Prince William: It’s ‘absolutely fine by me’ if one of my kids is LGBTQ

At the tailend of Pride Month, Prince William participated in an LGBTQ event. He visited the Albert Kennedy Trust on Wednesday for an event which focused on LGBTQ youth homelessness, which is still a huge issue in the UK, in America and around the world. Because in 2019, parents are still kicking their kids out of the house for being gay. William spoke to some of the LGBTQ youths and he ended up getting personal – he was asked what his reaction would be if one of his children was gay.

Prince William says it would be “absolutely fine by me” if any of his three children come out as gay. The royal, who celebrated his 37th birthday last week, visited the Albert Kennedy Trust on Wednesday to learn about the issue of LGBTQ youth homelessness and what the organization is doing to alleviate the problem. During his chat with young people being supported by the charity, William was asked how he would react if Prince George, 5, Princess Charlotte, 4, or Prince Louis, 1, came to him one day to say they are gay.

“Do you know what, I’ve been giving that some thought recently because a couple of other parents said that to me as well,” William said. “I think, you really don’t start thinking about that until you are a parent, and I think — obviously absolutely fine by me.”

The prince went on to say that he and wife Kate Middleton had talked about the possibility and how they’d give their children the best support they could, especially considering their role in the public eye.

“The one thing I’d be worried about is how they, particularly the roles my children fill, is how that is going to be interpreted and seen,” he said. “So Catherine and I have been doing a lot of talking about it to make sure they were prepared. I think communication is so important with everything, in order to help understand it you’ve got to talk a lot about stuff and make sure how to support each other and how to go through the process. It worries me not because of them being gay, it worries me as to how everyone else will react and perceive it and then the pressure is then on them.”

[From People]

It’s a good answer, both general and specific. William’s most immediate concern would not be “what will people think if my child is gay,” his immediate thought is “how would my child handle the public life of a royal while being out and authentic to who he or she is?” It’s specific to William and how he sees his role and how he sees his children’s future roles, but also empathetic about wanting his children and everybody’s children to be their authentic selves.

One thing I’ve always wondered is, say, one prince is gay and he comes out and it becomes this teachable moment and the Church of England is like “well the prince can marry his boyfriend in the church, it’s fine,” then what? The whole purpose of royalty is to self-perpetuate, to create heirs. Would the Windsors and the Church of England be able to shift and adjust and then allow a gay heir to the throne welcome another heir through surrogacy? Would that surrogate-born heir be in the line of succession? I’m not trying to create some kind of homophobic conundrum, I would really like to know how those Windsors would adjust if one of the direct heirs is gay AND wants to become a parent.

The British Royal Family attends Trooping the Colour Ceremony

Photos courtesy of WENN and Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

122 Responses to “Prince William: It’s ‘absolutely fine by me’ if one of my kids is LGBTQ”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. anna says:

    It was great thing to hear from a member of royal family. I was kinda moved

    • cannibell says:

      There’s a lot to side-eye about Prince William, but he nailed this one.

    • Zee says:

      What else was he supposed to say? I don’t believe he is homophobic but if he was he wouldn’t admit to it in public. It’s the same with actors who keep talking about how much they love strong women. Nobody would admit that they want a silent doormat that turns a blind eye to their cheating. It’s all just soundbites based on whatever is currently deemed woke.

      • Kebbie says:

        He could’ve easily said “I’ll love my children no matter what” and left it at that. He gave a compassionate and thoughtful answer. He went well beyond what he could’ve gotten away with if he didn’t want to rock the boat and upset old homophobic people. As the person above said, there’s a lot to complain about when it comes to Prince William, but this isn’t one of them.

    • Bettyrose says:

      It was a thoughtful and meaningful response. Kudos to Will for that. Does also raise some interesting questions about primogeniture and heridity based aristocracy in general. I realize the aristocracy invented don’t ask don’t tell, but those days are fast disappearing.

  2. Arizona says:

    this was very touching. I understood exactly what he meant, and it’s pretty impressive for the future king of England to come out and say this.

    • elimaeby says:

      I agree. I generally am not a big fan of Wills, but this was an excellent answer. I’m happy to see things headed in this direction, especially given the clusterf**k we have going on with LGBTQ+ rights here in the states.

      • ItReallyIsYou,NotMe says:

        I was coming here to say exactly the same thing about Wills and his answer. He needs to be authentic in his answers like this more often.

      • LahdidahBaby says:

        Yep, I agree 100%, Arizona and elimaeby.

    • minx says:

      Yes. No shade from me.

  3. Moses says:

    Such a great response, and I think he really means it.

    Don’t titles pass to “heirs of the body, lawfully begotten”? So that would need to be changed to allow a child of adoption or surrogacy to inherit.

    • IlsaLund says:

      So if there is no “heir of the body” and the law isn’t changed, then wouldn’t the crown move sideways or to the next in line to the throne?

      • Moses says:

        Yes, you would think. No telling how the BRF will deal with that if and when the time comes though.

      • Blue Orange says:

        I suspect it would be more to do with keeping the DNA within the crown, so I can’t imagine an adopted child being king or queen. I might be wrong but I think it would fall to the closest blood relative. if not, it is hundreds of years of royal blood removed from the crown in a single generation.

    • dsgd says:

      surrogacy is illegal in the UK, and i don’t see that changing anytime soon

      • Tina says:

        Surrogacy is not illegal in the UK, it’s just that if you make a surrogacy agreement it cannot be enforced by the law.

    • Eliza says:

      I seem to remember a recent trial where a baby born of surrogate could not inherit a title or income. Because England is behind on the “born of the body” laws. Hopefully the laws change to keep up with scientific progress and social change

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        But if the child is conceived using the sperm or egg of the Royal, isn’t that “of the body”? I mean, Will’s sperm is what mattered, not so much Kate’s egg(s). Or is it having to be in married bodies? Seriously asking.

      • Justme says:

        I’m thinking that as it currently stands it would have to be in married bodies. I mean Will could spread his sperm around freely and have lots of children by other women (plenty of kings did that throughout history!) – but only those children who were born of his marriage with his wife and of her body could inherit. At least that is how it is now. Who knows what the next few years will bring – all this is really very new after all.

      • Bettyrose says:

        The implications are so far reaching. Nothing about all this newfangled science really upholds the concepts of superiority by blood lines.

    • FC says:

      It’s a nice public sentiment from Wills, but there’s zero chance that if George is gay he’ll be allowed to come out. Historically, it’s somehow more acceptable for monarchs to have affairs than it is to be gay. Just like his father and grandfather, he’ll be taught to keep his “marriage” and side-life separate. That said, the spares will maybe be allowed to live openly, but with all the hoopla about a half-black princess I doubt the Brits are there yet.

      • Bettyrose says:


        All good points, but George is literally decades away from being King. Honestly, he still has 30 years before intense pressure to produce an heir, and even then he’s likely to be decades away from the throne.

      • Aenflex says:

        Agree. It’s unfortunate, certainly. But yes, I think that’s exactly what would happen.

    • Wilma says:

      If George turns out to be gay I think the law will be changed. Just like there was supposed to be a change in the law if William had a daughter first. George will be king (if there’s a monarchy by then) in sixty years?

  4. Evil Owl says:

    Not surprising at all. Wills has always been an outspoken ally, being the first British royal to appear on the cover of a prominent LGBTQ magazine in 2016.

  5. Alexandria says:

    I like his answer. It would be an interesting scenario for the church if the gay heir wanted to have a child. I believe they will only attempt to start to resolve it if they encounter it, instead of proactively.

  6. IlsaLund says:

    William gave an excellent response…he nailed it.

  7. Mego says:


  8. Eyfalia says:

    They will handle this as they always handled it in the past. The gay person will marry a woman/man, produce children and live their gay life not seen by the public. So this was all smoke and mirrors.

    • Ponytail says:

      And if they do a really good job in choosing their wife, she will become a close friend of the Queen, and actually improve his own status…

      Or are we not talking about specific Royals?!

      • Eyfalia says:

        Not really. The final say if a heir is gay have the courtiers. They will decide what is best for the monarchy.

      • Lorelei says:

        The courtiers have the final say? Who are these courtiers and how on earth would their opinions trump whatever the monarch wants? Not being snarky, I’m genuinely asking. At the end of the day they are just employees.

      • Eyfalia says:

        The monarchy stands over the individual. The firm remember the grey man Diana referred to are the courtiers and they decide. I think LAK explained it here very well a while back.

      • ShazBot says:

        haha Ponytail, I see what you did there

      • Prairiegirl says:

        Ha, Ponytail, I could not love this comment more.

      • himmiefan says:

        There have been rumors about a son of the Queen, but I guess that’s his and his wife’s business.

  9. Canadian says:

    He should’ve said he’s fine with his kid being gay and left it at that. If any of his kids are lgbtq and read one day how’ he’s worried about how others will perceive the child, he’s just added a layer to their fear of coming out and internalized homophobia. My mom did this to me, “okay if you’re a lesbian but I worry about your life being hard…” Thankfully, I was finally brave enough to come out as a lesbian 20 years later, and to care less what people think. There’s a good article on Jezebel about William’s mixed response.

    • Patty says:

      I disagree. He gave an honest response to what he would do. It’s his answer, not yours not mine. Sorry that a comment by your mother made it difficult for you but that’s not on William. We have got to stop expecting people to be perfect and criticize them when they fall short of our own lofty expectations. There was nothing wrong with his response, and I believe him and I’m not surprised that there would be an extra layer of concern considering who his kids are. This over policing of everything that people say leads to people either providing bs answers to appease the masses or they just stop answering questions.

      • Sam Louise says:

        Couldn’t have said it better myself, Patty.

      • tempest prognosticator says:

        Hear, hear!

      • Wilma says:

        And there have been attacks on gay people (he referenced this in his full answer) that made him worry. He also ended his answer with “That’s for all of us to try and help correct, to put that in the past and not come back to that sort of stuff.”

    • Moses says:

      No, he shouldn’t have just “left it at that.” He was asked a question and he answered in the way he saw fit. And he’s right—he has to worry about public perception and commentary, and worry how that will affect his kid(s). He has to worry about it anyway with the kids just living their lives, but could you imagine how intense it would be if one were to come out?

    • JoJo says:

      I disagree.Honesty is the best policy.Omiting the fact that you have fears that your child will face homophobia or racism or xenophobia or whatever type of hatred, is not being honest.

    • LadyT says:

      It’s ok that you’re gay, but I worry it’ll be hard sometimes. That’s probably what I’d feel and say as a mother and I don’t see how it’s offensive.

    • Shannon says:

      His response seemed just very honest to me. That would be my sole concern if one of my sons came out as LGBTQ, the homophobia they’d encounter. No mother wants to see their child go through unnecessary pain.

    • perplexed says:

      The tabloids will come at his kids. His answer made sense when you consider the amount of judgement he and the rest of the royals have to deal with. They’re not private citizens and the dating lives of his children would be heavily scrutinized.

      If his first-born has to give up what he’s been trained to do because society might not consider his life suitable for being King or if there’s a possibility that a constitutional crisis is triggered because of reasons x, y and z, that would certainly be more pressure than the average person has to deal with.

      • Milkweed says:

        I agree with you, Canadian. That’s the response my dad gave when my sister came out and it was not as supportive as just I love you and support you. My mom didn’t qualify her support.

    • liz says:

      As the parent of a queer teenager, there is a delicate balancing act.

      I want my child to be themselves, unapologetically. Using the name they chose, the pronouns they chose and providing the clothes that make them comfortable. Reminding them as often as possible of how much their father and I love them. Participating in the local Pride March with them (we marched with a group from their high school).

      Then there is the parent’s overwhelming desire for your child to be safe, always. It’s the “can I just wrap them up in cotton and never let them get hurt” feeling. It’s why I cringe when a hockey puck is shot at my child’s head – as much as they love the game and the position, I simply do not want them to get hurt. Walking out into the world as an openly queer person can be unsafe, which causes an enormous amounts of stress and worry for me, as a parent.

      Loving a child is complicated. You want your child to be comfortable with who they are. You also want your child to come home to you safely at the end of every day.

      • Milkweed says:

        “I love you but I’m scared for you” is not as supportive as “I love you.” It puts guilt on the child that the way they are causes you to have more fear.

      • LadyT says:

        I don’t think guilting a supportive mom for having feelings based in reality is cool either. Child has feelings, mom has feelings. Be respectful of both.

    • ytmer says:

      He was speaking to LGBT people who had experienced homophobia themselves. He was probably trying to say he understood that coming out isn’t always sunshine and rainbows.

    • Mego says:

      I felt the same way Canadian and wished he hadn’t added the whole concerned parent spiel. Hopefully he won’t say this to one of his children if they come out.

  10. Jessica says:

    Naw. Meghan gets shit for a reporter lying about wanting to raise her child gender neutral but William is praised for this. Wow. No talk of him embarrassing The Queen and bringing down the monarchy I guess.

    • bored at work says:


    • Evil Owl says:

      @Jessica I don’t get the logic of this comment but couldn’t help attempting a response anyway. Loving your children and letting them be who they are doesn’t bring down the monarchy. For William or for Meghan. He gave a normal human response to a sensitive question. It doesn’t give him any extra points in my opinion. It also doesn’t take points away from Meghan just because he said something decent, so cool your jets.

      • MrsBanjo says:

        Jessica’s point, which is valid, is that William is being praised for being an ally, yet rumours of Meghan being gender neutral with her baby sent the media into a tizzy. Meghan (and Harry but it was mostly directed at Meghan) was given hell by the media for simply supporting Pride on Instagram. They kept saying she’s too political and is breaking protocol. Now, here’s William talking about being fine if his kids are gay and everyone is cheering.

        It’s awesome what William said. It was a great answer. But he’s being praised for something that just this month his SIL and brother got demonised for. It’s blatant media hypocrisy and shouldn’t be ignored.

      • perplexed says:

        William was asked the question directly. I don’t know how he could have avoided answering it, whichever way he chose to answer the question. If he had gone with an answer that was palatable to religious people or avoided answering the question altogether, he’d be viewed as a prejudiced Future King. I don’t know how he could have said he wouldn’t answer the question at all.

      • MrsBanjo says:

        Again. The problem isn’t what William said. It’s that he’s getting praised for supporting something the Sussexes were raked over the coals for. The blatant hypocrisy by the media and rabid Cambridge fans is the problem.

      • Salvation says:

        This is how I understood@Jessica post. She never said William shouldn’t have answered the question. Nor did she say his answer was wrong or should have been phrased differently. She is pointing to the double standards and hypocrisy of not only the British media but also to some posters on here when it comes to the Sussexes and the Cambridges. The British media and some posters on here roasted Meghan and claimed how her involvement with Harry was the downfall of the monarchy when some reporter made up a story about her intending to raise her child as gender neutral. The abuse and backlash was so bad that Kensington palace issued a statement refuting any claims that the Sussexes would raise their child as gender neutral. Many poster on here who are praising William response now were the very people that bashed Meghan the most and stated how disgusting Meghan was for even thinking of that gender fluid etc. Last month when the Sussexes posted support for LGBTQ+ on their insta, they were accused of being too celebrity and political etc. Yet when William responds to a question about LGBTQ+ the very British media and CBers that bashed Meghan are the very same that are showering praises on William, and that this is hypocrisy and double standards on the British media and some posters’ parts. William is getting praise for found exactly what Meghan was pretty much raked over the coals for doing.

      • Royalwatcher says:

        Thank you MrsBanjo and Salvation!! This is what I was trying to say in my post below and feel like I was being willfully misunderstood 🤷🏽‍♀️

    • skiff says:

      Comparing William’s comments to Meghan’s fake gender neutral child rearing is a false equivalent. Aside from only one is true, the reasons gender neutral child raising is seen negative by some is it’s seems a fad with a catchy label. It’s not a new idea. Before the woke culture, there were tomboys, boys who played with dolls, girls who played with guns, and boys who painted their nails all breaking gender stereotypes. Sure some kids did it on their own, but peer pressure makes it hard, and most had supportive parents who said you be you no matter what that is. (Thanks Mom & Dad by the way) These parents blew away the gender stereotypes for their children without announcing it to a world who generally didn’t and still don’t care how you raise your kid, unless you raise them to be an a-hole. William was asked this and he answered it well, and because he will most likely be King one day it does hold a punch and it was a good thing to change society’s thinking.

      As part of the I don’t give a crap generation, gen-Xers, I really don’t get Millennials and younger obsession with labels. They enjoy snap chatting, tweeting, texting, swiping more than any other form of communication. They’ve shortened all communications where new acronyms abound, yet they must label everything. I find labels limiting. I really don’t give a crap what you call me or where you place me.

  11. Tina says:

    Here is an interesting article on the legalities (with respect to aristocratic titles) from the Cambridge Law Journal:

    It would really only be relevant for George, as children of Charlotte and Louis will likely be too far down the line of succession for this to be of more than academic interest. If George were gay, I would imagine that Parliament would legislate such that his children (however procured) could inherit.

    • Nic919 says:

      There are enough descendants that if George was gay the crown would go to Charlotte without any problem as it has passed from sibling to sibling in recent history. If Charlotte was gay she could have an heir “of the body” in a way that a male heir could not.

      • Maria says:

        So, if George was gay, the Crown would go to Charlotte. Shouldn’t any child of George be heir, it would still be George’s child. Why deprive him of the Crown just because he is gay?

      • Mignionette says:

        But that would be unfair for George. The whole point is one of equal rights regardless of sexual orientation.

      • liz says:

        No. George would still get the crown. If he has no children (for any reason), the crown goes to Charlotte & then to her children. If she had no kids, then it would go to Louis.

        The question is really “What if a gay George has kids via surrogate?”

      • Tina says:

        That’s my point. As it stands now, the throne would go to Charlotte and her descendants. But if, hypothetically, George and a male husband had children via surrogate (and they were biologically George’s) I’m sure that parliament would change the law such that George’s child would inherit. I’d be less certain about that if the child was adopted or if his partner was the biological father.

      • Nic919 says:

        I meant the Crown would go to Charlotte after George passed if he had no “heirs of the body” which he could not have if he was gay (and even in a same sex marriage). The law would have to change.

      • Nic919 says:

        Tina I think a surrogate would pose an issue because female DNA would need to be provided and that woman would have no connection to the Crown. Why not just let Charlotte inherit, as what happened in the past when a monarch didn’t have legitimate heirs? There are so many descendants to the UK throne that there really isn’t a need to include more people.

      • Tina says:

        @nic but one-half of the DNA always has no biological connection to the Crown. For example, Kate has no “royal blood”. For me it’s a balance between the rights of LGBT people (even LGBT monarchs) and the bonkers nature of a hereditary monarchy.

    • ytmer says:

      The problem is that whoever provided the egg wouldn’t be married to William and so the child would be illegitimate.

    • Prairiegirl says:

      This is an absolutely fascinating article. Thanks for posting it, Tina!

      • Tina says:

        No problem! Sometimes my links get through, sometimes they don’t, but I figured it was worth the risk.

    • skiff says:

      Interesting I thought that was the case, but it won’t become an issue at least until George comes close to the thrown, and even then maybe not. Which at the rate these people live could be forever. Maybe since William feels strongly enough about this to speak up in some detail, he’ll either get his father or he will change it when he becomes King. I mean it would be nice to change it during pride month or something. I just don’t see it happening anytime soon.

  12. Stacy Dresden says:

    Color me impressed

  13. Cidy says:

    Kudos to William for being transparent about this, he shared not only his thoughts but his fears of his children being in the public eye and out. It was a moment of vulnerability and honesty, good on him.

  14. Flying fish says:

    What else was he going to say!
    Nice to hear him not sounding like a pompous ass.

  15. Canadian says:

    Let the straightsplaining begin…

  16. Royalwatcher says:

    I appreciate his comments, and really, what else could he say?! I sincerely hope he means it!! But I have two quibbles. Didn’t he also say he’d be fine with “whatever they decide” which makes it sound like he believes being gay is a decision rather than just how you are born.

    Also, more evidence of double standards for the Cambridges and Sussexes. The Sussexes highlight LGBTQ+ on their IG and lose followers* and get slammed for “being political,” but William talks about Brexit and…crickets. And now he makes these comments and again, not a word about him “being political” like we got with the Sussexes highlighting pride month. (To be clear, IMO LGBTQ rights are human rights and not/shouldn’t be a “political” issue, my point is the difference in coverage and treatment.)

    *I mean, who cares about the homophobic followers, I’m just saying their support for the LGBTQ community has been treated differently.

    Regarding the issue of inheritance if e.g. George is gay, I think the throne would just move to Charlotte and her descendants. At least with the way the laws are currently written. I’d be curious to see if they’d change the laws if that happens (or if they just change them to keep up with more modern acceptance of same sex marriage).

    • Gingerbread says:

      You’re comparing the Sussex losing homophobic followers on IG to a gossip site with LBGTQ & Ally followers. I’m sure the homophobic fans of the Cambridge’s are mad about what Will said, still doesn’t cancel out his support.

      • Royalwatcher says:

        No. I’m just wondering whether we’ll see the same crazies who were so vocal about hating the Sussexes for their LGBTQ support also be as vocal hating on William. I doubt it since, as this post said, he had previously shown support for the LGBTQ community. I’m not talking about people on this site. But maybe I’m not understanding your comment.

      • OSLO says:

        You’re comparing the Sussex losing homophobic followers on IG to a gossip site with LBGTQ & Ally followers. I’m sure the homophobic fans of the Cambridge’s are mad about what Will said, still doesn’t cancel out his support.
        Thank you Gingerbred

    • Enn says:

      I read both this post and the People article and didn’t see him say “whatever they decide” – did I miss it?

      • Royalwatcher says:

        It might have been in the video. I’d have to go back and look for it. Will post a link if I can find it again.

    • duchess of hazard says:

      Prince William gave an interview to a gay magazine back in 2016, iirc. It was called Attitude, I think?

    • perplexed says:

      I don’t think he said that. I think he simply said it would be “obviously absolutely fine by me.”

  17. TheOriginalMia says:

    Good answer. As for surrogacy and succession, that’s an interesting question. If the child has royal blood, would it matter how he/she got here? I know in Luxembourg there are concerns because the HGD Stephanie hasn’t conceived a child. They are Catholic. They cannot receive help to conceive or use a surrogate.

    • A says:

      @TheOriginalMia, I’m sure they technically could use help to conceive, but they definitely couldn’t use a surrogate. I think that would fall outside of the category of what counts as a legitimate heir. Getting IVF or some other fertility aid like that would be fine if they could keep it quiet, but 1) Luxembourg is a notoriously small country so word would travel fast, and 2) their grand ducal court is conservative in some really archaic ways, even today, so I would not be surprised if there was opposition to IVF on religious grounds. IIIRC, Stephanie’s husband has a younger brother who can inherit, but he married a commoner, and again, given the conservatism of those circles, wouldn’t be surprised if people turn up their nose at the idea of a commoner grand duchess some day.

  18. Catherine says:

    Diana did well here, the boys have always been allies. Great interaction and answer. I’m in London on vacay and didn’t realize he was voted most popular Royal two years in a row. Good for William🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

  19. Who ARE These People? says:

    Liked that he said he and Kate talked about it as parents, that felt real, more real than many of their other public-facing disclosures. It sets a good example for parents everywhere.

  20. DS9 says:

    It’s great in theory but in practice, it really only works, with no disruption, for Charlotte and Louis, if George grows up, marries and has a child.

    We make gay marriage legal for the legal and social repercussions, not the warm fuzzies.

    Practically speaking, if the laws don’t change, and George is gay and married, then Charlotte would be his heir, right?

    So it’s a good first step answer but there’s more to it than William and Catherine’s personal feelings.

    • perplexed says:

      I think that’s why he has an extra layer of worry that regular people don’t have to contend with and why he mentioned the “pressure.” The direct heir grows up with some notion of duty, and if the direct heir is gay I suppose he has to choose between following what’s in his heart vs tradition/duty. And what if the kid actually wants to be King? (I know that sentiment is rare, but hey, it’s possible). He might have to give up what he’s been trained to do (I said “might” in case people give me a bunch of examples where this hasn’t happened).

      I think his answer made sense.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        He has an extra layer of concern in terms of archaic rules but unlike ‘regular people’ the ability to provide more personal security against harassment and assault.

        Maybe it’s time to de-gender the terms and roles in monarchy. But then maybe it’s time to get rid of the idea of being born with some kind of divine right, too.

      • perplexed says:

        I suppose, although even Charles has had assassination plots against him. There have been plots against George, which is why I assume William and Kate choose to be so private about him. The President of the United States has all kinds of security around him, but I don’t think Michelle Obama stopped worrying about what could happen to her husband.

        In the end, I think you just don’t want to see your loved ones in pain, whether it’s emotional or physical, and even if you know they have added layers of protection others don’t. Everybody has strong feelings of preservation when it comes to their loved ones.

        The amount of mental pressure a first-born King has is not what most people want to deal with, even when you’re straight.

        Yeah, they have security working for them, but I do think the mental strain could be quite cumbersome, which probably explains why the Queen needs her gin and tonic at noon. They have a lot of privilege, but I do think there are some parts of their jobs that nobody wants to deal with. I assume that’s why some of them go off the grid (i.e Princess Margaret, Diana, Fergie, etc.) Honestly, the most sane one seems to be the Queen, and we’re just assuming that because she never opens her mouth.

        In the end, I think William was honest in answering what particular worries would plague him within the context in which he lives.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Agree. No amount of security is perfect, AND William and Kate have wisely discussed their potential response as parents to learning any of their children are gay. (Not to mention what they observe prior to any ‘coming out’ announcement.)

      • DS9 says:

        And it may not even be that George wants to be king that would make him want to assume the crown but if his siblings did not want to be.

        The shadow of abdication has cast a long shadow here

      • Starkiller says:

        What the hell does the President of the United States have to do with the line of succession to the British throne?

      • perplexed says:

        “What the hell does the President of the United States have to do with the line of succession to the British throne?”

        I’m saying that the best security in the world doesn’t fully insulate you from worry and fear for your loved ones. It’s just an example. (I probably could have used Donald Trump as an example too, but I have my doubts that Melania worries for his life). No need to get so upset.

  21. Selena says:

    Well it really wouldn’t be the first time in history would it? From William II to Anne, openly gay or bisexual monarchs have reigned across the British Empire. At times the monarchs have been taken to task for immorality, but just as often it has been ignored. Sometimes an heir was supplied other times the throne passed to a relative. No problem.

    • Nic919 says:

      Edward II was basically removed from the throne and killed by his wife and her lover because of his male “favourite” so it goes back even further.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        It was a bit more than that – yes the titles and status he showered his favourites with played a part in alienating the nobles who helped him govern as he would often ignore their advice to act on the advice of his favourite.

        They got rid of him because he basically bankrupted the country, led it into civil war, famine and made bad decision after bad decision. He was not a good leader or King. He would often ignore state matters to party with his pose. He wasn’t necessarily deposed because he liked men, it was because he was a sh!t King.

        Their deposition of Edward II didn’t really end well for Isabella and Mortimer – when Edward III became of age he had Mortimer executed and his mother was pushed into the background.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        To add, yeah Isabella and Mortimer were ambitious in their own right and they took advantage of Edward’s ineptitude and the fact that the nobles and people hated him. To give Isabella credit she did create a peace with Scotland and mop up many of the messes Edward created. She was a smart woman and quite the diplomat.

        It was said that she didn’t mind Gaston as its alleged she got along well enough with him at the beginning (but that went sour at some point), the issues really started with his 2nd favourite Hugh Despenser whom Isabella hated (its alleged he raped her).

        Sorry for the double posts, I love this part of history and Edward II is an interesting study (as is the rest of the Plantagenets). They were one dysfunctional family, much like the Tudors.

      • DS9 says:

        @digital unicorn, thank you so much for these posts. I love history too and I hate that people are often so simplistic about the history.

        It’s a form of othering to discuss these stories and this one in particular as if the problem was Edward’s sexuality. Problems resulted in part from it, yes but feminism, history, and the players involved themselves played a role.

        History is so rich and yet some discuss it in such flat terms.

        It reminds me a bit of Queen Christina who did face tremendous issues in part because of her sexuality but also, in part because she was a problematic ruler as well.

    • DS9 says:

      I’m not sure how anyone cites these examples and then says no problem.

      Google “wars of succession” and it doesn’t take even a page to see that it very much was a problem.

      Anne was pregnant 17 times if I remember correctly.

  22. DS9 says:

    Look, baseline here is that inclusion is not equality.

    If the heir to a kingdom does not have the same rights to marry whom he wishes and have the children of that union be eligible to inherit, he is not equal.


    This is an excellent step in the right direction. But laws will have to be changed for this step to have weight.

    • Cee says:

      This actually affects anyone with titles. If a man, heir to a dukedom or even a baronet, is gay and enters a civil union with a man and then they adopt children or have them through surrogacy, none of those children are allowed to inherit titles/estates because they’re not “of the body”.

      Concessions can be made, though. Charlotte has equal inheritance rights and was not displaced by Louis’ birth. Females born to aristocrats do not have this privilege and are secluded from the inheritance line.

      • DS9 says:

        It does highlight a wider issue that surely will need to be addressed as we work towards full inclusion and equality for LGBTQ people.

        The issue of being trans in particular is an important one to address in terms of inheritance of titles and property.

        There are still a slew of titles and estates tied to male primogeniture, aren’t there?

        This goes far beyond the crown.

  23. Cee says:

    The only “issue” would be if George were gay. As it stands, only children born from the body and in marriage, are allowed to inherit titles/estates. Unless than changes, George would be King and Charlotte first in line, with her descendants next.
    If Charlotte and/or Louis were gay, then the issue would be nonexistent, in my opinion. as they are not the direct heirs. Only George is.

    I will say that I hope that if any of the Cambridge children are gay, they are allowed to be their authentic selves without harassment.

  24. Maria says:

    So I guess if George is gay and he and his partner legally adopt a child, it would not be in line.

    • DS9 says:

      Nope, nor could a child born of surrogacy.

      Currently, if George were gay, his only options would be to have children with a woman or be content with the crown passing to his sister (and I think her children, someone correct me if I’m wrong).

      • Tina says:

        Yes, that’s right, but not just with a woman. George would have to have a biological child with his wife in order for him/her to inherit, under current laws.

      • DS9 says:

        @Tina, yes. I forgot to state that specifically, thank you. Because I was thinking that he’d have to marry and would end up divorced I’m sure

  25. Guest says:

    Wait I thought they couldn’t talk about LGBTQ rights since you know politics? Or is that only because of harry and Meghan. Williams so full of it anyway. The UK is melting down over the fact harry didn’t marry a white woman. There is no way they would accept the heir to the throne as an openly gay man.

  26. Case says:

    It’s a wonderful response because it’s something he and Kate have clearly considered before the question was posted. It felt like a very real, honest response.

  27. Jb says:

    Statistically speaking a past Royal has been/was gay and they handled it because here we are with more royals. If any of the heirs is gay, then I’m sure they deal with it somehow so their child (by any means) is royal too. These ppl are NEVER letting go of their titles.

    • DS9 says:

      The question isn’t whether they deal with it but whether they deal with it in an equal and inclusive manner that doesn’t shame or exclude a person from the petition into which they are born on the basis of how they are born.

  28. aquarius64 says:

    Nice gesture of William but in the end Parliament would have to change the laws of succession for a child of a gay royal.

  29. FluffyPrincess says:

    Good for William! He does do much better when he actually speaks from the heart. If he could just tap into that for his engagements, it would serve him well.

  30. A says:

    This was a really thoughtful answer. It’s pretty obvious that he and Kate have actually spent some time talking about this. So that’s a good thing. I think William has really good, interesting ideas when he’s spent the time to consider the situation and figure out what he actually thinks for himself and what he wants to do or say. He has the capacity to leverage his position for good, and he knows it (I still think about the little girl he met at the hospital in Christchurch, after the attack on that mosque, who asked him if he had a daughter too). It’s when he resorts to his baseline, kneejerk responses that we see a really bad, petulant, narrow-minded side to him.

  31. msd says:

    Remember when they found Richard III in a car park? Some of the DNA tests they did with certain ancestors showed breaks in the paternal line. In other words, the apparent ancestral daddies weren’t always the biological daddies. As with most families, it’s a mess if you look properly.

  32. Gia says:

    “one of my kids”

    What if all of your kids are lgbtq? Is that still okay to you?