Yes, at Paddington Station, February 1952: http://christiangeorgefacevedo.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/three-queens.jpg?w=590&h=442
Plenty of monarchies still around today:
Would that be the title “Queen consort”? Here I thought queen was a bit perjorative.
Quite a change from how Edward II was rumoured to have been dealt with…
It was his favorite card game.
The village of Otuam Ghana has a king named Peggy. I remember seeing her on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart asked why she had not been made queen, she explained that the queen has different duties, sort of as a people’s advocate.
“Is” is a strong word for the Duke of Lancaster, since the Queen can’t actually hold any British peerage.
From Wikipedia:
Actually, I read it as “what if the king/queen has a sex-change operation?” After all, Britain has had a gay king before (as someone else pointed out) just as the US has had a gay president.
It reminded me of the joke about what category Renée Richards would play in a tennis tournament.
Mixed singles
Going back a further 500 years from James VI and I, William II, known as William “Rufus”, who neither married nor sired any progeny, was almost certainly gay, and presided over what was regarded as a “dissolute” court.
Wasn’t William Rufus killed in a “hunting accident”?
Yes, a very convenient one. Edward II was also notoriously gay, and after being overthrown by his wife and her lover, as regents for Edward III (supposedly his son, and probably he did manage to “perform” at least enough to get an heir conceived, but the paternity might be questioned), he was supposedly put to death by having a red-hot poker shoved up his anus.
What do you mean? Apart from give consent, “accede” also just means arrive at or come into office.
Yes, I brain-farted thinking that word looked really strange, and I laughed at the smell, as it were.
I was thinking it was a novel way of avoiding the synonym (of course etymologically related) of “to succeed” (as in success/accomplishment/victory) in his “succession.” I couldn’t figure out a verb for “succeeding” for the active party except “when the Prince successes to the throne.” I was impressed at how clever the word “acceded” was to get around it.
This explanation took me longer to piece together from memory than when I made the mistake. Which is why making mistakes can save a lot of time. 
Which is correct. To accede means to agree, to consent, to attain to an office.
It might seem that succeed is the right word - and it is not wrong - but accede is more correct. William will succeed but he could refuse the throne meaning he wouldn’t accede to it. Its easy to confuse the right of succession with the actual act of consenting/accepting the office.
Doh. Soz. Late to the party as ever. 
Oh, what did I miss? Gay president you say?
James Buchanan is widely rumored/believed to have been gay. Not definitive.
Very, very convenient, but also quite possibly very real. Those sort of hunting accidents were not uncommon ( he lost his elder brother Richard in much the same way when he was a teen ) and it doesn’t seem to have caused a great deal of contemporary suspicion even among those not fond of his successor Henry I. As it was Henry barely managed to seize the throne - if the rightful heir ( his older brother Robert Curthose ) had been a tad more assertive, Robert probably would have taken it from him.
Also while William II was a bit “dissolute” in some respects ( he was apparently a hedonist and liked to party ), he was also quite competent and effective as king. Barlow thinks he probably swung both ways, but the evidence is a bit equivocal.
Notoriously, possibly not actually ;). One has to be careful of anti-Edwardian propaganda here. Both his rumored spectacularly gruesome demise and his preference for the same gender may be true, but also may not be. For example at least one contemporary counter-rumor ( from the continent ) was that Edward II’s sexual relationship was not with final favorite Hugh Despenser the Younger but rather his wife ( and Edward’s niece ) Eleanor de Clare, such that she was kept under surveillance after his deposition in case she turned out to be pregnant.
Edward II was not a particularly competent king and one of his chief problems was in being easily led by favorites, a charge that can be laid at the feet of several weaker English kings. But his reputation was blackened considerably in later generations, so it is hard to tease out the truth of the nature of his relationships with male favorites. It’s quite plausible they ( or some of them ) were sexual, but they may not have been.
King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden
King Juan Carlos I of Spain
Emperor Akihito of Japan (might not count because he doesn’t even have theoretical de jure power anymore)
King Harald V of Norway
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand
King Tupou VI of Tonga
The same is true of the King of Sweden.
But he might give you things you are needin’.
So, I was right in my worry, but wrong about my conclusion. Story of my life.
Also, what’s the verb for what Edward the whoever did so he could stay with “the woman he loves,” the American divorcee?
2) Never knew that about Buchanan. In fact, it’s now the only thing I know about him. Cite? Because I plan to set my tongue a-flapping with that one.