Monarchy / constitution question posed by one of my kids?
Discussion
Not at all sure that technically the King/Prince thing is correct, as it wasn't covered by the Same Sex marriages legislation in the UK - a chap marrying a Duke is not entitled to the honorific Duke, whereas a female would be a Duchess.
So, they would be Bob. That covers most eventualities.
So, they would be Bob. That covers most eventualities.
randlemarcus said:
Not at all sure that technically the King/Prince thing is correct, as it wasn't covered by the Same Sex marriages legislation in the UK - a chap marrying a Duke is not entitled to the honorific Duke, whereas a female would be a Duchess.
So, they would be Bob. That covers most eventualities.
Probably Bob. Not Dave?So, they would be Bob. That covers most eventualities.
What an interesting question - you have to love the young's inquisitiveness and lack of boundaries.
I don't know the details of the royal marriages act but I think it would be governed naturally by rank and language custom. The reigning monarch must be the absolute highest rank, therefore a hereditary Queen's husband is not King but officially the Queen's consort and is given a suitable lower rank e.g. Duke.
A King is a title given to a male, and Queen to a female, colloquial use of "queen" is not applied. A gay KIng could not have another king (equal rank) or a queen(wrong gender). A gay Queen could not have another queen for the same reason
Therefore in either gay case the partner would be consort to the King/Queen and be given a suitable rank basd upon their phyiscal gender.
Before you ask, I have no idea how a sex change operation would be dealt with in this context............................
I don't know the details of the royal marriages act but I think it would be governed naturally by rank and language custom. The reigning monarch must be the absolute highest rank, therefore a hereditary Queen's husband is not King but officially the Queen's consort and is given a suitable lower rank e.g. Duke.
A King is a title given to a male, and Queen to a female, colloquial use of "queen" is not applied. A gay KIng could not have another king (equal rank) or a queen(wrong gender). A gay Queen could not have another queen for the same reason
Therefore in either gay case the partner would be consort to the King/Queen and be given a suitable rank basd upon their phyiscal gender.
Before you ask, I have no idea how a sex change operation would be dealt with in this context............................
It's a question that has been answered for minor honours, in that (as covered above) the same sex partner doesn't get anything. Sir Elton John's other half being a prime example of someone who'd be a Lady if their gender was different, but instead gets no title.
So, that's what would happen by default. However, Kings and Queens can bestow titles - it's where they come from, after all, and why Prince Philip is also Duke of Edinburgh. So, in reality the King or Queen it applied to could create a title to give to their partner, should they want to.
Duke of Edinburgh on Wikipedia for reference, where you can see the title has been created and given a few times over the years
So, that's what would happen by default. However, Kings and Queens can bestow titles - it's where they come from, after all, and why Prince Philip is also Duke of Edinburgh. So, in reality the King or Queen it applied to could create a title to give to their partner, should they want to.
Duke of Edinburgh on Wikipedia for reference, where you can see the title has been created and given a few times over the years
Constitutionally, not allowed, but if so, precedent says would hold the title of Earl.
Earl of Cornwall is the historic precedent. We've had 3 gay kings AFAIK. Edward II although married, never paid any attention to his wife, instead bunking up with Piers Gaveston and promoted him from field labourer to stable lad and then earl of Cornwall within a few weeks.
Logically, the King is King and nobody else can hold that title. The female is Queen. The male spouse to the monarch is always a Duke (Duke of Edinburgh for example) and a prince consort (Albert) but only in mixed sex marriages.
Historical precedent says he would be an earl; convention says prince consort. That said, protocol would certainly over ride convention. As heir apparent, he would marry a woman, who would walk 2 paces behind. His favourite would be earl, who would walk half a pace behind the queen. Then at night time King and queen would have separate lodgings, and the King can happily play push the purple parsnip down the rabbit hole all night long with the earl.
My assupmtions are based on historical precedents. Considering changes in the law, it would be "Prince Consort to the King". Current laws to accession make no allowances to gay marriage.
Earl of Cornwall is the historic precedent. We've had 3 gay kings AFAIK. Edward II although married, never paid any attention to his wife, instead bunking up with Piers Gaveston and promoted him from field labourer to stable lad and then earl of Cornwall within a few weeks.
Logically, the King is King and nobody else can hold that title. The female is Queen. The male spouse to the monarch is always a Duke (Duke of Edinburgh for example) and a prince consort (Albert) but only in mixed sex marriages.
Historical precedent says he would be an earl; convention says prince consort. That said, protocol would certainly over ride convention. As heir apparent, he would marry a woman, who would walk 2 paces behind. His favourite would be earl, who would walk half a pace behind the queen. Then at night time King and queen would have separate lodgings, and the King can happily play push the purple parsnip down the rabbit hole all night long with the earl.
My assupmtions are based on historical precedents. Considering changes in the law, it would be "Prince Consort to the King". Current laws to accession make no allowances to gay marriage.
Wiccan of Darkness said:
Constitutionally, not allowed, but if so, precedent says would hold the title of Earl.
Earl of Cornwall is the historic precedent. We've had 3 gay kings AFAIK. Edward II although married, never paid any attention to his wife, instead bunking up with Piers Gaveston and promoted him from field labourer to stable lad and then earl of Cornwall within a few weeks.
.
And Edward II died with a red hot poker up his bottom.....James I is the other i believe? - who is the third?Earl of Cornwall is the historic precedent. We've had 3 gay kings AFAIK. Edward II although married, never paid any attention to his wife, instead bunking up with Piers Gaveston and promoted him from field labourer to stable lad and then earl of Cornwall within a few weeks.
.
It's static electricity, isn't it? Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff