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
 
  #81  
Old 11-24-2010, 07:05 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 16,130
The duke of Noto and his wife Sofia Landaluce had a son (b. 1993) before they were married (m. 2001). But I blieve that prince Jaime of Bourbon-Two-Sicilies has been legitimized and is number 2 in the succession (of this branch of the family).
__________________

__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11-24-2010, 08:15 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,394
In recent times has any out of wedlock child been titled or given some type of title when the parents didn't marry? I know when they have married, then they are usually titled at some point.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-03-2010, 05:16 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,863
Quote:
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
  #84  
Old 12-21-2010, 10:16 AM
Smart's Avatar
Commoner
 
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.
Quote:
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
  #85  
Old 12-22-2010, 04:43 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 10
Legitimation and Pedigree??

I don't know how recent you think this is (1919), but Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Valentinois parents never married, and she was legitimated and adopted.
More specifically, I am curious how nobility of other realms recognize marriage after children.
i.e. Scots law allows noble inheritance if the couple subsequently marries, yet england, ireland, and uk peerages do not. Personally curious about Spanish nobles right now, but would like to hear others. Thx.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-23-2010, 04:56 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 4,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine Helvin View Post
Emily, Benjamin and Mark Lascelles (grandchildren of Princess Mary, daughter of HM King George V) were born out of wedlock so are excluded from the line of succession to the throne.
And also Tanit Lascelles and Martin Lascelles (and his daughter Georginia)
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-29-2010, 09:41 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,394
Back in the old days there was no DNA or blood tests to prove paternity. The only way a King, heir to the throne or male royal could tell without a doubt if they were the father of their mistresses children would be if the child looked like him, looked like other family members of his (sister, mom,etc), was a carbon copy of him, or had some other feature would would connect him to his family. If the child looked like a clone of the mistress, it would be very difficult to tell. Some people you can't tell who their parents are as they don't look like either parent.

In my case, I have a very strong resemblance to my biological father's family. I looked like I'm related to him. No one could dispute this. It's very difficult to find any features of mine that are my biological mother (it's there but you really have to look at me to see them). Neither of them of course are heirs to any throne nor do they sit on any throne.

I imagine it was an unwritten rule that a mistress be completely faithful to the King, heir to the throne or other male royal if they wanted to continue to enjoy his company. Most probably were but some were not.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 12-30-2010, 07:01 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lafayette, United States
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
I imagine it was an unwritten rule that a mistress be completely faithful to the King, heir to the throne or other male royal if they wanted to continue to enjoy his company. Most probably were but some were not.
Well in two of the most recent cases that has not been true...although it depends on how you define mistress.

The mother of Jazmin Grace Grimaldi was married at the time she conceived her daughter with Albert of Monaco. It was only a one-night-stand if reports are correct so IMHO she was not a mistress.

Also in Monaco, Caroline was pregnant with Ernst August of Hannover's child before his divorce and their subsequent marriage. As he was still marriage to his first wife, Caroline was his mistress, although at the time she was apparently not involved with anyone else.

And the most prominent example is The Duchess of Cornwall. The former Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles was the mistress of the POW before, throughout, and after her marriage to her husband. Since she had two children by him, she certainly wasn't being faithful to the POW.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-30-2010, 07:06 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,285
The illegitimate children of Charles II

There were many children who apparently were of royal Stewart blood.But not all of them seem to be reliable.
For example,Duke of Monmouth was said to be the son of a different man and not Charles II.Only the Duke of Richmond seemed to be the son (on 100 %) of the king.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-31-2010, 12:49 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,394
A mistress is a woman (married or single) that has a relationship with a married man for a period of time. Sometimes it's a short time, other times it's long term or it's an on again off again relationship with may last for a long time. That my definition of a mistress. It's not a one-night stand.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 12-31-2010, 03:14 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,706
I think you are right. Good definition.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-31-2010, 04:42 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lafayette, United States
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
A mistress is a woman (married or single) that has a relationship with a married man for a period of time. Sometimes it's a short time, other times it's long term or it's an on again off again relationship with may last for a long time. That my definition of a mistress. It's not a one-night stand.

Hi, nascarlucy. Maybe my understanding is incorrect about Jazmin's mother. I thought she and Albert "hooked up" during a vacation and did not have a long-term/ongoing/onandoff relationship...which is why I referred to her as a one-night-stand. I do know that the mother of his second known/acknowledged child was a long-standing affair that continued even after the birth of their son. Is my understanding incorrect about Albert and Jazmin's mother? Please let me know.

Thanks!

Rascal
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-31-2010, 05:51 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,394
What I was saying was a general statement as I don't know what the relationship was between Albert and Jazmin's mother.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-31-2010, 10:29 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lafayette, United States
Posts: 500
That's cool...my definition of mistress is pretty much the same as yours btw.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-01-2011, 01:49 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,804
Basically Albert did not have a long term relationship with Tamara (Jazmin's mother) but he did have one with Nicole (Alex's mom). I don't believe it was exclusive but that is the topic for another thread
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-10-2011, 11:25 AM
Courtier
 
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
  #97  
Old 02-10-2011, 11:30 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,804
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
  #98  
Old 02-11-2011, 07:56 AM
Catherine Helvin's Avatar
Nobility
 
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
  #99  
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
  #100  
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
Reply

Tags
advice, questions, royal, title, titles


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 chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess catharina-amalia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cornwall fashion fashion poll felipe vi funeral germany hereditary grand duchess stéphanie infanta leonor king abdullah of jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima nobility official visit photo session picture of the week president hollande prince carl philip prince daniel prince frederik prince of wales princess alexia (2005 -) princess beatrice princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess leonore princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion 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 daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sofia hellqvist spanish royals state visit sweden the hague 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 01:34 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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