WI: Transgender Royalty

[Uhura's Mazda]

Inspired by the thread on Hitler's monorchidism. What would happen if a member of a royal family came out as transgender? The only example I can think of was Elagabalus.

Let's say, for instance, that Princess Margaret of the UK became a Female-to-Male transsexual due to a different personality or something - I don't want to get into a discussion on the mechanics of this sort of thing, so we'll just take it as read that Margaret is born differently. Now, in an ideal world, King Mark (probably Edward IX, actually) would succeed in 1952 and everything would be fine and dandy. Alternatively, equal primogeniture could be introduced substantially earlier than OTL, but I don't think the British public were in the mood for that in the 30s and 40s.

But because the people who believe in monarchy tend to be right wing small-c conservatives, and would therefore generally be less amenable to LGBT rights - see Norman Tebbit's scaremongering about a lesbian queen having a child by artificial insemination last year - then could there be a Carlist-style movement to get Elizabeth on the throne because "Mark was always a chick"? How about any other knock-on effects? Like greater acceptance of transgender people pre-Stonewall

If I have offended anyone, then I am very sorry. My intention was never to denigrate anybody's beliefs or experiences.

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

Inspired by the thread on Hitler's monorchidism. What would happen if a member of a royal family came out as transgender? The only example I can think of was Elagabalus.

Let's say, for instance, that Princess Margaret of the UK became a Female-to-Male transsexual due to a different personality or something - I don't want to get into a discussion on the mechanics of this sort of thing, so we'll just take it as read that Margaret is born differently. Now, in an ideal world, King Mark (probably Edward IX, actually) would succeed in 1952 and everything would be fine and dandy. Alternatively, equal primogeniture could be introduced substantially earlier than OTL, but I don't think the British public were in the mood for that in the 30s and 40s.

But because the people who believe in monarchy tend to be right wing small-c conservatives, and would therefore generally be less amenable to LGBT rights - see Norman Tebbit's scaremongering about a lesbian queen having a child by artificial insemination last year - then could there be a Carlist-style movement to get Elizabeth on the throne because "Mark was always a chick"? How about any other knock-on effects? Like greater acceptance of transgender people pre-Stonewall

If I have offended anyone, then I am very sorry. My intention was never to denigrate anybody's beliefs or experiences.

This is beyond ASB.

The idea that a transgender Princess Margaret would assume the throne in 1952 in place of her elder sister is insanity. Frankly given general attitudes to sexuality at the time she would have been committed to an asylum by her family before it could have progressed as far as for her to undergo any treatment, we are talking about the 1950s for crying out loud!

 

[CaliBoy1990]

Inspired by the thread on Hitler's monorchidism. What would happen if a member of a royal family came out as transgender? The only example I can think of was Elagabalus.

Let's say, for instance, that Princess Margaret of the UK became a Female-to-Male transsexual due to a different personality or something - I don't want to get into a discussion on the mechanics of this sort of thing, so we'll just take it as read that Margaret is born differently. Now, in an ideal world, King Mark (probably Edward IX, actually) would succeed in 1952 and everything would be fine and dandy. Alternatively, equal primogeniture could be introduced substantially earlier than OTL, but I don't think the British public were in the mood for that in the 30s and 40s.

But because the people who believe in monarchy tend to be right wing small-c conservatives, and would therefore generally be less amenable to LGBT rights - see Norman Tebbit's scaremongering about a lesbian queen having a child by artificial insemination last year - then could there be a Carlist-style movement to get Elizabeth on the throne because "Mark was always a chick"? How about any other knock-on effects? Like greater acceptance of transgender people pre-Stonewall

If I have offended anyone, then I am very sorry. My intention was never to denigrate anybody's beliefs or experiences.

Sadly, not likely, not with a substantial POD, and possibly a good bit before 1900, even.

Maybe if this had been in the 1980s or '90s, on the other hand.....

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

A woman declaring she's a man is not going to bump her up in the Line of Succession. In fact, it's more likely to get her/him removed from it.

If this happens in the last decade or so, then the most likely response is to write gender-neutral succession laws than to let the exPrincess advance.

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

Sadly, not likely, not with a substantial POD, and possibly a good bit before 1900, even.

Maybe if this had been in the 1980s or '90s, on the other hand.....

You have an optimistic view of what Britain was like in the 80s and 90s.

Your best candidate would be someone removed far enough from the succession so as to stand virtually no chance of becoming monarch but someone high profile enough to draw attention to transgender issues.

Throughout the late 80s and 90s there was much media speculation that Prince Edward was gay. Much of this speculation was based on widespread latent homophobia i.e. he had an interest in theatre, quit the military etc.

By the late 80s he had no real significance from a dynastic point of view, his elder brothers had produced 4 heirs.

Had he announced that he wished to transition to become a woman it would have inevitably caused shock and ridicule in many quarters at the time but fast forward to the current time and it would probably be widely considered an extremely brave step.

 

[Daniwani]

Speaking from experience, I don't know if I'd even feel at all optimistic about this even nowadays, even in the liberal democracy monarchies. It would certainly be a huge moral dilemma for the monarchy, and really the whole country itself. There are so many 'If we do this then *blanks*' that arise from this situation. Lets not even get into how horrible the international reactions to all this going on. If it did have to happen, I'd possibly be pushed to restore some of my faith in the world and such.

In the 1950s however? I have a feeling it might be repressed into a state secret.

 

[Drunkrobot]

If there is any decency in tnis country, any member of the Royal Family (at least, any single member) coming out as LGBT today would be overall accepted by us, the people. Almost all of them are decent, dutiful people, considering the scrutiny they live under, and would be good symbols of functioning, rounded people that just happen to not conform to the sexual norm. The Royalty is a part of our history, our tradition (we are called the United Kingdom for a reason), and if I was willing to throw them aside because one of them had the moral courage to accept who they were, even when many would hate them for it, then throw me into the sea, because I have no right to live here.

Plus, it would twist the arm of anybody who thinks that singing sweet nothings about the Royals gives them an excuse to treat people different to them like animals. Them trying to rationalise their precious worldview would be a magnificent sight.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

Yeah, I suppose Princess Margaret was a bad example. IT seems inevitable that she would face the same fate as Prince John - locked up at Sandringham from childhood.

So if it happened in the last couple of decades - Prince William, or Philippe of Belgium, or Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden or someone - then we'd presumably see equal primogeniture (unquestionably in the latter two cases, although I suspect the Catholics in Belgium wouldn't be over-pleased) and an increase in popularity for the monarchy in more modern circles - BTW, I'm not a monarchist.

Plus, it would twist the arm of anybody who thinks that singing sweet nothings about the Royals gives them an excuse to treat people different to them like animals. Them trying to rationalise their precious worldview would be a magnificent sight.

^This. So much this.

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

Yeah, I suppose Princess Margaret was a bad example. IT seems inevitable that she would face the same fate as Prince John - locked up at Sandringham from childhood.

So if it happened in the last couple of decades - Prince William, or Philippe of Belgium, or Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden or someone - then we'd presumably see equal primogeniture (unquestionably in the latter two cases, although I suspect the Catholics in Belgium wouldn't be over-pleased) and an increase in popularity for the monarchy in more modern circles - BTW, I'm not a monarchist.



^This. So much this.

While I appreciate you are not a monarchist, your trying to view these issues through your own perception of monarchy, which appear to be muddled and not well thought out.

Laws of succession to European thrones are not decided by whim but determined by the respective parliaments of the sovereign nations.

Those parliament's need to consider a multitude of issues. Its not as simple as you like to think it is.

Looking at the UK for example, the British Monarch is also monarch of the Commonwealth realms.

Any changes to the succession would need to be approved by the parliament's of all those realms. The current Succession to the Crown Act to establish equal primogeniture still hasn't passed through all of the Commonwealth realms!

Queen Elizabeth II may be Queen of socially liberal countries like the UK and Canada but she is also Queen of countries like Jamaica, a country where homophobia is widespread. Its unlikely that the Jamaican parliament would consent to a gay or trans monarch. So you have a constitutional crisis.

The British monarch is also Head of Commonwealth. Many Commonwealth nations actually legislate against homosexuals. Its unlikely that a British monarch, who is gay or trans would be acceptable as a potential Head of the Commonwealth to many commonwealth countries and therefore you would have a serious schism in the relationship between the monarchy and commonwealth

The British monarch is head of the church and the church would need to agree to a gay or trans head of the church. If they refuse then you have a constitutional crisis.

I think a gay monarch would be acceptable to most Western European countries now, there would obviously be some critics. There would be an issue with the British monarchy, the Church, Commonwealth realms and the Commonwealth generally and I am not sure how that would work out. Much would depend on the British government in power and how far they were prepared to support the individual monarch against critics. The issue is who is more important, the monarch or the monarchy. A radical constitutional overhaul of the monarchy cutting its ties to the church, Commonwealth realms and the Commonwealth to enable a gay or trans monarch may be the consequence and some government's might take the view it is better to change the monarch than the fundamentals of the monarchy.

I think a trans person who is heir apparent to a throne would be "encouraged"
to renounce their rights, maybe in 20 to 30 years time it would be possibly but I don't think it could happen now.

Interestingly the Jacobite claimant to the UK thrones, Duke Franz of Bavaria is gay.