The Royal baby, born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, George Alexander Louis, is likely, at some stage in his life, to become King.
All well and good and, fifty years hence or less, this may take place.
But what if the little bundle of joy turns out to have homosexual tendencies? (not unknown in the Royal family).
Laurence England posted on this a few days ago but my imagination, when projected forward twenty years or so, cannot but help speculate on what might take place should the unthinkable happen.
How would the British public, to say nothing of the Commonwealth countries, respond to an announcement of the engagement of HRH Prince George to the Right Honourable Freddy Ponsonby-Ffrench?
And how would the Church of England (if it is still in existence then) cope with having a Head who is not so much red, white and blue as pink, white and blue?
Westminster Abbey would be packed, for the "wedding" with the other Farm Street community and the Stonewall bunch....and Britain would be the laughing stock of the world.
Or, would it?
The rate of moral decline is now so rapid that, in twenty years time, homosexual unions will be as common as.....well, very common.
And heterosexual marriages as rare as an unbleached candle.
After the wedding, a few months after the wedding, the Royal couple, the Prince and Prince of X, might wish to have children.
Just think, what disarray the British constitution would be in, trying to sort out the hereditary rights of a surrogate child born out of wedlock to the Royal couple.
They can't even provide for a Catholic to become heir to the throne (Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and bush born Baptists, yes, but Catholics - no!).
Such are the inequalities of the equality laws in this country.
May the Good Lord save us all!
I don't think there will be any problem "trying to sort out the hereditary rights of a surrogate child born out of wedlock to the Royal couple" - Children with chromosomes from same sex couples will be de rigeur by then. Male SS couples will be able to select the sex of their children but female SS couples will only be able to have female children. I suspect science will find a way to overcome this inequality too though.
ReplyDeleteIf he has even an ounce of his uncles blood flowing through his veins I don't think you'll have to worry much!
ReplyDeleteIf you really wanted to be sensationalist you could have said "What if he turns out to be a smoker?"
ReplyDeleteSomebody posted that the announcement of the baby as a boy was wrong because he is not yet old enough to choose his "gender identity". It was meant as a joke, but some of the po-faced PC brigade took it seriously and solemnly nodded in agreement.
ReplyDeletehere in Australia we have a young Australian-chinese man standing as a candidate for the Labour party in a safe Liberal (conservative) seat. He is an ardent republican- perhaps he may be a catholic-as he once said that the British monarchy is " sexist and sectarian". I am not a Republican,but he did sum up a certain view of the Royals.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless the future George VII
The day we have a gay king called George Iam out. By the way that is out as in out of here not out as in outed.
ReplyDeleteAt the TLM I attend we always have the prayer for the Queen ( we might have a King who is also a Queen one day )
following a sung mass as was the custom in this country.Does this ever take place in the Novus Ordo?
James I of England had 8 children - here is what he wrote:
ReplyDeleteI, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George.
It is interesting that James' wife wrote to George and asked him to be faithful to her husband.
http://stories4hotbloodedlesbians.com