for our nation defense. Would you really invade a country that selected a food item as its head of state?

So I get dibs on any princelings.

Interesting..

So will you have fun with the royal jewels?

How often do Timbits go on vacation?

Plus, think about what it would mean for our nation defense. Would you really invade a country that selected a food item as its head of state?

Invade it with plenty of dollars to hit every restaurant I could, yes. Any nation that is willing to glorify food on its flag is fine by me.

But don't think that we would have regular parades everytime It's Imperial Majesty happened to be in town. Streets would be littered with Tim Horton's cups.

Wait, they already are....

Oh come on now, you wouldn't trade it for a fag on your bill?

why would anyone want a Ciger... oh... nevermind...

Invade it with plenty of dollars to hit every restaurant I could, yes. Any nation that is willing to glorify food on its flag is fine by me.

But don't think that we would have regular parades everytime It's Imperial Majesty happened to be in town. Streets would be littered with Tim Horton's cups.

Wait, they already are....Mine have two empty bottles of Jagermeifter and some vomit. Although, we live quite far away from Timmy's (about seven minutes :eek:).

I don't think he could do parades, at least not without our entire military their to protect him. He is a delicious little bastard, and their isn't a Canadian alive that wouldn't jump at the chance to digest him.

Prince Andreas is far superior material.


Fass is not fond of monarchies, and I doubt he is fond of Prince William. So I get dibs on any princelings.

So instead of quickly stripping him of his crown - you would slowly strip him of his knickers.

Mine have two empty bottles of Jagermeifter and some vomit. Although, we live quite far away from Timmy's (about seven minutes :eek:).

I don't think he could do parades, at least not without our entire military their to protect him. He is a delicious little bastard, and their isn't a Canadian alive that wouldn't jump at the chance to digest him.

A whole seven minutes away?! How do you live? I could walk to mine in about seven minutes... possibly less.

I wonder how a TimBit does the Royal Wave?

In all seriousness though, the 'expense of each visit' angle doesn't really grab me. It's not like She visits all that often, and when she does, it's money spent in the local economy anyway. And it keeps the rapidly aging happilly sedated whilst we figure out what we're going to do when the boomers all die.

He may not be grand or old, but he will die without an heir. Therefore, it is likely that the Dukedom of York will pass to Harry when Andrew dies.

Ah, I assumed you meant an heir to the throne should Andrew somehow become King.

A whole seven minutes away?! How do you live? I could walk to mine in about seven minutes... possibly less.

I wonder how a TimBit does the Royal Wave?

In all seriousness though, the 'expense of each visit' angle doesn't really grab me. It's not like She visits all that often, and when she does, it's money spent in the local economy anyway. And it keeps the rapidly aging happilly sedated whilst we figure out what we're going to do when the boomers all die.Party like it's 1999?

Seriously, I have become a major cheap-ass since starting uni. I mean, I am already planning the money I expect to make this summer (laptop), and am debating a $10 upgrade (which I know I should do) which is totally negligible compared to the ~$1500 base cost of the bloody thing.

AS FOR THE IMPORTANT BIT I MISSED: My town really takes laissez-faire approach to the whole town planning issue, and the place has developed into such a roadway nightmare that there are only two places you would want to build: the 'main' street, which is full, and right on the border of neighbour-town (which is about seven minutes from where I live). Everywhere else is so congested with dead ends and one cul-de-sacs that it would be a logistical impossibility to get enough traffic to Tim Horton's if they built anywheres else. I cannot wait until neighbour-town annexes us.

Ah, I assumed you meant an heir to the throne should Andrew somehow become King.

Nope, he has potential heirs to the throne; but not heirs as Duke of York (remember about primogeniture). Therefore, it is more than likely that when Andrew dies that Harry will become Duke of York, hereby following tradition.

Well, at least we'd have one of the first openly gay heads of state.

There would be nothing anybody could do if William was gay, you can't force him out. Unless he wanted to abdicate, we would have a gay King. That would be great.

I read somewhere that although it is tradition for the oldest male child to take the thrown, the Queen can actually name who she wants to follow her. This was when there was speculation that the Queen would skip over Charles.

Interesting..

So will you have fun with the royal jewels?

So instead of quickly stripping him of his crown - you would slowly strip him of his knickers.

More or less. I shan't be going into greater detail than that though. :) It might upset Ruffy.

Would the King’s consort be considered a ‘Queen’?

No. He would be made "Duke of Edinburgh" or of something else (maybe "Duke of Middlesex" would be an humourous option) and be referred to as "His Royal Highness", of course.

somewhere there is a precident for everything. hasn't there been, in times past, in other times and places, flagrantly gay monarchs?

one simply relies on sister's son progression as in ancient times for a generation or two as neccessary.

a more probable outcome of such given scenario, as with the precedent of mrs wallace, several generations ago, the primary hier is 'asked' to step aside and his second in succession take his place.

in either event, the additional check and balance of a constitutional monarch could very well go on.

i do believe the time will come for monarchs to retire to more economic, though still stately quarters. just a thought.

i don't think it was very nice though to name a particular living person to cite in the example in question, who'se personal life, is completely unknown to this respondent, and of no conceivable pertinence to others.

=^^=
.../\...

I dunno. It'd probably be a lot of fun to watch from a safe distance. I can picture the headlines in The Sun. Let's hope it happens.He is hardly the best looking chapie in Britain. He is proberly better off gay.:D :eek: No thank you.

He is hardly the best looking chapie in Britain. He is proberly better off gay.:D
You are aware that gay men are more, and not less, demanding on average than women, aren't you? At any rate, I don't think he is ugly, at all. As I said I'd still prefer Prince Andreas to him though.

What if…

Prince William, in addition to breaking up with Kate Middleton, had called a press conference, and without consulting the Royal Family, announced to the world that the reason he split with her, was due to his homosexuality.Wow, I didn't realize I was that good in bed.

...Oh, it says 'if' there. Forget I said anything.

THere is no strict guidlines on what a male consort of a Monarch is to be titled if i all accpeted by the privvy counciland the stuff then more then likely his consort would be called Prince Consort or not have any offical title what so ever. Harry inherting the Dukedom of York would be matter for the present monarch who ever it was sitting when Andrew Died as it personal Title of the Monarch though it is generally carried down by the second son of the present monarch.

I can almost hear the tabliods masturbating at the mere possibility.

I can almost hear the tabliods masturbating at the mere possibility.

A reporter for the Daily Mail is going to read this thread and publish what Mike discussed in the first post as an article.

I read somewhere that although it is tradition for the oldest male child to take the thrown, the Queen can actually name who she wants to follow her. This was when there was speculation that the Queen would skip over Charles.

Nope, the Act of Settlement 1701 governs succession to the throne. Nothing the Queen could do.

Nope, the Act of Settlement 1701 governs succession to the throne. Nothing the Queen could do.

and The Privvy council has the final say who is to be monarch

and The Privvy council has the final say who is to be monarch

No they don't.

your right i though they did but on cheecking it seems they dont always though they did for some reason though

Firstly, I cannot imagine William being allowed to publicise his sexuality. I daresay, rather like Edward II, he would remain a closet gay. However, in the event of his being openly homosexual, I fail to see any problem. Those who concern themselves with the royal family to any great degree are either republicans, who are generally left wing enough to be tolerant in that regard, or journalists.

Firstly, I cannot imagine William being allowed to publicise his sexuality. I daresay, rather like Edward II, he would remain a closet gay. However, in the event of his being openly homosexual, I fail to see any problem. Those who concern themselves with the royal family to any great degree are either republicans, who are generally left wing enough to be tolerant in that regard, or journalists.

I imagine the social situation was rather different in 1300.

No. He would be made "Duke of Edinburgh" or of something else (maybe "Duke of Middlesex" would be an humourous option) and be referred to as "His Royal Highness", of course.

Well, I was making what we call 'A joke in poor taste'. Just so's ya know.

i don't think it was very nice though to name a particular living person to cite in the example in question, who'se personal life, is completely unknown to this respondent, and of no conceivable pertinence to others.

=^^=
.../\...


Uhm... I guess I'm not a very nice person....

I'm a bad, bad man.

Nope, the Act of Settlement 1701 governs succession to the throne. Nothing the Queen could do.
Succession was amended during Elizabeth II's reign, though, to give female heirs equal treatment. No longer will elder sisters be passed over in favour of younger brothers.

Wow, I didn't realize I was that good in bed.

...Oh, it says 'if' there. Forget I said anything.

Now, the entire world knows you're that good in bed.

Hypothetically...

I read somewhere that although it is tradition for the oldest male child to take the thrown, the Queen can actually name who she wants to follow her. This was when there was speculation that the Queen would skip over Charles.

Only reason why Charles would have been skipped over was if he had married Camilla before she was excommunicated from the Catholic Church; and even that covered in the 1701 Act

EDIT

I don't think the law was changed to give daughters equal treatment - IIRC, the order of succession is still Charles and heirs, then Andrew and heirs, then Edward and heirs and then Anne and heirs

Prince William instead of trying the gay way should perhaps screw the notch a bit worse and deeper. Marry a Roman Catholic girl and raise his heir as a Roman Catholic. That should make the institution howl and cause long legal battles when William's son will become monarch.

Prince William instead of trying the gay way should perhaps screw the notch a bit worse and deeper. Marry a Roman Catholic girl and raise his heir as a Roman Catholic. That should make the institution howl and cause long legal battles when William's son will become monarch.
Catholics aren't allowed to be monarch. Even marrying a Catholic removes you from the line of succession.

yhey could be any sect of christianity or not part form Roman Catholic as long as the in communion with the Anglican church so he could decide to be come a Quaker if he wishes then just pop off down to the local Anglican church for communion once a week

Eh, I'm hoping for the church to be disestablished by then. England, always so backward and behind the rest of the UK:p

Succession was amended during Elizabeth II's reign, though, to give female heirs equal treatment. No longer will elder sisters be passed over in favour of younger brothers.

Definitely not true.

yhey could be any sect of christianity or not part form Roman Catholic as long as the in communion with the Anglican church so he could decide to be come a Quaker if he wishes then just pop off down to the local Anglican church for communion once a week

I am not sure what you are trying to say, however, there would be issues with the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church being a non-Anglican. Also, the only reason why Catholics are excluded because there were fears in 1701 that the line of James II's son would be the future monarchs of England; and remembering what had happened during the reign of Mary I & what was happening in Europe, there were concerns that a Catholic monarch would persecute the Protestant English.

Definitely not true.
Absolutely its true. But it won't affect any of the currently living heirs.

The first time we might see it is if William's first child is a daughter. She'd be first in line to inherit from him regardless of whether he later has sons.

edit: Okay, it looks like I'm wrong. I was sure I read that somewhere.

But, as Will Rogers said, "It ain't the things you don't know that get you in trouble; it's the things you know for sure that just ain't so!"

Catholics aren't allowed to be monarch. Even marrying a Catholic removes you from the line of succession.
Technically, but not in practice. The Prince of Wales has, for example, married a Catholic, but is still first in line to the throne.

He should do his duty and marry and have an heir, and have his fun on the side.

He has a duty to produce heirs, not to be monogamous or heterosexual.

He should do his duty and marry and have an heir, and have his fun on the side.

He has a duty to produce heirs, not to be monogamous or heterosexual.

One might argue that his real duty is to be a symbol of British culture and values. Heirs can be had another way. If acceptance of homosexuality is a value that should be endorsed, then the symbol that is supposed to represent the ideals of British Culture should reflect that.

He is hardly the best looking chapie in Britain. He is proberly better off gay.:D

True, but at least he got half of his mom's DNA. Have you seen his dad up close? *shudder* :(

Technically, but not in practice. The Prince of Wales has, for example, married a Catholic, but is still first in line to the throne.

Nope, Camilla ain't a Catholic anymore, she was excommunicated for getting a divorce. If Charles had married her back in the 1970s when she was a Catholic, Prince Andrew would be the Prince of Wales, and Princess Beatrice would be the one causing all the interest.

Honestly, if people can accept having a regent but not a homosexual one, than they are just getting all their panties into a bunch.

The real question is, can the people who support the British monarch (traditionally conservative to my knowledge), accept the more liberal tendencies and can the people who support homosexuals (traditionally liberals to my knowledge) accept having a regent?

It could go both ways really, depending on what people are willing to accept or compromise.

Would you look at this as the final nail in the coffin of British monarchy?

The Danish monarchy is immensely popular at the moment, so emphasis added.

rediculous

ridiculous! We just had a thread about this even :mad:

ridiculous! We just had a thread about this even :mad:

In all fairness, this thread is older than that one. And I'm a bad person.