A royal first as Netherlands Prime minister confirms same sex marriage for the countrys monarch is acceptable

That's my people!

Is he telling us NOW so that he doesn't have to tell us THEN?

r2 Maybe!!

Fat doesn't automatically mean lesbian nowadays.

That woman looks SO DUTCH.

Great news. Anyone have any gossip on said Prime Minister? Is he gay?

They're like little houses, the two of them!

LITTLE HOUSES!

She's half-orange, half-Latina, r5.

I like how in the clip of William further down in the BBC article, he's asked how he'd feel if one of his kids was "LGBT" and he specifically used the word gay in his reply, not the bs gobbledygook.

J'adore the Netherlands !

Can she marry food though?

R7, marry me.

r6 He is a lifelong confirmed bachelor isnt he?

The queen (or king) in a same-sex marriage still needs to produce an heir. So what is the policy on pregnancy by surrogacy or adoption?

The heir will probably be a sibling, niece or nephew, r14. If none of them work out, there's a long line of succession.

Ex-Queen Beatrix often wore interesting hats. That's a more interesting subject.

What’s the opposite of “butterface”?

Cause she’s quite pretty - but also rather “jolly.”

Will this also be applied across the Channel?

I wonder if she likes those balls filled with smoothly puréed meat that the Dutch love so much.

They are always so baffled when people from other countries don't care for them.

R15. But what if the queen (or king) in a same-sex marriage have kids either through surrogacy or adoption? If same-sex marriages are sanctioned by the monarchy and the state, then are the children from marriages eligible to be in the line of succession?

The way you answered my question above, seemed to indicate that the children of a same-sex couple would be passed over in the line of succession by a sibling, niece or nephew. That's probably not right. If the same-sex marriage is legitimate, then their children from this marriage should be legitimately in line for succession to the throne.

[quote] If the same-sex marriage is legitimate, then their children from this marriage should be legitimately in line for succession to the throne.

Nope.

Succession to royal thrones absolutely has to be both blood-line as well as legitimacy, or the whole concept is worthless and the idea of monarchy would have to be thrown out. Adoption is only done through legitimacy, and not through bloodline.

She could adopt one of her sisters' crotchfruit and it would technically be valid.

That is what some houses did sometimes.

Yes, r20, I believe they would be passed over, as the law stands now. Something similar used to happen a lot in the past with the illegitimate children of royals, even if they were later legitimised. For a modern example, see Prince Albert of Monaco and his many spawn.

If she doesn't change her diet, she isn't going to live long enough to inherit the throne, so it will be a moot point. Christ, she must to the scales already around 14 stone. What is she, all of 16?!

Hope we do the same here in the UK.

The king looks very nice. Cute bear daddy. Nice to see a handsome Royal for a change.

If a child adopted by a same-sex royal couple is a disqualification to enter the line of succession, would a child born via surrogacy to a same-sex royal marriage qualify for the line of succession?

R26, i wouldn’t call him handsome, but sure

R27 It's only in the line of succession if it's legitimate. A legitimate child is the biological child of the monarch and their legal consort.

Holland would be nothing without the dikes.

She will state her borders.

The Crown Princess's sexuality isn't even known, but because she's husky and enjoys wood-working, people are out there making assumptions!

Do they have Home Depot?

Am I a bad person to want the Crown Princess to be a big, beautiful lesbian to test this new concept?

What would happen if she's a lesbian is that she will inherit the title of queen, and her lesbian consort would be given some sort of title. But even if they adopted a child, or had an in vitro child, it would not be legtimate in the old sense, so the title would have to pass to her eldest sister and her eldest sister's children.

If a gay monarch ever assumes a European throne, they will become King or Queen, and their spouse would become prince or princess consort. Nobody is equal to the sovereign.

[quote]I wonder if she likes those balls filled with smoothly puréed meat that the Dutch love so much

bitterballen!

I can't seem to get a simple answer to my questions. Every answer seems to dance around it. Does anyone know (Yes or No is sufficient with a simple reason why):

1. If it's a same-sex royal marriage, is a baby born from a surrogate in the line of succession?

2. If it's a same-sex royal marriage, is an adopted baby in the line of succession?

If the prime minister can tell a monarch what to do, than that monarchy ain't worth shit.

No to both, R38.

1. No

2. No.

And you had already had both those questions answered in the posts above, r38.

R39 - American?

Princess Pig

Denmark will be the next country to give the OK for a same sex married monarch.

Monarchies follow blood lines. If they have to go back a few centuries or reach into other monarchies to establish the correct bloodline, they will do it.

The bad part about having two gays as monarch is they'll both want to be queen instead of king.

Awful. Further confirmation that the corrupt, godless elites running western countries have lost the Mandate of Heaven. We all live in the Weimar Republic now and we will pay dearly for it much sooner than you think. Repent.

Why couldn't this be the gay royal?

And Sieg Heil to you too, r47.

Why is this little heifer so fat?

Indeed r47. If the Princess of Orange turns out to be a lesbian, that will be the downfall of western civilisation.

[quote] 1. If it's a same-sex royal marriage, is a baby born from a surrogate in the line of succession?

[quote] 1. No.

Why not? If the surrogate is approved by the royal family, what difference does it make? Whether it's an actual wife or a surrogate, the woman is just pushing out a baby to provide an heir.

(Of course, it's absurd that we still have royals in 2021.)

How much does she weigh?

R52 It's not the biological child of the monarch and their spouse, it's equivalent to an illegitimate child succeeding, which has always been very rare.

[quote] Why not? If the surrogate is approved by the royal family, what difference does it make?

It's been explained to you above. The baby has to be the product of what would be a legitimate marriage, which means it would have to be the biological child of both the monarch AND the monarch's legitimate spouse. That's how succession works. That's not possible in a lesbian couple. It would be the biological child of one of the two but not both--the other biological parent would not be the spouse's legitimate spouse. The whole idea of bloodline succession does not recognize advances in social justice.

At this point, you're just trolling since it's already been carefully explained to you. if you whine yet again "But WHY? WHY????" then you're just wasting everyone's time.

r55, I'm sorry, it still doesn't make sense. If the monarch's family has carefully selected the surrogate and she will be impregnated by the monarch's sperm, it's basically the same as selecting a wife to bear the monarch's children.

Seriously, I don't see this as an issue.

No one gives a shit about your inability to comprehend something simple and straightforward, r56.

Ok, explain to me how a wife selected for the purpose of bearing children is any different than a surrogate selected for purpose of bearing children.

R58, since you can't understand the difference between a mother, who is there forever, and a surrogate then there's no point trying to explain anything to you. Sorry your childhood was so fucked up.

Mothers come in all kinds r59. MANY come in the mean and cruel variety and are most certainly NOT there forever.

Just ignore the troll.

Plus sized woman

R26 I think King Philippe of the Belgians is more handsome.

.,.,

To those who are worried about the line of succession: the gay monarch would have to first marry someone, have an heir and spare, then divorce them and marry his/her true love. I'm sure some aristocratic gent or lady would be happy to produce children on this basis, in the full knowledge that this was the intention.

Even currently nobody gets to divorce and take the heir away with them, so custody would not be an issue, but s/he would have the cachet of Royal marriage (which a surrogate would not), regular access to the children and no doubt some excellent forever income, plus the sweetener of being an official parent of the King or Queen when the child ascends. Handy, really, given that the child has to lose at least one parent before getting to the throne, so having three is useful.

The only other option would be complex legal change.

Or you could save yourself all that bother and just let the line of succession pass to your sister after your death (or earlier: I serve at the King's pleasure).

Unbelievably ridiculous, r65.

No more Dutch pancakes for you, Missy.

Why doesn't the British royal family do this?

The Swedes are on board!

I was so relieved when we (UK) finally changed the law so that the first born can be the monarch. I think it was rushed through before Wills and Kate pushed out their first sprog. I'm pretty sure it would be okay here for a same-sex royal marriage too.

This in the news alongside Princess Amalia photo makes it look like she raised the issue and asked to marry a woman. Nothing wrong with that, but the press does create huge flashpoints in a fairly mundane context.

She's a very pretty young woman under the blubber. If she trimmed down eventually and married a hit glamour lesbian they'd be all over publications everywhere. Big gay influencers reaching even the smallest villages on the planet where there are zero gay rights