Skip to content

Ths stupid person’s idea of a clever one:

An openly gay king one day could raise “constitutional issues” but would not be impossible, Stephen Fry has claimed.

The broadcaster and author, who is friendly with the royal family, suggested that the concept could be a possibility in the future if the issue of producing an heir was dealt with.

Speaking on the Just For Variety podcast, he said: “I think it would raise constitutional issues in terms of the heir.

“That’s the only boring nonsense about kingship, is that you’re supposed to have an heir, or as the horrible phrase goes, an heir and a spare.”

The heir thing is not a proble,. We’ve lists and lists of who gets to be next if there’s not a direct heir. Sometimes we’ve even used it – William IV to Viccie for example. He had plenty of kids just none of them were legitimate. They all became Dukes etc, but nis niece (?) Vivvie, Queen.

We know how to do this. After all, being gay isn’t the only reason for an empty crib and an institution that’s been running a thousand years will have worked out how to deal with it…..

22 thoughts on “Fun, eh?”

  1. I was about to say “give your arse a chance….” but I suppose that orifice has a rather busy schedule.

  2. For an luvvie allegedly “friendly with the royal family” Fry remains surprisingly gong less.

    Possibly because, as the MCC incident showed, he’s a spiteful ungrateful gobby twat,

    (Yes, I did say all this yesterday)

  3. It’s not like England hasn’t had gay monarchs in the past. Or childless non-gay ones.

  4. BiG

    Yes but none of them were lauded for their open gayness to the exclusion of mere peripheral issues such as being likeable and dutiful individuals who also happened to be monarchs.

    That’s today’s big beef. Then once the first LG or B is on the throne he or she will be chastised for not being T, I or somewhere even deeper into the spectrum. Fry needs to start embracing his inner Tatchell before he becomes as much of a dinosaur as those he currently loves to snipe at.

  5. I’ve never been sure that Ed 2 was a gay boy. I think most of the claims against him were propaganda by Isabella and Mortimer.

    Also Ric 1 – there isn’t any real evidence there either.

  6. “I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too.”

  7. Also Ric 1 – there isn’t any real evidence there either.

    I think the stonewall types are using the time he shared a bed with the french dauphin as evidence of him liking a bit of hot botty action, and not at all a bit of propaganda aimed at the legacy media of the day saying how much they trust each other – even going so far as being asleep in the other’s presence.

  8. At this point, the monarchy is really little more than dressing up and doing some speeches, which feels like something that a gay would probably love more than a straight bloke.

    And I’m sure that to retain the illusion, they’ll just find a dim posh bird to go along with it. Artificial insemination and all that. Or just get the brother to take over.

    Somewhere in this line of succession there must have been lies told. Kings who couldn’t get it up, or who preferred men and their uncle did the job instead. Or queens that shagged some bloke on the side.

  9. “That’s the only boring nonsense about kingship, is that you’re supposed to have an heir, or as the horrible phrase goes, an heir and a spare.”

    Yarp, it distracts from the important business of kingship, which is about dressing up and throwing parties for your boyfriend.

    “And if you wanted to know what summed up the casual and hideous homophobia of Britain and probably most of Europe and America at that time, there was a member of the family, the Duke of Westminster, who was about to be arrested and he escaped to France.

    “And someone broke the news to the King because the Duke of Westminster was a friend of the King.

    “And they said, ‘Oh, have you heard that Lord What’s His Name has gone to France because of that [homosexuality]?’ And the King’s words were just to say very coldly, ‘I thought men like that shot themselves?’.

    “Isn’t that the coldest remark you’ve ever heard?


  10. Just a year ago there were people shrillily complinaing “why haven’t we had a black king yet?” Completely oblivious to genetics.

  11. “Also Ric 1 – there isn’t any real evidence there either.”

    And isn’t that the point? It simply doesn’t matter as much as the professional gayers would like to think it does.

  12. Person in Pictland

    “why haven’t we had a black king yet?”

    We’ll just have to make do with a dusky Caliph.

  13. Monarchy has good points and bad. Good – you don’t really get to choose. Bad. you don’t really get to choose. If they’re gay they’re gay and still nowt to do whether they get to be monarch. Ideally you’d have the monarch line up with the majority on a large range of things not because it’s strictly necessary. It just helps. Celebratory Gay Alawite vegans who spoke only Welsh would carry probably too much of a handicap to pass the job on to their heir.

  14. @Otto There’s enough circumstantial evidence that a fair number of monarchs all over Europe were more of the Boy Love, up to the point of Trannie Hour in the case of some.

    Thing is, of course, that back in the day those same monarchs were well aware of their duties to continue the Dynasty, and took that one seriously.
    Political marriage being what it was, they either bit the bullet themselves, or in some cases were …heavily encouraged… to do so. And for the rest ensured that their enjoyment lay in other places without inconveniencing the Queen too much.
    In some ways the more pragmatic courtiers viewed this as a Good Thing. After all, thanks to the monarch’s tendencies, there was far less chance of inconvenient Fitzroys along the line…

  15. Funny that. You’d think there would have been more who Fitz-Roy.

    I’ll get me coat….

  16. Grikath, I have no doubt about it.
    As he got older James 1 became quite the old queen, but he did his duty by Anne of Denmark. William 3 possibly too, but he did truly love Mary 2 and she suffered that Stuart curse of miscarrying.
    Fred the Great was a bit of a woofter too when younger. So it goes on…

  17. @Steve

    it wasn’t the then Duke of Westminster who had to escape to France, but his brother-in-law (he called him “my bugger-in-law”) Lord Beauchamp.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *