The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > General Royal Discussion

Join The Royal Forums Today
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-17-2010, 01:12 AM
Next Star's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
That is the way it is. I too doubt that illegitimate children will be treated like their legitimate siblings in near future. But is it the way it should be? Is that right?

And can we talk about "equal primogeniture" while the eldest child is not always the heir in reality?

Polly is absolutely right. But nobody has answered my question: should the children of such irresponsible people be discriminated due to their parent's mistake?
No the children should be discriminated by the choice of their parents'.But the law is the law it cleary says only parents who have children at wedlock or if they are allowed to legitmitize them though marriage will be in line to the throne period no question asked.

Patience is a virtue.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 02:49 PM
asma's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: shebeen, Egypt
Posts: 239
I think the illegtimate children will never be treated as legtimate ones due to the poisition of the royal families and the monarchies in general as they represent the social traditions and religeous concepts and allowing illegtimate children to have succession rights will be against these traditions and concepts.

Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 06:15 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,389
The rules of succession rights were made by males. This was to protect their recognized children from their poor judgement and irresponsible behavior. It had little to do with religion or traditions. It was to protect the status quo.

When their mistress or girlfriend has a daughter, these men rejoice because succession rights are a non-issue. The daughters that their wife has don't have succession rights either for the most part.

Sons could try to challenge this and that is a different matter. When their mistress or girlfriend has son or sons and their wife doesn't have sons or can't have children, then you can have a real problem on your hands. Sometimes the sons of the mistress or girlfriend are their first born. To protect their interests, this is why these laws or rules were made in the first place.

You don't see as many of these children nowadays because there are ways of preventing this. Even so, from time to time unrecognized children are born. They are not as hidden as they once were and when they are it's for different reasons than in the past.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2010, 09:22 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 753
Didn't the Dutch Prince Bernard's illegitimate daughters get their equal share of their inheritance when he passed, together with the four Dutch princess'?
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2010, 05:11 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,727
Yes, they did, and if I don't mistake they got a very high amount of money; but this has nothing to do with any succession right, that they can't claim at all.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2010, 08:00 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,389
Didn't know about this story. Well that's good that he acknowledged them and included them in his will.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 11:37 AM
chabot4me's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: not mentioned, United States
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by Next Star View Post
No the children should be discriminated by the choice of their parents'.But the law is the law it cleary says only parents who have children at wedlock or if they are allowed to legitmitize them though marriage will be in line to the throne period no question asked.
Illegitimate children getting treatment that is different from those that are legitimate has been a problem through out history. In my genealogy research I have seen how this has happened countless times. My line is a perfect example, Guillaume IV of Aquitaine had two illegitimate children. The first was Pierre de Chabot and the second was Guillaume de Talmond. Pierre de Chabot's line continued having male children and this is the reason my name surname continues as Chabot. Henri de Chabot married a Rohan and he named his children Rohan-Chabot. At the time the french throne was conducting a campaign against the
Huguenot in southern France.

Philippee de Chabot the Admiral of France married an illegitimate daughter of the line of Valois. Yet I do not see anywhere in history where the Royalty alows the connection to be legitimized.
If the illegitimate children of royalty were allowed to be conected to the throne then I think it would help the Royals keep it in their p--ts.
So illegitimate children in my opinion in a good idea for the throne and the wives of the royals!

I have seen through out history that when a King was not very religious that he often conducted his business the way he wanted. In ancient Wales there was a King where his favorite son was illegitimate so he made him the successor to his rule even though the church did not approve of it. Ultimately I think it is the church tiring to illegitimacy from taking place. However I don't think that this worked very well. Just look at how many of the Kings ran around on their wives.
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
Didn't the Dutch Prince Bernard's illegitimate daughters get their equal share of their inheritance when he passed, together with the four Dutch princess'?
I believe you are right
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 06:49 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,498

Inheritance rights are quite different and separate to succession rights and shouldn't be mixed up or confused.
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 07:15 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,389
Imagine if such a law were passed where the first born of the heir to the throne would automatically succeed him. It wouldn't matter what the sex of the child was or the martial status of the heir. First born is first born. No and, ifs or buts about it. So if the heir has a child with his girlfriend, then this child is the heir. If he marries someone other that his girlfriend and they have a child, then that child is second in line to the throne. I imagine his marriage prospects would be more limited as how many women would marry this heir knowing that any children she has with him will play second fiddle as far as succession rights goes. Second in line.

Fur will fly if the heir is a married man with no children. If he already has children, the fur will still fly.

This would never happen because the status quo and distribution of power would be threatened by this especially if the first born were female or a lot of first borns were females.

The children of royals who are born out of wedlock have generally not been heirs of the throne. Prince Albert is an exception to that but I can't think of any other male royal who is an heir to a throne who is known to have fathered a child out of wedlock, as least in modern times.

I don't know if this is true, but someone told me that a male royal who fathers a child out of wedlock is more likely to have a female child than a male child (60/40 I believe is what this person told me). When you go back in history some of them had many more daughters than sons. It would be interesting if someone did a study on this to see what the statistic is on it.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 05:16 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,863
Originally Posted by COUNTESS
At least, today, they are not discarded and hidden. Of course, Charles II, had many and gave them all titles of sorts. Children of these unions will never be accepted into the fold, especially if there are "legitimate" heirs..
Actually a lot of illegitmate children were not discard through out history but were in fact given titles and land- Henry VIII gave his iilegitment son a title of Duke of Bainbridge (I think it was bainbridge but may have that wrong) and many of Queen Victorias uncles lived with their misstresses and illegitmate kids before they had to race to make an heir- it was far more excepted in history for Kings to have many lovers and children born of those liasons
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 10:16 AM
Smart's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 50
I'm against any recognition of illegitimate children for succession. The LAST thing we need is the praising of adultery daily by saying "Your Majesty!"
Supporter of global Republicanism and the Abolition of all Monarchies. With special attention to the Windsors.
There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!
-John Hancock, upon signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 11:25 AM
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: here and there, Greece
Posts: 536
To me , it makes sense that only legitimate children can succeed to the throne . Not because I view the illegitimate children as lesser creatures or because I find it immoral but because a succession law which allows illegitimate children to succeed could be proved very dangerous . Just imagine it - a King dies( I mention King only because I believe that a Queen could not hide an illegitame children because she would be carrying it - at least not easily) and then, when everyone expects that the Crown Prince or Princess will succeed him naturally, an older illegitame children appears and says: "You know I was the first child of the late King - so it is my birthright to succeed him". So what does the government does then, and the Royal Family and the people when the whole succession line is being turned upside down? And anyway , if illegitimate children have the same succesion rights with legitimate ones , how can people be sure that their King or Queen is the legitimate one, when there would be always the possibility that an illegitimate sibling would appear?
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 11:30 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,776
I don't believe that illegitimate children should have succesion rights. I think it could be very messy. Just think about the past....Charles II had how many illegitimate children...some within the same year. Charles dies, and Child X becomes King, then everyone realizes that Child Y was born before X. Would they be the King now? And how do you prove that both were the children of Charles II. Now we have DNA but it could have definitely been messy in the past. Its worked thus far, I see no reason for a change.

I think they should have inheirtance rights but that is about it. And of course, a relationship with their parents.

Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 07:56 AM
Catherine Helvin's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: St Helens, United Kingdom
Posts: 295
I agree with Zonk here because it's bad enough that so many irresponsible parents have children out of wedlock but when royalty is involved it's even worse. After all, the Royal Family is supposed to set an example for the rest of us to follow.
Princess Diana, the best Queen this country never had
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2011, 12:21 AM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,330
Yes, the entire line from William the Conqueror descends from William, the Bastard of Normandy. Ironic, isn't it?

Elizabeth II is a descendant of him through two lines.

It's always interesting when one church holds another church's legitimate offspring to be illegitimate. History seems to have every variation.

Charlemagne's grandson, Bernard, was illegitimate (and was accused of treason by the legitimate branch, tortured and executed) but Charlemagne himself gave him the title of King of Italy after his father (Pepin, King of Italy) died.

Fortunately, Bernard was able to reproduce (and his eldest son be given the title of Count of Vermandois, IIRC) and his line was therefore continued as a royal line.

He doesn't seem to have schemed against his cousin as much as refused to bow to him, and he paid dearly. But the underlying theme was that no bastard should be inheriting the Crown of Italy, even if Charlemagne wanted it that way.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2011, 01:29 AM
Royal Highness
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,870
In medieval times it was pretty easy: as wives were often barren through diseases but men needed heirs, they accepted illegitimate offspring as part of the family and, in times of need of heirs, the king granted the inheritance or part of it to an illegitimate son if need be.

In German we even have an expression for such a household consisting of a father's legal and illegal children: "Kind und Kegel" - "Kind" = legal child, "Kegel" = illegitimate child. It is used to say that the whole of a family comes visiting , or moves or goes on holiday, then they go with "kind und Kegel".

But it wasn't accepted for Royality and with good reason. They believed that the right to the throne was a god given right and why should God give that right to an illegitimate child? And who dared to declare a child out of wedlock as a "God given" monarch and anoint him in a coronation service?
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2011, 03:19 AM
Wisteria's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maidenhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 632
out of wedlock children

A particularly sad case in my mind is that of James Croft, the first born son of Charles II. He was given the title of Duke of Monmouth but he found it very difficult not to be bitter although he was very much loved by his father.
It was made even more difficult as the King had no legitimate son.
There is a difference between an illegitimate child and a natural child, in the first case it is when one of the parents was married or for some reason could not legally marry, the second was when there was no impediment to a marriage.
James was a natural son and in the end his bitterness got the better of him and he rebelled.
I can't say that I think this law is wrong, it is just terribly unfair to an innocent child and in many cases a very worthy heir to a throne. I believe this law will last as long a monarchies last and in some cases it is just as well. In fact in principle I agree with it.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2011, 03:57 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 6,389
The problem with the rights of children born out of wedlock has sure been a problem and caused a lot of problems throughout history!

In Denmark, the Law of Succession states very clearly that only children born within a legal marriage (*) can claim the throne.
Beforehand in the 15-1700's, acknowledged children born out of wedlock got the title of Gyldenløve = Goldenlion, which was not hereditary. They were the fortunate ones, they at least had a resonable position in life to start from.
The rest, well, at best the mother got some money as compensation. And sometimes the mother could confide to the child: "You are really the son/daughter of a king/prince".
Illegitimate children wasn't really a problem except for those with a position and in particular in connection with inheritance, for everybody else below that position in life, they were an extra set of hands. Children were after all born out of wedlock all the time. People were no better back then than they are now. The more strickt and Christian interpretation of moral only gained some popularity much later.

(*) Legal marriage back then meant a Lutheran wedding. It was not unheard that kings married to their "left hand", King Christian IV did.
He married his mistress and by marrying her to his left hand, she gained status as the kings official and beloved mistress. She was officially treated as his second wife, subserviant (officially and in theory) to the queen.
That was seen as a very practical solution to the problem of the king having a relationship based on love and at the same time being married out of duty. Now, the mistress didn't have to hide or visit the king in secrecy and should he die, her status was still secured. - I.e. quietly retiering to some manor somewhere.
And as official mistresses were mostly noble, she and her family, retained a status that was worthy of the status she was born into.
Just as importantly, any children were officially aknowledged with all that implied.
The church, unsurprisingly, was very much against the practise of "marrying to the left hand" and managed to stamp it out eventually.
(Very breifly and simplified).
Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 07:31 AM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 212
I hate to say this, but I don't think out of wedlock children should be allowed succession rights. It would open a can of worms. People could come out of nowhere, claiming to be heirs. I don't think children born out of wedlock are any less worthy, but giving them succession rights would make it too easy for climbers. DNA testing could always be insisted on, but it would be done in private, meaning it wouldn't be bound by honesty.

It almost seems illogical to bar out of wedlock children, when they are born into long term relationships (such as India Hicks's) but the reality is that there needs to be a consistent standard. If you create a "three years together" rule like the de facto rule, things get even messier. What constitutes a relationship? What if a child is born early in a relationship, the parents stay together, and one of the parents dies shortly after the birth?

There are too many shades of grey

That said, I would love for the rights of artificially conceived children to be considered. It would be great if the rules could be updated to suit twenty-first century reproductive medicine. Where does everyone stand on the issue of genetic material? I personally like the idea of following the bloodline, but, on the other hand, what if the partner in the line of succession is infertile? Could this be considered unfair?

There's really alot to consider...
Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 08:00 AM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,389
Who is India Hicks? Not familiar with this story.

In a perfect world, everyone would be born to parents who are married to each other and are happy together. But we are not in a perfect world Never will be. A perfect world is not in this domain.

The answer to this question is not very easy as there are so many complexes to the issue just as they are in relationships. If the child was a result of a one-night stand, then the answer to this question is more clear cut. If the parents were in a relationship for several months were together for a long time, then it gets more complicated. A lot of people would say in both situations, "Well, then get married to each other, problem solved." Easy thing for someone to say who basically is on the outside looking in and who probably doesn't know the couple personally or what their relationship is like. Human relationships are complicated.

Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 10:32 PM
Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession Lady Ann British Royals 335 05-24-2012 01:07 PM

Popular Tags
australia best outfit camilla carl philip chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cornwall duke of cambridge fashion fashion poll felipe vi france funeral germany hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima nobility official visit picture of the week president gauck president hollande prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince of wales princess ariane princess charlene princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary style princess mette-marit princess victoria queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sayn sofia hellqvist spanish royals state visit sweden the hague tiara united states of america wedding willem-alexander

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:25 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]