Ship of Fools: Pray for Prince George to be Gay?

Thread: Pray for Prince George to be Gay? Board: Dead Horses / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000719

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

The provost of St. Mary's (Episcopal) Cathedral in Glasgow has suggested, as one way of working for for LGBT+ equality in the Church of England down South, that people pray for "the Lord to bless Prince George with a love, when he grows up, of a fine young gentleman."

A lot to unpack here. Prince George is 4. There is a lot science does not understand about precisely what causes sexual orientation, but it does have a consensus that, if it is not determined at birth, it is by pretty early in someone's life, so Prince George probably is whatever he is by now, although he may not know what that is yet.

Also, it does not help, in my opinion, the movement to stop conversion therapy or attempts to "pray the gay away" is not helped by any encouragement to pray that anyone be any sexual orientation.

Even if someone has already come out as bi, it seems misguided to pray that s/he fall in love with one particular gender, even if that person is so influential that that love could change policy in the Church or government.

Finally, Edward VIII's love for a divorcee did not bring about an immediate end to the C of E's policy on remarriage after divorce. I don't think the Church much appreciates being told what to do on human sexuality by its Supreme Governor or Supreme Governor-to-be. Popular support for a gay Sovereign or Heir might sway people voting in General Synod, but allowing same-sex marriage in the C of E (which very well should happen one day, in my opinion, although I am not English) could very well destroy the Anglican Communion as we know it, so there probably will be more than the happiness of the Royal Family on the voter's minds.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

My reflex opinion is that the provost should have edited his sermon more carefully. In the classic American terminology, he should put a rubber band around his head and snap out of it.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

It's a blog post from January, not a sermon.

We could have an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin type discussion about whether prayer has to precede temporally the causes of something for that prayer to have an effect but that's beside the point. Not least because praying that Prince George fall for a man allows for a wide range of sexual identities, not just being gay.

The suggestion was the last of a list of 9 ways in which the CofE could be induced to clean up its act and it was clearly intended tongue-in-cheek. I do suspect that Fr Kelvin is right that public pressure would lead to a change in the CofE's position if a senior royal did want to marry someone of the same sex.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The suggestion was the last of a list of 9 ways in which the CofE could be induced to clean up its act and it was clearly intended tongue-in-cheek. I do suspect that Fr Kelvin is right that public pressure would lead to a change in the CofE's position if a senior royal did want to marry someone of the same sex.

Anyone who knows anything about the internet knows that anyone as public as a cathedral provost is going to have their posts torn apart and taken out of context - and even in context and tongue-in-cheek, it is still a request to pray that someone be queer in some way, which I think hurts the cause of progressive Christianity (and LGBT rights in general) more than it helps it.

More generally, is it appropriate, even if in a tongue-in-cheek way, to pray that the heir fall in love with a Catholic in order to promote Ecumenism? Or that Prince George's eldest child be female? Or that he fall in love with someone non-white or someone who is a migrant? Or that he fall in love with someone trans or that the prince/ss be trans themself?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I can't see the harm, to be honest. In the midst of all the fluff and nonsense about Royal weddings and what not, if it can be harnessed to the cause of justice then at least something worthwhile has been salvaged.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

(Usual cross-Pond caveat.)

What a bizarre idea.

George will be who he is, whoever that is. It's not for anyone else to tell him, or push him one way or another, or publicly use him as a poster-boy for their own ideas.

And he's four years old!

Someone will tell him about this, someday. Probably as bullying. Won't that be fun for him.
[Mad]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Ugh. Just no. Praying for people to be gay is no better than praying for them to be straight.

Nor is at all appropriate to see a young child as a tool for reform rather than as a person in their own right. Seriously, even if you're in favour of the church taking certain positions, how is "God, please achieve this by tinkering with an individual person's love life" an appropriate strategy?

[ 01. December 2017, 22:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

This gay man thinks that orfeo says it perfectly. 👌

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

More generally, is it appropriate, even if in a tongue-in-cheek way, to pray that the heir fall in love with a Catholic in order to promote Ecumenism? Or that Prince George's eldest child be female? Or that he fall in love with someone non-white or someone who is a migrant? Or that he fall in love with someone trans or that the prince/ss be trans themself?

Wow. You have really over-thought this through...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I don't think that's over-thinking it at all. I think it's pointing out the deep dangers involved in the kind of thinking that was on display.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
(Usual cross-Pond caveat.)

What a bizarre idea.

George will be who he is, whoever that is. It's not for anyone else to tell him, or push him one way or another, or publicly use him as a poster-boy for their own ideas.

And he's four years old!

Someone will tell him about this, someday. Probably as bullying. Won't that be fun for him.

This. Totally.
George is a real person with a real life to be lived. Give it a rest, Kevin Holdsworth. [Disappointed]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

That's not a prayer. That's the sort of manipulating God crap that deserves condemnation in the strongest terms as it makes Christianity look like little children play. Grow up stupid provost. God doesn't care a whiff about your wishes nor mine, only about your soul and whether you'd like some comfort.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think that's over-thinking it at all. I think it's pointing out the deep dangers involved in the kind of thinking that was on display.

This, though one might as easily say the deep dangers involved in the lack of thinking on display.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think that's over-thinking it at all. I think it's pointing out the deep dangers involved in the kind of thinking that was on display.

The royal heir is soooo much less important to most of us than is implied in this thread.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

DK--

But he's a real person. A child. And THAT'S what's important. He's growing up in a fish bowl, through no choice of his own.

Speculating on his (future) sexuality is wildly and deeply inappropriate--especially in public, and to advance an agenda.

Whatever George is/will be is his own business, and possibly that of his parents.

The creep who made the comment needs to shut the hell up, and work on his own soul.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think that's over-thinking it at all. I think it's pointing out the deep dangers involved in the kind of thinking that was on display.
The royal heir is soooo much less important to most of us than is implied in this thread.

My reaction to this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's the royal heir. Though clearly the provost thinks that the royal heir is fair game.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Has the whole world gone mad and adopted the mentality of a Daily Heil editorial?

This is just ridiculous. It was a satirical aside on the knots that the Church of England would tie itself in as a result of conflict between its twin reflexes of fawning deference to royalty and homophobia.

The author is outside the Church of England, gently launching small rocks into its pond. He is not on any kind of level beyond the purely superficial speculating on anything to do with an individual member of the royal family. Grow up, and read.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It was a satirical aside

I think it's been fairly well established in recent times that someone claiming they were trying to be funny is not a great defence when other people don't find their "quip" remotely funny.

And I just don't. It is not funny to joke about sexuality in this way. It is certainly not funny to anyone who has actually had their sexuality prayed about. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if some people I know have continued to pray about my sexuality long after I stopped "struggling" with it and declared that I'm gay because I'm supposed to be.

And to do it in reference to such a young child is especially tasteless.

So no, kindly don't tell me to lighten up. It's not appropriate.

[ 02. December 2017, 10:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It was a satirical aside
I think it's been fairly well established in recent times that someone claiming they were trying to be funny is not a great defence when other people don't find their "quip" remotely funny.

And I just don't. It is not funny to joke about sexuality in this way. It is certainly not funny to anyone who has actually had their sexuality prayed about. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if some people I know have continued to pray about my sexuality long after I stopped "struggling" with it and declared that I'm gay because I'm supposed to be.

And to do it in reference to such a young child is especially tasteless.

So no, kindly don't tell me to lighten up. It's not appropriate.

When the word "appropriate" is used in this context, it's a sign that any kind of debate is impossible. Utterances are not devoid of context, illocutory force, register, irony, etc. in the real world, but clearly in the mind of some they are.

ETA: In any case, as you would see if you actually read what I said, the point I am making is that the subject of the original blog is not Prince George's sexuality it's the extent to which the Church of England is at the mercy of its strongest twin atavistic reflexes. His name needed to be used to make the point because only someone in his position would cause the crisis being posited.

[ 02. December 2017, 11:27: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I know the subject of the original blog post is not Prince George's sexuality. Why does that matter? In my view it's not any more appropriate as a wink and a nod at the end of the post than it would be as the headline.

If you're going to accuse me of not reading what you wrote, maybe you could start by reading what I wrote. I know it was a quip, a satirical aside. I quoted your description of it as a satirical aside PRECISELY for that reason. It's still not okay with me.

[ 02. December 2017, 11:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I mean, you're basically trying to suggest that I don't understand that it was all about solving the Church's LGBT issues. But we've all been completely clear that was the context from the beginning.

My very first contribution was to say it was not appropriate to suggest using an individual as a tool for reform in that way. Okay? So I got it. I got it from the beginning. The fact that you think that makes it all okay does not mean I have to therefore find it okay.

And again, if you're going to suggest that other people haven't read what you've written, you need to do a far better job of showing that you've done the reading yourself. I don't think you have.

[ 02. December 2017, 11:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Fair enough. I suppose I just don't understand why anyone thinks that an individual human being has even been really invoked in this discussion. His name is being used as a rhetorical device: has this become impossible? If so, we are in a mess, because the phrase "the personal has become political" surely reverses and becomes shorn of its political power; the political becomes entirely personal, and nothing personal can ever reach the political arena. This is a serious situation if it's true. How do you see that working?

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Apologies for the double post, but I'm not sure that prayer, as in the opening of one's heart to God carrying a particular matter, has really been invoked either. Again, it's being used to make a slightly grotesque rhetorical point: no serious person would pray in the way you described and as the blog seems to; it's more a call to action in ways in which a serious person actually would take it, precisely because inactivity leaves one (as a gay member of the C of E, of which I am one) in the absurd position of relying on a crisis such as the Provost describes in order to precipitate change.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
His name is being used as a rhetorical device: has this become impossible?

Is this a rhetorical question?

When was it ever possible, exactly? What kind of wishes for the fate of an individual do you think ought to be fair game?

Let me ask you again to read. Because a some points have already been made that you seem to be ignoring in your grand generalisation of suggesting it's a problem if we can't rhetorically toy with the personal life of a little boy, because that means rhetoric is entirely dead.

First of all, the particular topic is part of the issue here. Something as deeply personal as someone's sexuality is not fair game in my book. Regardless of who that person is.

Secondly, we are talking about an innocent child. If you seriously don't see any distinction between that and, say, a politician or other figure who has themselves directly engaged in whatever topic you're making rhetorical points about, then I don't think you're thinking hard enough.

But I would still ask you in general to explain at what point it was ever necessary in rhetoric to move into this kind of personal territory.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
no serious person would pray in the way you described

Sorry, are you telling me that you don't believe anyone ever prays to change a person's sexuality?

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
no serious person would pray in the way you described
Sorry, are you telling me that you don't believe anyone ever prays to change a person's sexuality?

No I'm not, because I've been the object of that sort of prayer myself.

What am I saying? I'll reply at far greater length shortly.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Right, so I promised I would say what I meant at greater length. Here goes. I’m sorry if it is excessively long, but I can’t see an alternative.
First, I do regret the force with which my conversation with Orfeo has happened. I am also puzzled by it, because I’m pretty sure than we’re actually on the same side in the core debate, i.e. in believing that homosexuality and homosexual relationships are entirely compatible with Christian faith. I do need to apologise for one mistake I made earlier: when I said “serious people” I meant “people seriously interested in changing the Church of England’s position on human sexuality in the direction of my own position” – the shorthand was unhelpful.

Since my previous longish post, it has occurred to me that the sort of prayer being invoked is rather similar to conversion therapy, which is something I absolutely abominate. I can see why this would be triggering for anyone who has ever been subjected to it. I haven’t exactly, though as I say, when I was coming out and at my most vulnerable, I was surrounded by earnest CU types praying for my conversion to the joys of heterosexuality. It didn’t work, and I’m glad it didn’t. Again, if I thought that this was seriously what the author was aiming at I would be every bit as offended as people have been. The point is to prod those within the Church of England who believe that its position should change to engage practically in changing its position. Each and every point in the blog itself is a jab from a self-conscious outsider, and intentionally provocative. To that extent, my reaction looks excessive, though as an instinctual outsider who despairs of the capacity of the institution to develop the resolve sufficient to change, and is directly hurt by its current position, I am sympathetic with the author.

I do think that serious thought has to be given to one thing which thus far has received no attention at all. Prince George is not a private individual whose name has been thrust into the spotlight on a whim. He’s a member of the royal family, and as the child of the heir to the throne, has had, and will continue to have for as long as our culture remains the same, every aspect of his young life subjected to obsessive speculation and excessive interest and scrutiny. This particular instance is, at worst, a small and probably insignificant contribution to this tide of prurient and unwelcome interest. This tide will continue, whatever one may think of it, and with or without this particular intervention.

As such, I see this particular point as, if anything, a speculation on the evolution of two institutions: the royal family and the Church of England. In that context , it is worth remembering that members of the royal family have acted as proxies for all sorts of feelings, prejudices and causes for as long as there has been any kind of media, and will continue to be used in this way. The personal is already political, and will continue to be, when it comes to the Royal Family, because of the institutional connections between royalty, church and government. As such, I find myself mostly baffled by the eagerness of people with whom I otherwise agree to do the dirty work of someone like Gavin Ashenden, whose cause of stiffening the resolve of the Church of England to move from its present position of frozen agony in the direction of entrenched bigotry is being served by the dissection of this particular intervention. This is the cause of my anger, such as it is.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Wow. You think that objecting to this is doing the dirty work of people who don’t want the church to change?

No. What it is is saying that the ends don’t justify all means.

I don’t like my sports teams to win through unfair play, either.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Would it make a difference had he not used Prince George by name, but said "some future sovereign/heir to the throne" or something like that?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Putting aside Prince George, praying for a gay royal will not do much for gay rights in the Church. The Royal Family does not lead societal changes, it follows them.

When Edward VIII attempted to marry Wallis Simpson, that did not lead to a change in the CofE's divorce laws in favor of more liberalization. No, it ended up with Edward abdicating the throne.

And with the brou-ha-ha over Harry and Meghan Markle, interracial marriage has been a reality in some households for many, many years now.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
And with the brou-ha-ha over Harry and Meghan Markle, interracial marriage has been a reality in some households for many, many years now.

This thread is absolutely lost. Let's pray that Prince George will be black how be?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I stand charged as the OP, but on a lighter note, I should add that I spent years praying (alas, in vain) that Prince Harry was gay, but for entirely different reasons. [Snigger]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I would not pray for any child to have a particular sexual orientation - too close to praying for a change in their existing orientation. for my liking.

As to praying that he be transgender. Surely gender dysphoria is hard enough for anyone not to wish that on him - then you have all the matters of public attention to which Stonespring's last post refers.

Otherwise, largely what Orfeo says.

Posted by John3000 (# 18786) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Would it make a difference had he not used Prince George by name, but said "some future sovereign/heir to the throne" or something like that?

Yes it would have made a big difference. I think that's exactly what he should have done.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John3000:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Would it make a difference had he not used Prince George by name, but said "some future sovereign/heir to the throne" or something like that?
Yes it would have made a big difference. I think that's exactly what he should have done.

It is exactly the same thing with the same attendant problems. Suggests that sexuality is changeable by prayer and that changing attitudes requires a miracle instead of simply adopting common sense.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is exactly the same thing with the same attendant problems. Suggests that sexuality is changeable by prayer and that changing attitudes requires a miracle instead of simply adopting common sense.

This strikes me as a little naïve. The homophobes are not going to adopt common sense on this issue because (a) they don't see it as common sense, and (b) they think their principles are more important than mere common sense. The antihomophobes can use all the common sense they want, but it won't change the minds of the others. What often breaks through the shell of fear and hate is having a family member or close friend come out. I can see someone thinking that if only one of the royals came out, it might change some hearts and minds.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is exactly the same thing with the same attendant problems. Suggests that sexuality is changeable by prayer and that changing attitudes requires a miracle instead of simply adopting common sense.

If you can turn water into wine and dead people into living people, turning straight people into gay people or vice versa shouldn't pose too many technical challenges [Biased]

OTOH, getting people to exhibit common sense really would be miraculous.

Also, what mousethief said.

[ 03. December 2017, 22:22: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Ok. let's pray that God will turn Kelvin straight then

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John3000:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Would it make a difference had he not used Prince George by name, but said "some future sovereign/heir to the throne" or something like that?
Yes it would have made a big difference. I think that's exactly what he should have done.

Yup.

BTW, welcome to the Ship, John3000. [Smile]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Ok. let's pray that God will turn Kelvin straight then

Have you read the thread? All of it? Nobody has suggested that praying to turn a person gay is a good idea.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Ok. let's pray that God will turn Kelvin straight then
Have you read the thread? All of it? Nobody has suggested that praying to turn a person gay is a good idea.

Thanks - I know. My attempt at playfulness didn't work - sorry everyone

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

The Provost has made a follow-up statement on his blog.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
The Provost has made a follow-up statement on his blog.

Hmm. He says that he wrote it nearly 2 years ago.

But wasn't it he that re-blogged it very recently? Complaining about how it got all this attention despite being so old is a tad disingenuous if that's the case, which I'm fairly sure it was when I read the blog earlier.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
The Provost has made a follow-up statement on his blog.
Hmm. He says that he wrote it nearly 2 years ago.

But wasn't it he that re-blogged it very recently? Complaining about how it got all this attention despite being so old is a tad disingenuous if that's the case, which I'm fairly sure it was when I read the blog earlier.

That's true. Methinks he protesteth to much - bearing in mind it was him that brought the boy into the frame in the first place. It may have originally been two years ago but he reran it recently.

Kelvin does rather pick and chose his responses to criticism doesn't he? Going silent (as opposed to talking to the press which he admits he rather likes), seems to be his response to when he's deep in the do-do (as with the Islamic stuff in the Cathedral).

he's really not coming across very well is he?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

He comes across a heck of a lot better than the people attacking him. And I wouldn't want to be talking to the press when they're in full attack mode and I'm the target. The point about it being two years old is that it didn't arouse any great furore at the time, or when it was reblogged in January so why should it now when he mentions it in a passing tweet? Seems to me that the outrage machine was looking for a royal-themed target and the tweet caught its attention. And the usual con-evo suspects who hate Fr Kelvin for being both gay and an excellent priest of a growing and diverse congregation leapt on it like cats on a mouse.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I suppose this clergyman hopes that if Prince George turns out to be gay and proud the CofE will be obliged to conduct the eventual princely SSM. Of course, this assumes that the CofE will have the same ceremonial role in 2040-ish as it has now.

But IMO the real problem will arise if this gay Prince George wants to have children. Would it really be acceptable to have an heir to the throne born from an anonymous egg donor plus womb? Even if the (very posh) mother were known and welcomed, she couldn't be the children's legal parent, because that would make them illegitimate, and so ineligible to rule.

An interesting situation. Perhaps the Danish or Dutch royal families could pull it off. (I also have the Ottoman Sultanate in mind, but that's hardly relevant.) But the British RF? It'd have to become loads more monegasque. Regardless, I think it'd be one more step on the road to becoming a republic. (Whether that's good or bad is another matter.)

[ 09. December 2017, 14:21: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I stand charged as the OP, but on a lighter note, I should add that I spent years praying (alas, in vain) that Prince Harry was gay, but for entirely different reasons.

Stonespring's confessor can best deal with his singular prayer life, but I wonder if I cause mischief by asking around my contacts what would happen if Canada (or Oz, as is now the case) would advise consent under the Royal Marriages Act for such a union, while the UK could not. I suppose a King could have a Prince Consort for Canada and Australia, but only a bit on the side at Balmoral. Given that Piers Gaveston, believed to be the partner of Edward II, was made Earl of Cornwall, and the informal-spouse-for-some-years Camilla is now known as the Duchess of Cornwall, perhaps the spouse could be made Duke of Cornwall, Ontario, so as not to confuse peerage lawyers.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

Is there something about Cornwall which I should know? Should I be changing my vacation plans? Penzance, here I come?

[ 09. December 2017, 17:42: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I stand charged as the OP, but on a lighter note, I should add that I spent years praying (alas, in vain) that Prince Harry was gay, but for entirely different reasons.
Stonespring's confessor can best deal with his singular prayer life, but I wonder if I cause mischief by asking around my contacts what would happen if Canada (or Oz, as is now the case) would advise consent under the Royal Marriages Act for such a union, while the UK could not. I suppose a King could have a Prince Consort for Canada and Australia, but only a bit on the side at Balmoral. Given that Piers Gaveston, believed to be the partner of Edward II, was made Earl of Cornwall, and the informal-spouse-for-some-years Camilla is now known as the Duchess of Cornwall, perhaps the spouse could be made Duke of Cornwall, Ontario, so as not to confuse peerage lawyers.

Getting advised consent from the UK would probably be easier than getting it from Jamaica, Belize, and some other of the Commonwealth Realms that retain the monarchy.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

All else being equal, some Commmonwealth countries would probably choose to become republics. Jamaica is seriously considering doing so anyway.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
All else being equal, some Commmonwealth countries would probably choose to become republics. Jamaica is seriously considering doing so anyway.

And has been since the first term in office of Michael Manley (1972-1980)..... it has been 40 years since his 1977 announcement proposing the republic. Every prime minister since then has supported a republican constitution. When trying to set appointments in Jamaica I recall hearing the phrase "soon come."

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Yeah. When it comes to modern values like punctuality and SSM Jamaicans don't always get with the programme....

So much could change between now and Prince George's majority. The strong Protestant religiosity of the Anglophone Caribbean could enter significant decline. Also, the British monarchy, the CofE and the Commonwealth could themselves be in serious decline and even obsolescent by this point.

Public attitudes towards these institutions are unlikely to improve, IMO, and I don't think Prince George being a gay man who has a SSM would greatly change the direction of things. Indeed, perhaps it would work the other way round; all this decline might make such a marriage contemplable.

[ 12. December 2017, 12:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Punctuality and republics are not modern, but products of the enlightenment, so while I would blame Jamaican culture for much (have you seen the state of driving??), these are not issues where I would ascribe blame to them for not being on the programme of our age. Having once owned rights to a property there which provided me with brief winter periods of sun and jerk chicken for 15 years, I have a passing acquaintance with the island. The widespread homophobia which exists (with slurs and jokes reminiscent of Canada in the 1960s) may or may not be deeply entrenched--my Jamaican friends differ on this.

The survival of the Elizabethan monarchy there and in other places is due to many things, but primarily from distaste of the alternatives. When and if Prince George gets to be of inheriting age sometime in half a century, he may have well decided to let the throne go to Charlotte, or have become a reclusive confirmed bachelor out of spite for the press and discussion boards.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Rather than 'modern' I was going to say 'Western', but one could object to that as well. In any case, Jamaica's been a deeply creolised culture for centuries, so one could argue that it's been post-modern for longer than many places in Europe.

I have relatives in Jamaica, and have visited many times. I don't know about homophobia there in terms of personal attitudes, but was referring to the country's laws.

As for the royal family, I think it would be very embarrassing for them if towards the end of the century a gay Prince George chose to leave the line of succession. Doing so would be an implicit condemnation of homophobia in the Commonwealth, which would be resented in those countries, but it would also reveal the royal family to be a deeply frightened, retiring institution, which would be unattractive to many British people.

I doubt that homophobia in the Western media would be an issue. Not after 50-odd years of SSM. There'd be a vocal minority of conservative religious people, but by that point I think they'd have lost any residual attachment to the royal family anyway. Social problems, racial diversity and a reduced standard of living in Britain are all going make the wealthy royals and their personal problems less and less significant.

[ 12. December 2017, 15:24: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Rather than 'modern' I was going to say 'Western', but one could object to that as well. In any case, Jamaica's been a deeply creolised culture for centuries, so one could argue that it's been post-modern for longer than many places in Europe.

I have relatives in Jamaica, and have visited many times. I don't know about homophobia there in terms of personal attitudes, but was referring to the country's laws.

Perhaps it is po-mo!

I had was not sure where the laws were, but do recall being struck by the almost-viciously-anti-gay humour, which Jamaican audiences quite enjoyed, leaving the Canadians and US folk silent. Over several years, I heard a number of jokes and slurs-- some of my younger friends made it clear that they disassociated themselves from these sentiments, but others appeared supportive.

Who knows where the Windsors will be then? They may have decamped to Australia by then, preferring to rule from Canberra than from Buckingham Palace!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0