Disregarding the issue of how appropriate it is to pray for any specific sexual orientation, I think that if Prince George grew up to want to marry a man this creates huge problems for the succession. Should the law be changed to allow for the succession of adopted children, which could be problematic, or should his sister or her children become next in line. How would the lawmakers wrestle with this one?
Isn’t the Duchess with child again? If she has a second son, that one can be gay. Firstborn sons are far more often heterosexual.
As I understand it, no combination of events leaves the monarchy without an heir. If the Duchess and her children were killed tomorrow, there’s dozens of people in line in the royal succession. I would assume adopted children don’t count unless the law is changed to make them count.
The existing law provides for the succession to fall to the “heirs of the body” of Electress Sophia, which might seem to allow for the possibility of sperm donation by a monarch or heir and having that counted as in the lawful line of succession. But if not, then the obvious thing would indeed be to pass the succession to the next in line.
Whatever assorted historians and journalists might say about supposed legalities and “rightful succession”, in the end it comes down to nebulous imponderables, essentially as to what the powers that be think people would accept, even if it’s all dressed up in solemn debate about precedents and old legal judgements.
Well, it does seem rather discriminatory to allow for adopted children of gay monarchs/heirs to be adopted, but not those of straight ones. Though it’s certainly worth debating that adopted heirs should be allowed in general (as you mentioned). Why is it problematic? And, of course, we’re presuming the monarchy to still exist when George is of an age to have children. If he has them, which he may not, regardless of sexual orientation.
In any event, current law is simple and straight forward in this regard, and not “a huge problem” in any legal sense, though, of course, it might cause social/popularity problems.
Though, of course, if George decides to put the monarchy first, he might decide not to have children or even just to marry a woman and have an heir or two with her, despite being gay. But both of those are too boring and don’t play in to the hypothetical.
But what about other possible law changes, in the broadest generalities - those so that people who use various methods of assisted reproduction don’t have to adopt their biological offspring? If he could use a surrogate and have his own biological child, and not have to adopt said child, that would work. Though the real issue there might be if both male parents were on birth certificate, rather than adopting, though the child would only be biologically the child of one of them. DNA test required or not? And that is, of course, presuming they aren’t making eggs out of cells (we’ve seen them do so in a laboratory environment), and so the child is biologically the child of two males. And if artificial wombs are used by then, there might not be another party to claim parenthood, only the two biological fathers. It’s not that I think these technologies will all be ready for mainstream in two or three decades, it’s just I think they’re worth thinking about when you come to a hypothetical like this.
I think the issue of adoption is problematic because it introduces so many variables. Can you adopt an heir of any age up to 18? Older maybe? Does the older adoptee take precedence over younger ones or is it by order of adoption? What if an adopted heir seems unsuitable for any reason? Do you adopt another to supplant that one? It seems to me no wonder that bag of snakes hasn’t been opened. The purpose of a formal and ordered succession is to prevent dynastic wars and ruling by conquest. Of course, in these time of a powerless monarch, fighting for the throne seems unlikely.
Some other cultures traditionally allowed adopted sons to accede to the throne (it was certainly common practice in South Asia)., although British custom didn’t This turned out to be a major point of contention during the gradual British conquest of the subcontinent. Under the “Doctrine of Lapse”, when a subsidiary S. Asian monarch died without a biological male heir, their dynasty was considered extinct and their lands were directly annexed to the British Empire. (Traditionally such rulers would have adopted a child to succeed them).
This.
Eventually, they’ll get to John Goodman…
It seems to me that the capacity for DNA testing should have wiped out all other tangents. The oldest child certified to have the current monarch’s DNA ought to succede. Bastardy really has no further meaning,either.
As for adoption, it’s my understanding that it was never acceptable in the English system. The important thing was the line of descent. (DNA, though they didn’t have the words yet.)
Fascinating though, the possibility that a gay couple might choose to switch the Mother/Father roles, with one child getting sperm from A and egg made from B, and the next child getting egg made from A and sperm from B. He could be the Queen Mother in the next generation!
As cloning technology improves, that will solve this problem. 
Wait-- why does a boy have to be the gay one to be the poster child? Why can’t the priest pray for their daughter to be a lesbian?
The controversy of the statement could be useful, I guess - praying for someone to be gay is as wrong an idea as praying for someone not to be gay.
George is in line to the thrown ahead of his sister. Presumably, if Charlotte (that’s her name, right?) were the older of the two, he’d be praying for her to be a Lesbian.
He’s an Anglican priest. He has no personal interest in lesbians…
There isn’t really a succession problem here, people. If Prince George never marries, or marries but has no [legitimate] offspring, the succession passes to his sibling(s) and then to their [legitimate] issue, and then to the [legitimate] issue of George’s ancestors, going all the way back if necessary to Sophie of Hanover. This works just as well whether George identifies as gay or straight, and whether he marries a man or a woman.
If George adopts, or George and his spouse jointly adopt, a child, where that child stands or should stand in the line of succession does not depend on George’s sexual orientation or on the gender of his spouse; it depends on how the law treats adopted children for purposes of inheritance and succession. Same goes if George and his spouse have a child with the assistance of donated genetic material. There are reasonable questions to be asked about how the law should treat adopted children and children conceived with donated genetic material as regards inheritance and succession, but I can’t see any reason for offering different answers depending on the sexual orientation of some of the people involved.
Of course, even to ask these questions is to open up the whole basis of monarchical succession in UK law which is, let’s face it, indefensible. It seems to me that if Prince George makes life choices that mean these questions become of immediate real-world relevance, the people most likely to welcome that are not advocates for LBGTI equality, but republicans.
George’s sexual orientation is already set, whatever it may be. For a priest to be praying that it is one way or another is disgusting either way.
Imagine the howl that would go up if a priest prayed for George to be straight.
Okay, my post didn’t disregard the whether such prayers were appropriate, as the OP instructed, but since there were a number of gay monarchs in Britain’s royal line, I expect that succession won’t be a problem. And anyway, Elizabeth the First died without issue. As long as there’s no head chopping, who cares?