Men banned from becoming Queen as 700 years of law redrafted ahead of gay marriage


#1

Men are to be banned from becoming Queen or Princess of Wales as part of an unprecedented effort to rewrite more than 700 years of law to prevent unintended consequences of gay marriage.

Even a 14th Century act declaring it high treason to have an affair with the monarch’s husband or wife is included in the sweeping redrafting exercise.

Civil servants have drawn up a list of scores of statutes and regulations dating back as far 1285 to be amended or specifically excluded when the Government’s Same-Sex Marriage Act comes into force next month.

telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10654305/Men-banned-from-becoming-Queen-as-700-years-of-law-redrafted-ahead-of-gay-marriage.html


#2

So this is simply a change of titles? It seems sensible that the husband of the King would not be called Queen or Princess or even Duchess. But what would he be called?

I think a similar situation might apply to the husband of the President of the US. The husband would not be the First Lady, regardless of whether the president is a man or a woman.


#3

So a gay prince and his husband is what… ? Of course they’re both kings or princes.


#4

I imagine they would be given a title and also referred to as a consort. Not unlike Camille Parker Bowles.


#5

You mean Bill can’t become First Lady???

:):):):slight_smile:


#6

Wasn’t Dennis Thatcher already First Lady, anyway? :smiley:


#7

Men banned from becoming Queen

And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.


#8

I do wonder about my country sometimes…:shrug:

I’m a tad confused why “widow” is a problem? Surely that is so close to the alternative “widower” it could be considered unisex?

It would be interesting to see how a future monarch could have a gay marriage…due to the monarch being the technical head of the Church of England (can’t think of the official term), they and the prime minister have never been able to be catholic…the Church of England won’t perform gay marriages (or don’t have to…I get confused on the ruling) so I’m not sure how the monarch would be able to get married? Surely it would be the same as if one wanted to be catholic? Not allowed?


#9

And yet Freddy Mercury and the rest of his band were all guys and did become Queen.


#10

Weren’t the Barenaked Ladies all guys, too? :):):):slight_smile:


#11

:rotfl:


#12

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Priceless!


#13

I presume all possible ramifications of transgender and bisexual royal ‘spouses’ have also been mulled over by the constitutional legal eagles.


#14

I have to admit I snickered at the thought of the King’s male consort being called a queen.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3LAVLTMYr1niHnH1tKNUpL0qz2B0XXwm4Z12FHdFXXxBkzQWW


#15

I don’t think the law will be able to survive a challenge to it. Marriage is marriage. There was no differentiation in wording, such as civil union, and kings are married to queens.

The law insists that there is no difference between a man marrying a man, or a woman a woman, so it would be discriminatory according to the logic of the SSM laws to insist on these kind of differences being insisted upon now, in direct opposition to the SSM legislation’s aim and purpose.


#16

Ah Farrokh BulsaraThe most well known Zoroastrian in rock. If he was alive I wonder would his religion have been an issue in a royal marriage as well as his sexuality.


#17

He would become the First Man, and would have to change his name to Adam…


#18

Royal spice?


#19

.
But women can be KING, yes?

Now we’re talkin’…

.


#20

How about the other 50 odd facebook genders. Are they locked out? :whacky:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.