In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

[ahammel]

Why would the whole "two queens" thing throw the monarchy into chaos, exactly?

And even if it does, well...it's your monarchy, Britons, but if I were you I'd totally be willing to do away with it in exchange for gay marriage.

[PhoenixEnigma]

I'd guess it would make succession a little trickier? I don't really know enough about how it works to know how it breaks, though.

Also, it's our monarchy as well, and just happens to match perfectly with the British. So she could totally get married here, and watch gleefully at the fallout elsewhere.

[Ghostbear]

Technically, wouldn't it be a queen and a queen consort? Just like how the husband of a reigning queen is the prince-consort. The actual powers of (and associated position of) head of state would still be consolidated to a single entity; the person who doesn't have "-consort" attached to their title.

This is just someone making a big bit out of noise to inform everyone that they don't understand how royal titles actually work.

[Vaniver]

Technically, wouldn't it be a queen and a queen consort? Just like how the husband of a reigning queen is the prince-consort. The actual powers of (and associated position of) head of state would still be consolidated to a single entity; the person who doesn't have "-consort" attached to their title.

This is just someone making a big bit out of noise to inform everyone that they don't understand how royal titles actually work.

Um, did you read the complaint?

He said it would mean a lesbian Queen having a Queen consort or a gay King having a King consort.

The issue is royal marriages are a state issue (for example, members of the royal dynasty require the approval of the sovereign for their marriage to be legitimate), and children of the dynasty are a state issue.

The obvious compromise is to allow gay marriage for everyone except the Royals, letting them either abdicate to marry for love or marry to further the dynasty and have consorts on the side.

[poxic]

The obvious compromise is to ... marry to further the dynasty and have consorts on the side.

I've always liked the notion of solving the gay king/lesbian queen "problem" that way. Say a gay king inherits the throne. He finds a socially-acceptable (royals tend to have restrictions placed on their choices) lesbian wife. They do what they need to to produce offspring (artificial insemination, or whatever), and they each keep their own consort/life partner. Quite civilised.

[CorruptUser]

I've always liked the notion of solving the gay king/lesbian queen "problem" that way. Say a gay king inherits the throne. He finds a socially-acceptable (royals tend to have restrictions placed on their choices) lesbian wife. They do what they need to to produce offspring (artificial insemination, or whatever), and they each keep their own consort/life partner. Quite civilised.

Just like commoner homosexuals (buggers?) often did until* being homosexual stopped being grounds for vigilante justice** or corrections.


*Depending on community
**Not really

[Ghostbear]

Um, did you read the complaint?

No, it seemed to me that the opposition was from "What will we do with two people with the same title?!" based on the comments. Thanks for the clarification.

[Adacore]

How is it any different from a heterosexual monarch who dies without issue? The crown just passes along the line of succession, as it always has (barring interventions), so a sibling/nephew/niece of the homosexual monarch would probably end up as the next monarch.

For example, George IV had one daughter, who died in 1817 (before his death, in 1830), the crown passed to William IV, his brother. William IV then himself had just two (legitimate) daughters who both died young, and the crown passed to his niece, Victoria. It's not like there isn't a precedent for that kind of thing...

I suppose the only problem is with the 'duty to produce an heir' thing? That seems a little silly, to me, but I guess I can see how it could be a problem for some people.

[bigglesworth]

I think the problem is more "What if a person who happens to be the monarch wants to have a child with their genetics (as is the way of many people) and what happens to that child"?

Monarchs are still people. And it doesn't seem quite right for the child to be simply labelled a bastard under the old system.

[Diadem]

We should totally get a male gay monarch who is also a cross-dresser. Then we can have 2 kings ánd a queen!

[bigglesworth]

Wow, a quick wiki-walk from this subject, and:

Andorra is a parliamentary co-principality with the President of France and the Bishop of Urgell (Catalonia, Spain), as co-princes. This peculiarity makes the President of France, in his capacity as Prince of Andorra, an elected reigning monarch, even though he is not elected by a popular vote of the Andorran people.

o_O

[AvatarIII]

even if by law we could end up with a homosexual monarch, I doubt a royal same sex marriage would ever happen. I suspect the royal family would rather have a man/woman coupling on the throne, and then ignore/cover up any same sex mischief that goes on behind closed doors.

[bigglesworth]

You have a point. By law we could have a Muslim monarch as well, but that hasn't happened (nor is likely to happen).

[AvatarIII]

You have a point. By law we could have a Muslim monarch as well, but that hasn't happened (nor is likely to happen).

LOL, that's probably even more unlikely since Muslims are just as strict about who they marry as the royal family but a Black monarch for example is not out of the question at all, even if for the sake of image, the royal family would probably frown upon it, I'm talking about "these days" though, I see no reason why in a couple of generations the royal family will have softened to more modern ways of thinking, simply due to their circumstances they are historically rather insular, and in the modern era of media and always there information, I think this is certainly changing a lot with Will and Harry's generation, and to a certain extent Charles', and obviously even more so for the next future generation, when the "old school" begin to die off.

[Rodion Raskolnikov]

You have a point. By law we could have a Muslim monarch as well, but that hasn't happened (nor is likely to happen).

I don't think we could. The King or Queen is also head of the Church of England, and would therefore have to be protestant.

[Zamfir]

Or just not a Catholic?

II.
Provided always and it is hereby enacted That all and every Person and Persons who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown by vertue of the Limitation of this present Act and is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be subject to such Incapacities as in such Case or Cases are by the said recited Act provided enacted and established And that every King and Queen of this Realm who shall come to and succeed in the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the Coronation Oath administred to him her or them at their respective Coronations according to the Act of Parliament made in the First Year of the Reign of His Majesty and the said late Queen Mary intituled An Act for establishing the Coronation Oath and shall make subscribe and repeat the Declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to in the Manner and Form thereby prescribed

III.
Further Provisions for securing the Religion, Laws, and Liberties of these Realms.
And whereas it is requisite and necessary that some further Provision be made for securing our Religion Laws and Liberties from and after the Death of His Majesty and the Princess Ann of Denmark and in default of Issue of the Body of the said Princess and of His Majesty respectively Be it enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established

That in case the Crown and Imperiall Dignity of this Realm shall hereafter come to any Person not being a Native of this Kingdom of England this Nation be not obliged to ingage in any Warr for the Defence of any Dominions or Territories which do not belong to the Crown of England without the Consent of Parliament.

It's explicit that you can't be a catholic or marry one, and that you shall "joyn in Communion with the Church of England". I am not sure if the latter means that you are a member of the CoE only and of no other faith.

[Rodion Raskolnikov]

Last year the UK Government decided to change the law to allow the monarch to marry a Catholic, but it kept the rule that a Catholic could not become King or Queen because they would be the head of the church. I imagine that would also apply to Muslims, or any religion other than Protestant.

[bigglesworth]

The specific problem with Catholics was, I believe, that they were supposed to owe some sort of fealty to the Pope (For Catholic monarchs of Catholic countries this was all good and proper).

I'm not actually sure the requirements of being in communion in the CoE. I suspect that Islamic law has a lot more to say about being baptised as a Christian than the CoE does about being a Muslim.

[Ghostbear]

The specific problem with Catholics was, I believe, that they were supposed to owe some sort of fealty to the Pope (For Catholic monarchs of Catholic countries this was all good and proper).

I'm fairly certain that the reason for the specific outlawing of catholics is historical. Specifically, King James, the fact that France (and other English rivals. such as Spain) was Catholic. The Act of Settlement that Zamfir quoted was enacted at the end of the reign of James' successor. There was a lot of conflict between catholicism and protestism at the time, so I fully expect that to be the ultimate reason for it. It's my understanding that King James was really unpopular, and a lot of people at the time linked his catholicism to why they didn't like him.

[ahammel]

I, for one, welcome our new gay, black, Muslim overlords.

It would make the $20 bill a lot more interesting, for a start.

[Nylonathatep]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... rison?bn=1

We are going right back to humorous news guys! Wasn't it one Greek Philosopher/Playwrights that states that one person's tragedy is another person's comedy?

[bentheimmigrant]

The only remotely amusing part of that is the man's ability to function after 20 double vodkas.

[Dauric]

The only remotely amusing part of that is the man's ability to function after 20 double vodkas.

Well, that and the terribly cliche supervillain line he spouted about "Nobody Crosses Max!" when they cut off the bar tab.

[bentheimmigrant]

The only remotely amusing part of that is the man's ability to function after 20 double vodkas.

Well, that and the terribly cliche supervillain line he spouted about "Nobody Crosses Max!" when they cut off the bar tab.

Indeed, although that was funnier this morning on the radio, read by a guy with a BBC accent.

[addams]

We should totally get a male gay monarch who is also a cross-dresser. Then we can have 2 kings ánd a queen!

This is so funny. 2 Kings and a Queen. Very good.
That is a winning hand. Right?

[Plasma Man]

I'm now hoping for a homosexual Muslim heir to the throne to take UK to the European Court of Human Rights for being discriminated against because of their religion / sexuality.

[Diadem]

We should totally get a male gay monarch who is also a cross-dresser. Then we can have 2 kings ánd a queen!

This is so funny. 2 Kings and a Queen. Very good.
That is a winning hand. Right?

I think you need 3 kings and 2 queens for that. I don't see how to get there though without polygamy.

[Ghostbear]

I think you need 3 kings and 2 queens for that. I don't see how to get there though without polygamy.

Naw, you just need a really disputed succession. Instead of having them fight it out, they instead just make them all co-monarchs. They could alternate by days, or even vote on everything! It'd be fabulously illogical.

[AvatarIII]

We should totally get a male gay monarch who is also a cross-dresser. Then we can have 2 kings ánd a queen!

This is so funny. 2 Kings and a Queen. Very good.
That is a winning hand. Right?

I think you need 3 kings and 2 queens for that. I don't see how to get there though without polygamy.

well technically it would beat 2 of any card lower than a King, or 2 kings and a 3rd card lower than a queen.

but thinking about it, if there was a gay couple on the throne, the partner would be a princess or a prince, so it would be a King and prince consort, or Queen and princess consort.

[Diadem]

I think you need 3 kings and 2 queens for that. I don't see how to get there though without polygamy.

Naw, you just need a really disputed succession. Instead of having them fight it out, they instead just make them all co-monarchs. They could alternate by days, or even vote on everything! It'd be fabulously illogical.

Sounds good.

I've always wanted to be ruled by a triumvirate. It would probably be horribly inefficient, but I don't care, because it's just such an awesome word.

(And then to get the required 3 kings and 2 queens, we allow only 2 of the triumvirate to marry)

[Ghostbear]

Sounds good.

I've always wanted to be ruled by a triumvirate. It would probably be horribly inefficient, but I don't care, because it's just such an awesome word.

(And then to get the required 3 kings and 2 queens, we allow only 2 of the triumvirate to marry)

It is a nice word. The only one I know of is the Caesar/Pompey/Crassus one though.

And to get the 3 kings 2 queens bit, we could just have 2 of the kings marry the same woman. That way, everyone can still be married. They could even alternate with that too!

[addams]

I think you need 3 kings and 2 queens for that. I don't see how to get there though without polygamy.

Naw, you just need a really disputed succession. Instead of having them fight it out, they instead just make them all co-monarchs. They could alternate by days, or even vote on everything! It'd be fabulously illogical.

Sounds good.

I've always wanted to be ruled by a triumvirate. It would probably be horribly inefficient, but I don't care, because it's just such an awesome word.

(And then to get the required 3 kings and 2 queens, we allow only 2 of the triumvirate to marry)

O.K. That is not the strangest thing that I have learned at xkcd, but, it comes close.
How do you know that? Who would know that?
Poli Sci major? European Poli Sci Major? What?!

[Zamfir]

It is a nice word. The only one I know of is the Caesar/Pompey/Crassus one though.

The second triumvirate was Octavianus and Marcus Antonius, plus some mate of Antonius. This one really ruled the empire for a while after the death of Julius Caesar

[Ghostbear]

The second triumvirate was Octavianus and Marcus Antonius, plus some mate of Antonius. This one really ruled the empire for a while after the death of Julius Caesar

Yeah, I saw that one when I was making sure I got the names right for the first one, but I figured it'd be cheating to mention it as one I had known of. Doing a quick read through, it looks like the second one was actually official, while Caesar and friends just had a glorified gentleman's agreement.

I do love Roman history though, even if my knowledge is all amateur at best.

[Zamfir]

Ah, the weird logic of flounting your knowledge in world where you can just look it up. I could have looked up the name of the third guy (lepidus, I have found out now), but by not doing so I imply that I knew the relevant parts even without looking them up, thus showing the value of my classical education. Haha, I went to a posh school.

[Nylonathatep]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... ona-desert

[Qaanol]

Ah, the weird logic of flounting your knowledge in world where you can just look it up. I could have looked up the name of the third guy (lepidus, I have found out now), but by not doing so I imply that I knew the relevant parts even without looking them up, thus showing the value of my classical education. Haha, I went to a posh school.

the weird logic of flounting your knowledge.

flounting

Pictures or it never happened.

[Zamfir]

My apologies, in a next live I will try to be born as native speaker of your language.

[Darryl]

You have a point. By law we could have a Muslim monarch as well, but that hasn't happened (nor is likely to happen).

LOL, that's probably even more unlikely since Muslims are just as strict about who they marry as the royal family but a Black monarch for example is not out of the question at all, even if for the sake of image, the royal family would probably frown upon it, I'm talking about "these days" though, I see no reason why in a couple of generations the royal family will have softened to more modern ways of thinking, simply due to their circumstances they are historically rather insular, and in the modern era of media and always there information, I think this is certainly changing a lot with Will and Harry's generation, and to a certain extent Charles', and obviously even more so for the next future generation, when the "old school" begin to die off.

I'm pretty sure there's guaranteed to be a Black British monarch at some point. Otherwise, how else would Elizabeth X take the throne?

[Nylonathatep]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/23/bo ... heir-wives

Where can I get this book???

Spoiler:

I kid, I kid..