What if Prince William were gay?
Though Valentine’s Day is celebrated on February 14th, this year
perhaps our greatest celebration of love will occur on April 29th when
Prince William, son of Prince Charles and Lady Diana, marries his fiancé,
Kate Middleton. The story goes that Prince William carried his mother’s
engagement ring around for three weeks before building up the courage
to propose, and from the moment the engagement was announced,
the world embraced their supposed fairy tale romance. After all, young
children are indoctrinated early on to believe that one day, a handsome
prince will marry a beautiful princess. This upcoming wedding is the
completion of the discourse specifying the Royal Family’s compulsory
gender and sexuality roles.
Commemorative items like comic books, China, replicas of the
engagement ring, and even the controversial Crown Jewels Condom
were quickly marketed to a public that has been consumed with
royal wedding fever. The rush to create a profit from this event shows
the heightened importance of the marriage between Prince William
and Kate Middleton as symbols of the nation as a whole.
Prince William was born into a very specific set of expectations due
to his royal status. Along with performing charity work and representing
Great Britain at public events, as the prince matured to adulthood,
it became his responsibility to find a wife and produce an heir (preferably
two children — the heir and the spare) to continue the royal line of
succession. A royal heir to the throne can only be produced through
heterosexual marriage, thus elevating the coupling Kate and William
to a national standard, which serves to normalize and promote
heterosexuality at the cost of LGBT relationships. The imposed
heterosexuality and gender roles have been foisted not only upon
the prince, but on every person who has stood in the royal line of
succession to the British throne.
If marriage can only be validated through reproduction, then marriages
for which this is a biological impossibility are necessarily understood
to be without legitimate purpose, as there have never been publicly
acknowledged sperm donors or surrogate mothers sought out by
the royal family. It further indicates that only specific body types,
such as able-bodied and cisgender couples, are meant to participate in
the national narrative of acceptable bodily formations. Royalty in and
of itself is an elevated social position, as the royal family is specifically
separated from those over whom they rule. This compulsory heterosexuality
causes one to question what the response would be if Prince William
were in fact a gay man, preparing to marry another man. By Renee Martin
adamfoxie* : If that was the case we would have 2 Queens, Princes's
or Kings. Which ever way you phrase it, it would be revolutionary.
It will teach the world coming from a very conservative kingdom,
that love is universal and compelling, even though hijacked by religion,
it would come back to where it belongs. Two people entering into a
covenant to share their lives for the better.
or Kings. Which ever way you phrase it, it would be revolutionary.
It will teach the world coming from a very conservative kingdom,
that love is universal and compelling, even though hijacked by religion,
it would come back to where it belongs. Two people entering into a
covenant to share their lives for the better.
According to The Independent:
Even in the annual celebration of romantic love that is Valentine’s Day, the cultural
narrative is still very dominantly heterosexual. When we think of historical great
romances, people like Anthony and Cleopatra, Guinevere and Lancelot, Prince
Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Queen Victoria, Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor,
formerly King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, are all common instances that spring
to mind. Though Alexander the Great was known to gay (or bisexual), few know the
name Hephaestion; the man who was most likely his closet emotional relationship and
lover. What we remember about Alexander are his three marriages to women and his
courage on the battlefield.
narrative is still very dominantly heterosexual. When we think of historical great
romances, people like Anthony and Cleopatra, Guinevere and Lancelot, Prince
Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Queen Victoria, Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor,
formerly King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, are all common instances that spring
to mind. Though Alexander the Great was known to gay (or bisexual), few know the
name Hephaestion; the man who was most likely his closet emotional relationship and
lover. What we remember about Alexander are his three marriages to women and his
courage on the battlefield.
No matter what romance we seek to elevate as symbolic of the greatest love that two
people can share, it always takes the form of heterosexuality. How we understand what
constitutes love determines which relationships in the public eye are considered legitimate.
This is specifically why on Valentine’s Day, it is appropriate to question how the
importance and the celebration of the upcoming royal marriage would change if the
nation were gaining another prince rather than a princess.
people can share, it always takes the form of heterosexuality. How we understand what
constitutes love determines which relationships in the public eye are considered legitimate.
This is specifically why on Valentine’s Day, it is appropriate to question how the
importance and the celebration of the upcoming royal marriage would change if the
nation were gaining another prince rather than a princess.
Photo by Steve Garvie, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
2.0 Generic license.
2.0 Generic license.
Article on http://globalcomment.com
Comments