Have they written a provision on how say if prince George or princess charlotte decided that they perfered same sex relationships and became king/queen? would they just say there king/queen and the spouse would be prince/princess ?
I can’t say with certainty but I suspect not.
It’s Parliament that would have to sort this one out and I’d guess that, progressive as the Government prides itself on being, this is something it prays it never has to deal with.
I think “Lie back and think of England” may be cited. 
There are indeed written provisions. This delicate question is addressed in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014 Sch 2 para 1. The effect of this provision is that a person who enters into a same sex marriage with the King does not acquire the title of Queen, and a person who enters into a same-sex marriage with the Prince of Wales does not acquire the title of Princess of Wales.
The Act doesn’t say anuything about happens if some marries the Queen regnant or the Princess of Wales in her own right. That’s because an opposite-sex marriage to either of these doesn’t automatically confer any title; therefore there is no need for a provision that a same-sex marriage won’t.
So, in the future, if a man marries the King or the Prince of Wales, or if a woman marries the Queen regnant or the Princess of Wales in her own right, they’ll do what they already do when a man marries the Queen regnant or the Princess of Wales in her own right; they’ll take a decision whether to award a title on that occasion and, if so, what title it will be.
Would the spouse be HRH/HM regardless?
In the UK, “royal highness” goes with being a prince/princess (including by marriage). If you’re not a prince/princess then it can be conferred by letters patent (the Duke of Edinburgh was made a royal highness on his marriage; he wasn’t created a prince until 10 years later.)
So, if the same-sex partner of the monarch is created a prince/princess, HRH will come with that. If they are given some lesser title, HRH could be conferred anyway; that’s a decision to be taken at the time.
HM is strictly for kings and queens. If the same-sex spouse does not become king or queen, he or she will not be HM.
The Church of England does not perform same-sex marriages, correct? Is this provision meant to cover an instance where the monarch marries outside the C of E?
Well, as matters stand it can only apply in that case. But that’s not an improbable case; the current Prince of Wales’ current marriage was solemnised in a civil ceremony; that will not prevent him succeeding to the throne in due course. The sovereign is required to be in communion with the CofE, but is not required to be in a marriage solemnised by the CofE.
As I understand it, this was advice given to ladies in imminent danger of rape.
He was already from birth Prince Philip of Greece, and Prince of Denmark, but has lived in Britain since 1928 so is as English as anyone could be; however the British establishment, being the utter miseries they are *, declared his foreign titles were to be void upon his marriage, and he would have to gave new ones conferred by them. ‘Thou shalt have no other god before me’…
As for future Windsor, or whatever they call themselves, same-sex marriages, they wouldn’t be allowed to adopt an heir to the throne ( it’s very rare and only when the ruling class declare there is no heir, as with that wretched little sneak Bernadotte ), but any child born to the happy pair would be fully entitled to the throne.
- For ordinary people foreign titles and orders etc. aren’t recognised without begging for permission. Count Rumford, the great American inventor honoured by the Empire ( HRE ) as Reichsgraf v. Rumford ( not from his name which was Thompson, but from where he was born in America ), who founded the Royal Institution of Great Britain, had a bit of trouble having his title recognised.
That question was raised by the crusties’ crusty, Norman Tebbit.
I remember thinking - and checking - at the time that in a way the question is, however inadvertently, already provided for in the Act of Settlement, since it prescribes the succession “to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants”. I don’t think it takes much legal sophistry to infer from that that a child born to a queen regnant or female heir apparent, however conceived, would count as an “heir of the body”, if considered a legitimate child in the eyes of the law at the relevant time. It could as well be argued that the same would apply to the child born by surrogacy from the [ahem] donation of a male monarch or heir apparent.
But it would indeed mean that an adopted child would be excluded from the succession, though there’s nothing to stop a monarch adopting a child (apart presumably from the usual procedures for assessing their suitability…!)
Unless, of course, parliament decides otherwise - and all the precedents and principles derived therefrom make it absolutely clear that (a) de facto since 1660 and de jure since 1688/9, Parliament decides on who is monarch and who is in line of succession, and (b) no Parliament can bind its successors (what one can do, another can undo). So, as representatives of the people, any future parliament would (one assumes) bring to bear on such a question a representative degree of what it perceives to be the people’s common sense.
Nope. Supposedly, it was the advice given by Victoria to one of her daughter about what to do on her wedding night.
These are not mutually exclusive situations…
On the other hand there won’t be a parliament in 300 years. Nor any of the current political institutions around the world. The parliament of 1700 was not the same parliament of 1400 and neither the same as the present. And now like all things it has run it’s course: all is flux. So really, it’s safe to ignore whatever the silly buggers pontificate on. They’re just elected fools.
Even future fiction allows for this constant change, I don’t remember any talking-shops in David Wingrove’s Chung Kuo series.
Well yes, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately?) we don’t live in the future and what the silly buggers pontificate on can’t be ignored because it affects all of us who live under their jurisdiction.
The source notes the supposed Victorian origin of the saying. And reminds us that Queen Victoria was not at all averse to marital relations with her handsome Albert.
Still, I always recall some wise words by a now forgotten writer who bears one of my names ( which means one remembers people ), Rupert Croft-Cooke, stating that the Hitlers and Cromwells in the end fade and their evil with them, rather quickly in fact. [ And that applies to the murderous betises of recent American presidents as well. ]
I was rather annoyed, being young and hating Cromwell the King-Killer, and not being over-fond of his disciple either, but I grew to appreciate it’s truth.
Plus, the Words of God when asked why Phocas ( a proto-Cromwell and Byzantine Trump ) should be in power ?: “Because I could find no-one worse.”
I apply that to the pretensions of all representative assemblies.
How small, of all that human hearts endure,
That part which laws or kings can cause or cure !