Prince William on LGBT issues

[Richard]

The Duke of Cambridge has spoken today, saying that he will fully support his children if they were to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, he emphasised his only concern would be for any “hate or persecution” they would endure, particularly as a result of their public positions in the Royal Family.
One of the young people the Duke met said afterwards: "To hear him say 'I’d support my own children if they were in the LGBT community' was great...To know that someone that important has your back is huge.”
Meeting young people who have faced homelessness and mental (health) issues as a result of coming out to their families, he emphasised how important it is for parents to support their children, whatever their sexuality.
Told of the prejudice experienced by young people helped by the charity 'Albert Kennedy Trust', (AKT) which supports LGBT young people who are at risk of homelessness, he said: “I’m so sad for you guys that persecution like that is still there. Things have progressed, but not nearly as much as they need to.”
Prince William may one day be head of the Commonwealth, where 35 out of 53 member countries still have laws that criminalise homosexuality.

[cbe]

I'm not referring to this particular issue but I wanted to say that I have always been a Royalist but I think that the Queen will be the last Monarch in this country. I believe Charles (and William) have had and will increasingly have, too much to say that could be seen as political.

[Richard]

As Head of State the Queen has to remain outwardly strictly neutral, with respect to political matters, although the Queen meets weekly with the British prime minister to discuss important matters and, presumably, her stance on them.
Other close members of the royal family aren't bound by the same formal constraints as her majesty, but they do follow similar rules. Prince Charles, for example, has never declared his political preference, although he sent numerous letter to Tony Blair.
Prince William, similarly, remains officially neutral but has used his position to share his views on certain matters. In 2016 he seemed to show support for the UK remaining part of the European Union.
Once Charles is crowned he will have to behave more like a monarch, as will his successor. William, until then they are free to express personal views to some extent and why not?

[cbe]

I refer the poster to my earlier comment. The end is nigh for the monarchy and I am sad about that.

[Richard]

Barring major incident, the royal family themselves are in control of their own destiny.

[cbe]

There are ex-Royal families all over the World who shared your belief. They are only in control of their own destiny only behave as they should (witness : The Queen).

[Richard]

Monarchs and future monarchs, in the U.K., even since the end of executive monarchy, have always meddled. It is Elizabeth, not her son Charles, who is the exception rather than the rule.The monarchy Head of State has often opposed government policy during its 300 years. That may or not be a good thing but we perhaps actually need a Head of State that publicly comments on any excesses of the elected executive. (Irish policy, Tony Blair and Iraq?).
Queen Victoria restored the reputation of a monarchy tarnished by the extravagance of her royal uncles. She also shaped a new role for the Royal Family, reconnecting it with the public through civic duties.
But Victoria meddled in politics too, she fought bitter battles with her prime ministers. “The Queen alone is enough to kill any man,” a worn-out William Gladstone once told his ally Lord Rosebery about Charles’s great-great-great grandmother. She was engulfed in a political crisis when the Whig government fell and Lord Melbourne resigned. Tory politician Robert Peel agreed to become prime minister provided Victoria replaced some of her Whig ladies-in-waiting with Tory ones. She refused and reappointed Lord Melbourne. The Queen’s act was criticised as being unconstitutional.

Victoria, with the assistance of Albert, created a newly visible constitutional monarchy to stem a growing republican movement in Britain.
Victoria became patron of 150 institutions, including dozens of charities, while Albert supported the development of educational museums. The couple went on civic visits to industrial towns and attended military reviews to support the armed forces. Together they helped stem criticism that the Royal Family didn't earn its keep.

I doubt it is true that the odd remark by the child of a monarch, on political matters, should be seen as a major issue or signs of trouble ahead.

[cbe]

I am not talking about 'one' remark I am talking of a pattern. This is a circular argument. Let's just wait and see,

[Richard]

I am not sure of what particular 'pattern' you are implying.
The crusader Simon de Montfort, with estates in France, led a baronial opposition to the rule of King Henry III of England.
Simon laid the grounds for parliamentary democracy to oppose the divine right of Kings to rule.
It appears that the end has been nigh for the monarchy for a awfully long time in our history and yet they continue to survive.