2007-06-08 19:50:37 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
It wouldn't happen. The whole point of a monarchy is that it is hereditary, so there must be descendants to carry on the line. What happens on the side is another matter, as we have seen.
2007-06-09 01:25:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That gay kings never existed or were always disowned is not very accurate. There are various kings (not just in England, but elsewhere) that were reported to prefer men. The trick is that they did not marry men, but married a woman to produce offspring and keep up appearances. People who assume that gay nobles would be disowned show a lack of understanding of the power that royalty can wield. All that such a king needs to do is keep it somewhat under wraps, so to speak. Have a queen and keep up appearances, do what he likes in his bedroom when he's not producing children. This really isn't much different from kings having mistresses and concubines, which was a well established tradition back in the day.
2007-06-09 10:37:29 · answer #2 · answered by Technopygmalion 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all, that is a great question and one that has yet to be encountered.
However, as it is, a king cannot marry another man. That is to say, the Church cannot allow it. In the case of England, the Monarch is the Head of the Church of England, so the Monarch cannot be...gay! If he is gay, he may have to go it alone, but not marry. Either that or he abdicates.
In anyway one wishes to view this, it would certainly create a constitutional problem of untold magnitude.
2007-06-11 21:23:04 · answer #3 · answered by SDTK 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No king could marry a guy and keep his kingdom.
But if the king kept a guy around for favors, the guy would be known as a pain in the rear for the royal family!
2007-06-09 02:57:08 · answer #4 · answered by hunter621 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This has never happened yet. If it did he would not get any title automatically, as men who marry titled women do not get a title and the same principle should apply - he couldn't be called king or queen.
However the gay king might create him a prince (as the Queen did with Philip) or make him a a duke (as her father had earlier done with Philip). The bisexual James I created James Villiers Duke of Buckingham, though they certainly weren't married and there was no question of making him a prince.
2007-06-09 07:19:36 · answer #5 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Very interesting question. To put this in a bit different perspective than most of the answerers, if after Queen Elizabeth's death, and Charles' Ascension to the throne, Camilla died. Then Charles, as King, married George, it would seem that it might be legal and no one could do anything about it as Charles has produced heirs, so the monarchy would not be threatened in that sense.
2007-06-09 07:07:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Answer: King James
James I of England (and VI of Scotland) married Anne of Denmark, resulting in a union that produced three children who survived to adulthood. However, James' escapades with male courtiers, most famously with George Viliers, Duke of Buckingham, were well known to his contemporaries and have been unquestioned by historians. For example, James wrote a letter to his Favorite, saying,
"God bless you my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband."
Thus, James married a consort to perpetuate the Stuart dynasty while also establishing a series of long-term homosexual relationships.
2007-06-11 04:41:21 · answer #7 · answered by Ellie Evans-Thyme 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ideally they would be referred to as a king or prince consort and be allowed to adopt orphaned or foster care children. Or even use a special surrogant mother even. But in reality it would depend on the country they are in and their laws. I don't know about Great Britain, but I once read a story (recently) about an Indian prince who came out of the closet and was disowned and he too wanted to adopt.
:Shrug: I did know India had royalty, maybe they have nonreigning royalty.
2007-06-09 22:34:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am tempted to say he will be a QUEEEEEN.. but historically there have been homosexual kings and queens, but they always marry a person of the opposite sex simply to ensure an heir is created, and they keep their lil bedfellow on the side.... nasty
2007-06-09 03:02:05 · answer #9 · answered by Shelly J 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He is simply married to another guy. England has allowed gay marriages and in doing so allows all of their subjects to marry who they want. As to his position, I would suppose Earl or Duke of some area. The King's consort or something like that. Obviously, in your situation, Her Majesty would not exist and so I would think the King reigns entirely in your case. What he says will be done. Actually, I think it would be a great idea.
2007-06-09 03:00:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋