The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

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

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 04-23-2011, 08:06 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,097
India Hicks is the granddaughter of the late Earl Mountbatten. The daughter of Lady Pamela Mountbatten and David Hicks. She was a bridesmaid in the wedding of Charles and Diana.

She has four children but hasn't married their father (with whom she is in a long time relationship). Lives in the Bahamas, a model, designer, author, etc.

Her children are not line to the British succession because they were born out of wedlock. Not that it matters....she is 521.
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-23-2011, 08:36 AM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,302
Thank you Zonk for the information.

If the child born out of wedlock is the child of the heir to the throne, then it becomes an issue. A lot of questions come up. To many people, the solution to the question of succession would be for the couple to marry each other, problem solved. If the child was the result of a one night stand, this would not be advisible. If the couple were together for several months or were together for several years, marriage would seem a good option but again one doesn't know what their relationship is like or if it's advisible if they do marry.

I guess any legally recognized marriage even those who are miserable or unhappy passes the standard (they are married when the child is born), thus their child would get succession rights. A child who was born out of wedlock would be out of luck period. For succession rights for children, any marriage will do.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-10-2011, 03:23 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,032
As I've observed,in Britain(or let say historical kingdoms of England and Scotland) the royal illegitimate spring had more rights then in other countries and since William The Conqueror was considered as the bastard ,it had become nearly a family tradition.The most famous is probably Charles II(though I read in a source that Duke of Monmouth was not his son) ,whose blood runs in the veins of nearly every British noble,who had 12 illegitimate children just officially(do not know if he had any kids with Francisca Stewart).Prince William will be the first king who descended from Charles II.
Henry VIII acknowledged only one official bastard,that was Henry Fitzroy.I wonder why he did not recognize Mary Bolleyn's son,maybe it was because he was latter married to her sister Ann.Then there were probably George IV,William IV and Edward VIII.
I wonder that it more difficult to guess about queens' illegitimate kids,though Mary Queen of Scots had two twins out of wedlock.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-28-2011, 06:41 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
I wonder that it more difficult to guess about queens' illegitimate kids,though Mary Queen of Scots had two twins out of wedlock.
Mary's miscarried twins were the children of James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, whom she married on 15 May 1567. Their marriage was legitimate on Mary's side, since she was the widow of Darnley, and presumably legitimate on Bothwell's side as he was divorced from his first wife, Jean Gordon.

The Queen miscarried sometime between 18-24 July 1567. Had they been brought to term and lived, they probably would have had succession rights after James.
__________________
i vethed...n i onnad. Minl pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-28-2011, 07:26 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,003
The Duke of Monmouth was especially embittered because of rumors that Charles II had actually contracted a marriage with Monmouth's mother, Lucy Walter. (It was supposedly repudiated by Charles when he succeeded so that he could make a royal marriage). It may have been only a rumor, and Monmouth's detractors spread alternate rumors that he was not even Charles' son. Yet he was always acknowledged and even favored above the rest.

Mary Boleyn was reputed to be notoriously promiscuous; Henry probably had serious doubts that he'd fathered her children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-31-2011, 03:00 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kettering, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Not only do I agree with the illegitimate not having succession rights. Quite frankly I don't think illegitimate ofspring should have inheritance rights at all. It is quite possible that my father had at least 1 child outside his marriage to my mother BUT if that is so and they try and contact me they will get told to go away. They may be his but that doesn't make them part of my family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-31-2011, 04:06 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 820
The whole point of royalty is to marry and produce offspring with the best lineage possible and to also ensure a proper succession with a proper wife. Even these days with commoner wives, the legitimate succession is the one that inherits. It's not fair to the kid born out of wedlock, but certain rights and rules have to be maintained. It would be chaotic if a prince were to have a legitimate kid, have the kid trained, and then end up having an older kid come out of the woodwork claiming the right to the Throne and shoving out the kid who has already been trained. Prince's should be careful where they spill their seeds and make sure they spend time with a wife instead of a mistress.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-03-2011, 05:06 AM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 874
I meant to say to is wrong for a child to be mistreated because of their parents' choices but I agree with the other members on this forum that would not be an good idea to allow illegitmate children to have succession rights all types of chaos would come from this happening.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-04-2011, 09:56 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,302
It's interesting to me how many times when succession rights are discussed that out of wedlock children are often seen as a threat to that succession. What about other cases regarding succession rights that had nothing to do with this issue.

In some cases where a monarchy has been overthrown and in a a few cases reinstated or a possibility to be reinstated in the future there has often been legal battles and fights over which branch is to be reinstated (one party thinks they are, another doesn't). Instead of involving one person (an out of wedlock child) challenging the succession, there are many many people involved in this as each party has a stake in what happens. Some of the legal issues are also complicated as well and can go on for years. The Russian Royal Family would be a good example of this.

Since it takes two to tango, neither one of them are totally off the hook. The woman is the one who gets the raw end of the stick. Most of these woman are from lower social standings than the male royal. In most cases their children don't get succession rights to the throne. Never have for the most part.

This was basically to protect the male royal as he was the one causing this problem to occur. If he was single, he should have been more careful and when he's married, he has no business cheating on his wife. He had to protect his present and future family against his irresonsible behavior, so that is why laws were passed barring succession and inheritance rights to the children royals and other men fathered out of wedlock. The children and the woman involved were punished for his behavior.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-04-2011, 10:35 PM
shari-aree's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posts: 170
So much of Royalty is about upholding traditions.

Lets not change for changes sake.

Every generation will have a different idea and will want to leave its mark.

The mark of Royalty is in its continuance of traditions.
__________________
" 'an harm none; thy will be done "
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-06-2011, 11:48 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,032
Usually,the children out of wedlock were born to the male rules,while the female rulers either were too attentive and didn't want to risk their high position or just were able to hide well their illegitimate issue.
One of the best examples of female illegitimate issue was demonstrated by the Empress Catherine II the Great of Russia,she cared to give titles and assure good condition for her illegitimate spring.She had 3 illegitimate kids with the Count Orlov and one illegitimate daughter by her most powerful lover,Grigory Potemkin,the last daughter was born when she was 46 years old.
Список мужчин Екатерины II — Википедия
Google
Here is more information about her illegitimate son by Grigory Orlov,who was later granted with the title of Count Bobrinsky:
Бобринский, Алексей Григорьевич — Википедия
Google
Her last daughter by Grigory Potemkin,Elizaveta Temkina,married into rich nobility and had a very happy family,one of her descendants is a well-known Russian linguist:
Google
Google
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-07-2011, 01:12 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: lichfield, United Kingdom
Posts: 38
What about adopted children? What would their position be, theoretically? If a royal couple can't have a child naturally, and go through a legal adoption process, would that child be able to succeed?

I believe - could well be wrong! - that if this happens in aristocratic, titled families, the adopted child cannot inherit the family title because he (it would be a he in this scenario) does not carry the family blood. I wonder if the situation is the same in Royal families?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-09-2011, 02:57 AM
shari-aree's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posts: 170
In the past if the Monarch couldn't conceive a legitimate child; then the throne would be past to his heir, e.g. younger Brother.

I don't believe this has changed.

(King Charles II had illegitimate children only, so his Brother James inherited)

Personally (& this is my opinion), I don't see anything wrong with this system.
If changes are made and traditions ignored then too many claimants would come forward and problems would be plentiful.
__________________
" 'an harm none; thy will be done "
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-09-2011, 06:56 AM
Donovan's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cath View Post
What about adopted children? What would their position be, theoretically? If a royal couple can't have a child naturally, and go through a legal adoption process, would that child be able to succeed?

I believe - could well be wrong! - that if this happens in aristocratic, titled families, the adopted child cannot inherit the family title because he (it would be a he in this scenario) does not carry the family blood. I wonder if the situation is the same in Royal families?
I think if a royal (especially one in line to the throne) theoretically adopted a child, he or she would not inherit titles, since they are usually reserved for legitimate biological children.

If adopted children were able to inherit titles or be heirs to the throne, it would cause numerous problems. Her Royal Highness The Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway already had a son, Marius, before she met and married HRH Crown Prince Haakon of Norway. If HRH Prince Haakon were to adopt her son, and adopted children added to the line of succession, then Marius would be 2nd in line to the Norwegian throne instead of his half sister HRH Princess Ingrid, who is royal by blood.

This would then be a problem because if, for example, a royal couple adopted and then had biological children later, who would be first in the line of succession? And does the child need to be adopted within a short time frame after birth, or can they be any age? Who decides what makes them "legitimate" heirs in these cases? And what if only one person, say the heir to the throne, is adopting a child and is not married, then can that child be in the line of succession?

I do think that succession laws need to change (namely getting rid of male-preference primogeniture), but adding in adopted and illegitimate children would cause far too many problems.

Plus, many monarchs are portrayed as being closely tied with religion (ruling by divine right), most of which frown on adultery and/or sex before marriage, so illegitimate children would not factor in with their religious stances.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-09-2011, 11:46 PM
shari-aree's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posts: 170
I do think that succession laws need to change (namely getting rid of male-preference primogeniture), but adding in adopted and illegitimate children would cause far too many problems.


I don't even like the idea of this changing.

1) I like the tradition
2) New Royal Brides are always so exciting & more interesting to watch and learn about.

For example, (just a small one!!), - Fashion - Royal Brides are watched for what they wear - clothes & jewellery.
Danish CP Mary, British Duchess of Cornwall & Monaco's P Charlene are far more interesting to watch than if they were Men in suits!
__________________
" 'an harm none; thy will be done "
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-10-2011, 01:39 AM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,319
It's very hard for adopted kids (2% of the U.S. population) to understand why in matters of royal inheritance (unlike any other form of inheritance), adopted kids don't count.

It's inhumane. Royals, if they adopt, should adopt the same as everyone else - an adopted child is a real child of the adopted parents. So cruel to look at it otherwise.

It doesn't matter whether such things complicate inheritance for royals - it's only right.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-10-2011, 01:40 AM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by shari-aree View Post
So much of Royalty is about upholding traditions.

Lets not change for changes sake.

Every generation will have a different idea and will want to leave its mark.

The mark of Royalty is in its continuance of traditions.
It is also well-timed and humane adaptations.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-10-2011, 07:07 AM
shari-aree's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posts: 170
Just out of curiosity - is there any Royals who are in-line for a throne who are or have adopted?
__________________
" 'an harm none; thy will be done "
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-10-2011, 07:29 AM
shari-aree's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
It is also well-timed and humane adaptations.

In adopting, anyone is providing a child with a loving family, that is lovely and humane.

If a member of a Royal family adopted, that child would be raised within a family that respects tradition.
The child would know it is loved, wanted and cared for.
He/She would be educated in the History & Traditions of the Royal Bloodlines.
Anyone lucky enough to be adopted and raised with love and respect, would respect that History & Tradition.

__________________
" 'an harm none; thy will be done "
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-10-2011, 10:31 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,734
Hussein and Alia of Jordan are the only royals I know of who adopted. Her name is Abir Muhaisen and has a photo thread in this forum. She lives as a private citizen in the U.S.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Proposal for Equal Primogeniture Succession Lady Ann British Royals 1082 07-23-2013 06:34 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 912 02-04-2013 07:05 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander norway picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess annette princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima princess mette-marit queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander william


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

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV 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 03:48 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
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]