EXCLUSIVE: Is the Monarchy Ready to Come Out?

palace strategists are quietly reevaluating their appeal to marginalized communities. could a queer love story be their next move?

Every June, like clockwork, profiles in Tatler and carousels on royal watchers’ feeds rehash the life of Lord Ivar Mountbatten—the late Queen’s third cousin once removed, and the first (and still only) openly gay member of the royal family. His 2016 coming out and 2018 wedding to James Coyle are treated as genteel touchstones of royal “progress,” even if Ivar has never been a working royal or even particularly close to the throne. (He did, however, have a role on The Traitors US this year!)

This queer story, as it approaches its tenth anniversary in the public sphere, still feels tidy, contained, and safe. But what if its ubiquity is more than that?

According to a source with ties to the Palace, quiet conversations are now unfolding behind the scenes regarding the possibility that a high-profile queer storyline (including a full-scale royal wedding) might soon take center stage.

The question at hand, though, is not “How might this affect the succession?” or “What titles could we give a same-sex partner?” The question, since this is still the Firm we’re discussing, is how that queer storyline might “serve” the monarchy—and whether the public would respond positively.

Now, I'm not naive. Palace whispers often serve the whisperer as much as they inform the public. Could this be strategic leaking to gauge public reaction? Absolutely…and that possibility makes it more interesting. It's exactly why this particular piece of intel feels worth exploring. I also don’t mean to suggest that a queer love story is being considered in theory. I’m taking this to mean the Palace is considering it as a very prospect…and as a tangible corrective to past mistakes.

I know. It’s a mind-boggling prospect. And it’s made all the more dizzying by the reported motivation behind it: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

We don’t really need to rehash the entire Sussex fallout, do we? What matters in this discussion is who the Firm lost when it lost Meghan and Harry: younger people, progressives, and people of color. With the Sussexes, global audiences saw (however briefly) a version of royalty that looked like them. While the “Men in Grey” might breathe easier without the Duchess of Sussex around, they are also reportedly feeling the “missed opportunities” (of fostering renewed connections with the Commonwealth and attracting a younger, diverse audience) that she offered.

Which brings us to the present—and to Pride Month. If one avenue for broadening the monarchy’s appeal has been closed off for being too risky, too mouthy, too American…another may be on the horizon. According to some, the LGBTQ+ community (unbeknownst to them) is at the center of internal conversations about where the monarchy goes next.

Some Royal Temperature-Taking

Even the recent Tatler reshares of Lord Ivar Mountbatten’s story may be part of this broader temperature check. There’s no new development to speak of—just a revisiting of his 2016 coming out and 2018 wedding to James Coyle. But the timing, landing right at the start of Pride Month, is… interesting. It reads less like coincidence and more like a subtle reminder: there is a queer royal, after all, and his story can be celebrated (albeit in controlled doses, when the moment feels right).

Lord Ivar Mountbatten (the Queen’s third cousin once removed) and his husband James Coyle.

Maybe it's just seasonal fluff. Or maybe it's the soft launch of a deeper shift. Either way, it suggests the Palace is watching, gauging, and, perhaps, planning ahead.

Of course, the elephant in the room is: who? At this point, names and positions in the palace hierarchy can't even be floated. But let's be honest…your minds are already racing through the possibilities, aren't they? The working royals under 40? An establishment figure who would have to ditch the proverbial beard? Or the next (still underage) generation of cousins? The timing would matter enormously, as would proximity to the throne. After all, there's a world of difference between a minor royal relative’s coming-out story and someone with real input on palace decisions.

If a queer storyline is on the Buckingham Palace conference table, it wouldn’t be the first time the Palace has highlighted LGBTQ+ inclusion…so long as their role remains one of abstract support. The Firm typically gives a cursory annual nod to Pride Month, whether through a Tweet from the Royal Family account celebrating diversity and inclusion or a visit to a mental health charity that caters to the LGBTQ+ community.

Actually, can we pause for a second and think about how deeply patronizing it is to make mental health and suicide rates the main lens through which you engage with the queer community?

There's no real…intention to change attitudes behind any of it. There are no working royals with LGBTQ-specific patronages, no public-facing support for queer rights legislation. God forbid a royal, in Britain’s horrific TERF-infested landscape, actually attend a Pride event.

Here's the other thing about British “tolerance:” it's more theoretical than practical. Even though same-sex marriage has been legal in the UK since 2013, the honors system still operates under a heteronormative double standard. While wives of ennobled men automatically receive courtesy titles (think Lady This or Duchess That), husbands of ennobled women and same-sex spouses get...nothing. Multiple parliamentary bills have tried to fix this glaring inequality since 2012, but they've all stalled in committee.

So James Coyle, despite being married to Lord Ivar Mountbatten, has no courtesy title. It’s a small but telling reminder that even legal equality doesn't guarantee institutional equality, and the perfect microcosm of how the British establishment approaches LGBTQ+ issues.

Needle-Moving Efforts?

It’s ironic, but Harry and Meghan were the first British royals to commemorate Pride Month on their social media platforms. They also made a commitment, when speaking to individuals from the Commonwealth Youth Forum before their wedding, to make LGBTQ+ issues central to their royal philanthropy.

In 2019, the couple’s Instagram account (at this time separate from Will and Kate’s ‘KensingtonRoyal’ account) highlighted 11 organizations that advocate for LGBT+ equality. At the time, one online commenter quipped: “Really no point to having a royal family anymore if they can’t uphold any sense of tradition. They are just phasing themselves out. Succession will eventually become irrelevant in a modern society with these attitudes.”

…yeah. The Venn Diagram of royalists like this and the ones who think Princess Kate is “just classier than Meghan” are a circle, I fear.

But this might have been the very first instance of 'temperature taking' for the Palace, where momentum on LGBTQ+ outreach has seemed to stall after the Sussexes' departure. Because the British monarchy sees itself as above politics—and probably sees Pride as inherently political—queer visibility within the royal fold remains a risk. **

A Question of Identity

This hypothetical palace platforming wouldn't be the first time a royal has captured queer hearts. Diana, Princess of Wales’ legacy as an inadvertent LGBTQ+ icon runs deep: think of her her genuine friendships with Elton John, George Michael, Freddie Mercury, and Gianni Versace. More substantively, Diana's AIDS work in the 1980s was genuinely groundbreaking; that handshake with HIV-positive patients (at a time when people still believed the virus could be transmitted through casual contact) legitimately changed attitudes.

While other royals steered clear of anything deemed 'controversial,' Diana leaned in, making her a queer ally and icon decades before anyone was using that terminology.

In terms of actually belonging to the community? While no working royal has ever come out of the closet, there’s never exactly been a shortage of speculation on sexuality. Across generations, whispers of queerness (particularly of closeted royal men forced into “lavender marriages”) have percolated into the monarchy’s heteronormative script.

Take Edward VIII, whose relationships with women didn’t stop persistent rumors that he preferred men. Or Lord Louis Mountbatten, whose bisexuality (and, appallingly, alleged predation on young boys) was an open secret in elite circles (and the subject of an FBI file) …but was only ever hinted at in the press.

Rumors about Anthony Armstrong-Jones's bisexuality were widespread, particularly related to his close relationships with married couples and the birth of a child shortly after his marriage to Princess Margaret. Armstrong-Jones never denied the claims outright, leaving the matter open to interpretation. Even Prince Edward faced headlines in the 1990s speculating about his bachelor status—until a strategic marriage put an end to that narrative (at least in the world of print media).

More recently, gossip blogs and social media threads have pointed to junior royals as potentially closeted rebels just waiting for their monarchies to modernize. Headlines about the Prime Minister of the Netherlands making it clear that a same-sex marriage would not disqualify Princess Catharina-Amalia from becoming queen sparked otherwise-unfounded speculation that the young heiress was, herself, part of the queer community.

In the end, these theories aren’t always about identity—they’re about desire. There’s an appetite for a monarchy that can acknowledge queer people not just as tolerated subjects, but as potential representatives.

Now, crucially, we know that the Firm knows those desires exist.

But the question now, according to my source, is whether the time has come to go further. Open the door (and roll out the red carpet for) a full-fledged queer romance.

And here’s where it gets...almost suspiciously cinematic. We can’t ignore that there’s a real possibility here that palace strategists are taking cues from the unexpected Gen Z juggernaut that is Red, White & Royal Blue. The bestselling novel (and its 2023 film adaptation) follows a gay romance between a fictional British prince and the equally fictitious First Son of the United States. It’s juicy, it’s idealistic, it’s a royal fairy tale for a new generation. Crucially, it’s been a massive hit with the exact audiences the monarchy is trying (and failing) to reach.

So is the Firm clocking that success and wondering whether a real-life echo might serve them? I wouldn’t put it past them. They’ve always been excellent at borrowing the aesthetics of sentiment. And Red, White & Royal Blue offers a roadmap for what public acceptance might look like.

The story might not end with sexuality. One of the more striking comments from my source was that there’s hope (yep, hope) that this hypothetical queer relationship might also involve a person of color. Two birds, one love story. A way to reclaim the diversity narrative they lost with Meghan…and double down on it.

Wait. White royal…POC partner……oh my God, they really are trying to recreate RWRB.

Might they pull it off? Perhaps. With the right time, distance, and framing.

Of course, if Gen Z audiences are the target demographic for this strategy, the Firm will also have to contend with the fact that they are typically quite savvy at spotting performative allyship. But the fact that this storyline is being floated at all tells us something else important: the monarchy, for all its stiff-lipped tradition, is desperately trying to script a future that feels relevant.

So if the British monarchy were to platform a queer love story (whether organically or strategically) would it land? Could it help repair the damage left in Meghan’s wake, or would it only highlight the institution’s tendency to tokenize rather than fully include? Would the public be able to tell the difference? I’d love to hear your takes.

And a huge thank you to my brilliant research assistant, Allyson, whose in-depth exploration of LGBTQ+ players and allyship in royal history helped bring this story together. The best scoops need the best backup!

---

** Of course, we can compare this tight-lipped British tolerance (undoubtedly a side-effect of the prudish media landscape and buttoned-up political climate) with some other European royal houses, where visibility and advocacy are practiced…shall we say…more fully?

Queen Máxima and King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands have openly supported LGBTQ+ initiatives for years; he met with LGBTQ+ advocacy group COC Nederland at The Hague in 2016—the same year that Máxima opened the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. And in 2013, Máxima attended a parliamentary conference for the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia.

In Sweden, King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden made history by eating a meal under the rainbow flag at Djurgårdsterrassen, a Stockholm restaurant owned by gay restauranteur and advocate, Arto Winter. Queen Silvia also just honored legendary designer and drag queen Christer Lindarw at a celebration of his 5 decades of performing (during which time he has famously portrayed the Queen).

Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden also works with Lindarw, has met with queer advocacy groups, and has even given a speech to open Stockholm Pride.

King Felipe of Spain invited the National Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals, and Bisexuals (FELGTB) for a meeting at the Royal Palace of El Pardo shortly after his accession. This location was significant as the place where fascist dictator Francisco Franco had previously signed a legal amendment classifying homosexuals as “dangerous individuals.”