I want to write a story about a gay prince and him marrying his male partner. But I wonder what the princes partners title will be when they marry, will he be a prince or duke? and will he be the prince or duke of the same place as his husband, for example the Dukes of Newcastle? If anyone know what he will be known as let me know and if you don't then think of some titles like a royal consort or something
Well, clearly there is no precedent, so I don't think there can be an answer that is "real". Even here in America where we have yet to ever have a female president, if we were to have such, the title her husband would go by is still a matter of speculation. I would assume that the male partner of a prince could be the prince consort. I do not think the peerage system of the U.K. would allow for the partner of a prince to also be a duke by dint of having married a duke (or a prince by dint of having married a prince) since this would create a new male peer (or a royal since we are speaking about princes) capable of hereditarily passing his peerage to offspring, should there be any. That's a sticky wicket, indeed.
Historically, one can only be a King or Queen by being born of royal blood (Unless you take the crown by force of arms, then it is considered "Divine Right" because surely one could not take the crown unless God wills it). Princes and Princesses are such because they are born of royal blood. They also tend to marry each other from other royal families. For a royal to marry a commoner, it is customary for the monarch to bestow a few titles upon the bride/groom so that they will at least be part of the aristocratic nobility and no longer a commoner. Titles such as "Knight of the Garter" is a common one, and it wouldn't be unheard of to bestow the title of Duke or Duchess upon the socially aspiring. Basically, you are writing a work of fantasy fiction here, as it is the royal duty of princes and princesses to bare royal offspring to continue the royal lineage. Gay royals would marry of the opposite sex for this purpose and have their same sex lovers on the side.
Traditionally, this cannot happen. It would be like all the royals in history that marry for political reasons but have lovers on the side. OTOH, if you are writing a modern story, you get to create the tale of two princes any way you want to. I would use prince and prince, but the page is your canvas.
I get where you're coming from ...but it's interesting to note that he is the only one of the Queen's offspring who has never been divorced. Whatever he's doing, he appears to be comfortable with it.
Since royalty is surrounded by aristocracy, his lover would likely already be an Earl or a Duke or whatever. He can keep his title, unless your society permissive of gay marriage, in which case they can be two princes or even a King and a Queen (won't be the first time a gay guy was referred to as the 'queen') Since heirs must be produced, you need to sort that bit out somehow.
Yeah, as @jazzabel says, it's the heirs issue that's the key problem here. I suppose artificial insemination is one possible answer, if an aristocratic 'partner' is willing, and well-paid?
I think this is an important point here that should no be overlooked. Regardless of how progressive or permissive the given society is that you are creating, there is nothing more important to a royal than heirs. Think about all the stories - based on truth or simple fiction - that rotate around the production of an heir, or lack thereof.
Agreed! Which means, I hazard, that if it's true all parties went in with eyes open, cards on the table, so to speak. If it's not true, you can hardly blame us for trying to include him in the group. The House of Windsor isn't exactly known for aging well, but you have to admit, the young Prince Edward was a head turner.
One of my characters is a bisexual prince, and I had never really thought about what would happen if he married his lover (which actually doesn't happen because his lover is killed in a horrible war, but still). I think I would agree with prince consort. Also, note to something above, it's actually pretty not okay to call a gay man a 'queen'.
Oh ,no, really? That's what I call them all! Is that why none of them like me? *being sarcastic up there* I don't really call them that. I like sarcasm, heh. I call them by their names. I don't have a lot of gay friends though, only one and he lives in Australia. Yay, pointless talk!
Ahem, is this normal in this society? If its not! Then talk about the struggle, base the struggle for this character to conform to societies wants and needs and you got an excellent story right there. Talk about the sexual distraught/discourse caused by this mere thought two men marring each other. Many people would become extremely uncomfortable about this idea. In todays society this still seen with a bit of concern, or just a phase sorta of ideal. This is something I recommend and this would define the character, it would give your character depth and much heavier hand in story telling. But eh, I ain't a pro writer so I might be completely wrong! If so! Eh do what ever you want. Flip a coin! Do what ever makes it interesting!
Freddy Mercury didn't seem to mind... but... Oh. I guess the circumstances were somewhat different. *sarcasm*
Your historical precedent for a homosexual reigning monarch would be Edward II of England, and that affair did not have a pretty end. But it's interesting that the common folk practically made a saint and martyr out of him. He was a murdered king, after all.
Interesting indeed. Was it perhaps out of a gestalt sense of protection of the position and paradigm of sovereign, their own need for the exalted placement to be what they culturally needed it to be and remain, that The People did this, do you think? I don't pretend to have an answer, but it's an interesting question, no doubt.
Possibly. It's also possible that The People didn't know all the gory details. This raises a question for @MatthewOliverGrey, the OP. Is this a world with instant communications, as now? If Edward II were reigning today, everybody would know everything about Piers Gaveston and his other "favorites" and I doubt his subjects would have taken him any more seriously than people do when they talk about Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky.
