Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree11Likes
  • 3 Post By MohandasKGanja
  • 1 Post By witchcurlgirl
  • 3 Post By McJag
  • 4 Post By Mel1973

Thread: Men banned from becoming Queen as 700 years of law redrafted ahead of gay marriage

  1. #1
    Elite Member azoria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    far and away
    Posts
    3,787

    Default Men banned from becoming Queen as 700 years of law redrafted ahead of gay marriage

    Words such as “widow” removed from statutes while medieval treason laws and even rules on royal titles amended ahead of gay marriage

    10:30PM GMT 21 Feb 2014


    Men are to be banned from becoming Queen or Princess of Wales as part of an unprecedented effort to rewrite more than 700 years of law to prevent unintended consequences of gay marriage.


    Even a 14th Century act declaring it high treason to have an affair with the monarch’s husband or wife is included in the sweeping redrafting exercise.



    Civil servants have drawn up a list of scores of statutes and regulations dating back as far 1285 to be amended or specifically excluded when the Government’s Same-Sex Marriage Act comes into force next month.



    Under proposals to be debated by MPs and Peers as early as next week, terms such as “widow” will be deleted or reworded in legislation covering topics as diverse as seamen’s pensions and London cab licences to take account of the new definition of marriage.



    References to mothers, fathers, husbands and wives are also to be amended to avoid future confusion.


    Legal experts said it was a necessary “tidying up” exercise, but the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigned against same-sex marriage, said it showed the change had left the law in a “complete mess” and accused the Government of trying to “sneak” the changes through while political attention was on the floods.

    Colin Hart, its director, said it was a “systematic drive to airbrush” words like husband, wife and widow from the law.


    A draft order to be debated next week sets out amendments to 36 Acts dating back to 1859; special exclusions from the effects of the Same-Sex Marriage Act for a further 67 other pieces of legislation dating back 729 years and changes to dozens of pension regulations which have legal force.


    It also clarifies centuries-old Common Law customs determining how aristocratic and even royal titles are awarded to avert future constitutional crises.


    The order makes clear that a clause in the Act giving gay and heterosexual marriage the same legal effect does not apply to the rights of anyone “who marries, or who is married to, the King Regnant, to the title of Queen”.


    It also makes clear that were a future Prince of Wales to marry a man his husband could not be called Princess of Wales.


    More immediately, the order rules out the possibility of Dukes, Earls and other male peers who marry other men making their husbands Duchess, Countess or Lady.


    Meanwhile dozens of other laws are to be excluded from the remit of the Act.

    They include the Second Statute of Westminster from 1285, which deals with inheritance matters, and even the Treason Act of 1351.

    It makes it high treason to “violate the King’s companion” – meaning the husband or wife of the monarch – or that of the heir.


    A Government spokeswoman explained that it would still be considered high treason to have sex with a king’s wife – but not his husband.


    Julian Lipson, head of the family law practice at Withers LLP, explained that because titles such as Queen consort were conferred through marriage, by custom rather than law, the issue had not arisen when civil partnership was introduced a decade ago.


    But now that marriage itself is being redefined, the clarification had to be made, he added.

    “The route the Government has chosen seems to be to admit that the equalness of same-sex marriage has its limits,” he said.

    “They presumably don’t want to end up with the situation of, for example, there being two duchesses or a man with the title of duchess.


    “It seems that they are getting it all tidied up before these changes take effect to avoid uncertainties.

    “While there is nobody who is currently likely to be affected by this clarification of the titles of Queen and Princess of Wales in real terms, if the question arises in 100 years time, the uncertainty will have been addressed as the ship will have sailed.


    “It would be odd if the Government had undertaken a comprehensive tidying-up exercise in other respects of legislation needing to be adapted and to have forgotten to have addressed this, notwithstanding whether everyone will agree with the manner in which it has been addressed.”


    Colin Hart, campaign director for the Coalition for Marriage commented: “We repeatedly warned that the Government's plans were ill thought out, complicated and would have a damaging effect on those who support traditional marriage.


    “Those warnings were dismissed, yet just a few months later we have Ministers engaged in an unprecedented and systematic drive to airbrush out of law words like husband, wife and widow in order to make the legislation work.


    “Worse still the Government has tried to sneak these changes out, when most of the country is worried about the plight of those families and areas affected by flooding.


    “It is clear the Government is in a complete mess, which could have been prevented had they engaged in an open and meaningful debate, instead of ramming this through Parliament.


    “These changes cover legislation going back nearly 800 years, affecting legislation covering inheritance, taxation, social security and children.


    “Surely the Government should have tried to get this right before approving the bill?

    “This is yet another attack on those who opposed the redefinition of marriage, or believe that equality is not just about destroying the institutions that have helped to bind us together for centuries for the sake of political correctness.”

    Separate guidelines last year made clear that some other pieces of legislation would be read in such a way as to allow the term “wife” to apply to men and “husband” to women.





    Men banned from becoming Queen as 700 years of law redrafted ahead of gay marriage - Telegraph

  2. #2
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    25,723

    Default

    I don't like where this is going. Now, we are never going to have a replacement for Freddie Mercury.
    darksithbunny, Sialia and BITTER like this.

  3. #3
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    Gay royals will have to do what they've always done. Marry for form and appoint their lover to a position that keeps them close.

    It will be business as usual for the royals, as long as they don't get another Queen Isabella and Edward II
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  4. #4
    Elite Member Brookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the "D"
    Posts
    22,106

    Default

    Um, wut??
    Life is short. Break the Rules. Forgive Quickly. Kiss Slowly. Love Truly.
    Laugh Uncontrollably. And never regret ANYTHING that makes you smile.

    - Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    Wife got pissed that her gay husband treated her so badly for so many years, raised an army, overthrew gay hubs and had him executed via a hot poker in his rectum.
    Novice likes this.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  6. #6
    Elite Member McJag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    42,527

    Default

    Now Witchcurl! It might have been years of leaving the toilet seat up. He had it coming.
    I didn't start out to collect diamonds, but somehow they just kept piling up.-Mae West

  7. #7
    Silver Member ZabriskiePoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    within myself
    Posts
    418

    Default

    I read that as "Mel banned from becoming queen"... And I thought "too bad, she's already got the tiaras"!
    ex-LaFolie
    "I hear Chris Hemsworth's Oscar nominee announcements were dubbed by Marni Nixon" - Witchcurlgirl

  8. #8
    Elite Member Brookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the "D"
    Posts
    22,106

    Default

    I'm glad that the law is clear now. Damn.
    Life is short. Break the Rules. Forgive Quickly. Kiss Slowly. Love Truly.
    Laugh Uncontrollably. And never regret ANYTHING that makes you smile.

    - Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Elite Member WhateverLolaWants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    13,660

    Default

    Edward II wasn't a very good king, either. I think those willing to join her cause were more interested in the mess he made of the Scotland debacle rather than his sexuality, though from what I read they did to one of his boyfriends, they couldn't have been fond of the idea.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Despenser_the_Younger
    ----------------------------
    There will be times you might leap before you look
    There'll be times you'll like the cover and that's precisely why you'll love the book
    Do it anyway

  10. #10
    Elite Member Mel1973's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cuntopia
    Posts
    42,972

    Default

    well, unless women can/could become "King", I'm not seeing the big damn deal.
    Kill him.
    Kill her.
    Kill It.
    Kill everything... that IS the solution!
    П(•_•)П
    twitchy molests my signature!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Queen Elizabeth Rips Chris Christie on Gay Marriage
    By dksnj in forum Politics and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2013, 04:40 AM
  2. Queen Elizabeth II: 60 years of style
    By Laurent in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2012, 09:23 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 20th, 2012, 02:14 PM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last Post: August 8th, 2009, 02:25 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 25th, 2008, 12:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •