[...]
As for paternity - which is off topic - what man shouldn't cooperate in a paternity proceeding? Is there no moral obligation to acknowledge one's children, and if they are not one's children, then there is closure for everyone?
No one and "moral obligation" does not exist in justice. After all the other parties are also "morally obliged' to tell the truth and not to make fantasy claims. There is also something as autonomy and self-determination. It is not that because Mrs A, Mr B and Mrs C claim to be children of Mr X, that Mr X has to cooperate in case 1, in case 2 and in case 3.
Mrs A, Mr B and Mrs C will have to come up with credible information, which will be assessed first. In the Spanish case the claims of Mrs A and Mr B were already dismissed because lack of substance, lack of factual information, lack of coherence. The case Mrs C is under review and awaiting a formal answer from Mr X.
Remember, there are LOTS of frauds. Ms Anna Anderson claiming to be Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova... Mr Karl Wilhelm Naundorff claiming that he was the son of Louis XVI. There is even a grave for him in Delft, the Netherlands. Only in 1998 it became clear that his DNA had no any match at all with the Habsburgs (the family of "his mother" Marie-Antoinette) and the Bourbons (the family of "his father' Louis XVI).
Look at
the tombstone of this proven fraud:
Ici Repose
LOUIS XVII
Charles Louis Duc de Normandie
Roi de France & de Navarre
Né à Versailles le 27 Mars 1785
Décédé à Delft, le 10 Août 1845
Morale of the story: frauds, imposters, swindlers, etc. are of all times. Royals, including Prince Andrew, have
every reason to be suspicious about every claim. The cases of Grand Duchess Anastasia (proven fraud) and Louis XVII (proven fraud) show that it is easy to makebelieve the public, even so far that a total stranger was given a tombstone with someone else's name...