|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 4, 2016 18:13:46 GMT
It would very much matter if a future president of the UK were gay or transgender, because it would mean that the UK would no longer be the UK, but would be a Republic. That, were it ever to happen, would be the ultimate catastrophe. Why? Why? and Why? Because it would cut off the supply of minor royals for John to ................ Oh dear, I've just realised where this is going.  |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135 
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 4, 2016 18:30:30 GMT
It would have no direct effect on the Grand Ducal family of Luxembourg.  |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Nov 4, 2016 23:31:57 GMT
A monarch being gay or transgender would not be a big issue, but if they adopted children it would play havoc with the Succession.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,679
|
Post by Jack on Nov 4, 2016 23:36:13 GMT
It would very much matter if a future president of the UK were gay or transgender, because it would mean that the UK would no longer be the UK, but would be a Republic. That, were it ever to happen, would be the ultimate catastrophe. Why? Why? and Why? I think John is the kind of person who camps outside the hospital wearing a Union Jack costume whilst waiting for a glimpse of the Royal baby. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Nov 4, 2016 23:37:59 GMT
A monarch being gay or transgender would not be a big issue, but if they adopted children it would play havoc with the Succession. I don't think adopted children would qualify for the Succession; it would simply go to the next eldest sibling/uncle/aunt/first cousin or whatever. To be honest, royals adopting children seems a completely alien notion, at any rate. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 5, 2016 4:39:51 GMT
It would very much matter if a future president of the UK were gay or transgender, because it would mean that the UK would no longer be the UK, but would be a Republic. That, were it ever to happen, would be the ultimate catastrophe. Why? Why? and Why? Because I am a lifelong staunchly loyal and extreme Monarchist, and as such I would regard the transfortmation of this country into a Republic to be the ultimate possible catastrophe. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 5, 2016 4:41:07 GMT
I think John is the kind of person who camps outside the hospital wearing a Union Jack costume whilst waiting for a glimpse of the Royal baby. Except that I have never done that. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 5, 2016 10:16:32 GMT
Because I am a lifelong staunchly loyal and extreme Monarchist, and as such I would regard the transfortmation of this country into a Republic to be the ultimate possible catastrophe. Knowing you all that is a given. It does not answer the core of any of those whys. Why would the happening of such event have any of those consequences? Such a person might still have children. If not the title goes to next of kin. Wherein lies any problem? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2016 10:32:48 GMT
Because I am a lifelong staunchly loyal and extreme Monarchist, and as such I would regard the transfortmation of this country into a Republic to be the ultimate possible catastrophe. Knowing you all that is a given. It does not answer the core of any of those whys. Why would the happening of such event have any of those consequences? Such a person might still have children. If not the title goes to next of kin. Wherein lies any problem? Well there might be constitutional implications, starting with the traditional royal wedding as the Church of England doesn't permit same sex weddings in their churches. Also there would be a slight difficulty constitutionally with the Monarch also being head of the Church of England. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 5, 2016 10:41:03 GMT
Knowing you all that is a given. It does not answer the core of any of those whys. Why would the happening of such event have any of those consequences? Such a person might still have children. If not the title goes to next of kin. Wherein lies any problem? Well there might be constitutional implications, starting with the traditional royal wedding as the Church of England doesn't permit same sex weddings in their churches. Also there would be a slight difficulty constitutionally with the Monarch also being head of the Church of England. Well obviously we would not tolerate any damn nonsense like that but they wouldn't be stupid enough to try it on would they? As an atheist republican your second point is rather lost on me. I am fully reconciled with having a monarchy for the rest of my life and probably a lot longer but would politely suggest that they drop the head of the church bit and the fid def as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2016 10:54:42 GMT
Well there might be constitutional implications, starting with the traditional royal wedding as the Church of England doesn't permit same sex weddings in their churches. Also there would be a slight difficulty constitutionally with the Monarch also being head of the Church of England. Well obviously we would not tolerate any damn nonsense like that but they wouldn't be stupid enough to try it on would they? As an atheist republican your second point is rather lost on me. I am fully reconciled with having a monarchy for the rest of my life and probably a lot longer but would politely suggest that they drop the head of the church bit and the fid def as well. If the General Synod voted for it then you wouldn't be able to stop it. And if the Archbishop of Canterbury was gay as well he/she would perform the marriage. I do agree with your second point however, the CofE should be disestablished. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 6, 2016 8:11:25 GMT
Because I am a lifelong staunchly loyal and extreme Monarchist, and as such I would regard the transfortmation of this country into a Republic to be the ultimate possible catastrophe. Knowing you all that is a given. It does not answer the core of any of those whys. Why would the happening of such event have any of those consequences? Such a person might still have children. If not the title goes to next of kin. Wherein lies any problem? What on earth has people having children, and titles going to next of kin, got to do with anything I wrote? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 6, 2016 8:14:53 GMT
Knowing you all that is a given. It does not answer the core of any of those whys. Why would the happening of such event have any of those consequences? Such a person might still have children. If not the title goes to next of kin. Wherein lies any problem? What on earth has people having children, and titles going to next of kin, got to do with anything I wrote? In which case.................What does what you wrote have to do with this thread? A question one often asks when reading your threads. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 12:10:20 GMT
What on earth has people having children, and titles going to next of kin, got to do with anything I wrote? In which case.................What does what you wrote have to do with this thread? A question one often asks when reading your threads. If they were royal and married and wanted children then their might be a legal problem hiring a surrogate mother. Would they prefer to do it in house or find another royal member to provide the eggs and seed? That way there would be no doubt about the royal origins of the children born. However there might be doubts over legitimacy to succeed if the children were considered bastards. I wonder how that would effect the Line of Succession? In a republic it would be more straight forward with no questions of legitimacy. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 6, 2016 12:27:24 GMT
In which case.................What does what you wrote have to do with this thread? A question one often asks when reading your threads. If they were royal and married and wanted children then their might be a legal problem hiring a surrogate mother. Would they prefer to do it in house or find another royal member to provide the eggs and seed? That way there would be no doubt about the royal origins of the children born. However there might be doubts over legitimacy to succeed if the children were considered bastards. I wonder how that would effect the Line of Succession? In a republic it would be more straight forward with no questions of legitimacy. Well we don't live in La La Fantasy Land with a weirdo royal family............odd maybe..............but not weirdo. 'Doubts of legitimacy to succeed'!!! I should bloody think so. That would be the end of monarchy without doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 6, 2016 13:25:38 GMT
A monarch being gay or transgender would not be a big issue, but if they adopted children it would play havoc with the Succession. I don't think adopted children would qualify for the Succession; it would simply go to the next eldest sibling/uncle/aunt/first cousin or whatever. To be honest, royals adopting children seems a completely alien notion, at any rate. Another reason for abolition. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 18:33:24 GMT
I'm sure there would be lots of chitter chatter, but a gay, trans (or even disabled or black PM/Monarch) could have the huge positive benefits in terms of tackling stigma and discrimination. I accept that black Monarch is the most unlikely of those scenarios The Monarchy is an equal opportunities employer (unless you are Catholic) and several of its Governors-General in the Caribbean are black, so perhaps not so far fetched. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 6, 2016 20:59:24 GMT
I'm sure there would be lots of chitter chatter, but a gay, trans (or even disabled or black PM/Monarch) could have the huge positive benefits in terms of tackling stigma and discrimination. I accept that black Monarch is the most unlikely of those scenarios Indeed. It is what I and most of my friends have craved all our lives. A black, transgender, disabled monarch with learning difficulties. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 21:01:50 GMT
I'm sure there would be lots of chitter chatter, but a gay, trans (or even disabled or black PM/Monarch) could have the huge positive benefits in terms of tackling stigma and discrimination. I accept that black Monarch is the most unlikely of those scenarios Indeed. It is what I and most of my friends have craved all our lives. A black, transgender, disabled monarch with learning difficulties. That's a bit sarcastic isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 6, 2016 21:03:31 GMT
Indeed. It is what I and most of my friends have craved all our lives. A black, transgender, disabled monarch with learning difficulties. That's a bit sarcastic isn't it? Yes. |
|
