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
 
  #101  
Old 03-02-2011, 03:19 AM
Wisteria's Avatar
Courtier
 
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
  #102  
Old 03-02-2011, 03:57 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 6,574
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 GyldenlÝve = 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
  #103  
Old 04-23-2011, 07:31 AM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
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
  #104  
Old 04-23-2011, 08:00 AM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,394
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
  #105  
Old 04-23-2011, 08:06 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,813
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
  #106  
Old 04-23-2011, 08:36 AM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,394
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
  #107  
Old 07-10-2011, 03:23 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,286
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
  #108  
Old 07-25-2011, 08:28 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 4
Quite a number of royals are born out of wedlock, too. I hope they will model a good family. If the people has a wrong model, the entire society suffers.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 07-26-2011, 06:32 AM
PetraHel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 150
I read that Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria had at least one child (daughter Helen) with his long-time secret lover Anna Nahowski. Is it true, or just rumour?
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 07-26-2011, 07:09 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by PetraHel View Post
I read that Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria had at least one child (daughter Helen) with his long-time secret lover Anna Nahowski. Is it true, or just rumour?
Anna Nahowski's diaries were published in 1986, but I don't believe she came right out and said that she had children with Franz Joseph. Whatever the truth of the matter, Anna was paid millions in today's money by the Habsburgs to keep her secrets.

Helene was married in 1911 to the composer Alban Maria Johannes Berg, and is reported to have confided to her close associates that she was in fact, the Emperor's daughter.

Franz Joseph and Anna's relationship lasted for 14 years (overlapping his affair with Katarina Schratt), and the German Wikipedia article about Anna says there is some real speculation that her son, Franz-Joseph (Frank) Nahowski, was the son of the Emperor as well.

Apparently, on what would be the Emperor's 100th birthday (18 Aug 1930) Frank Nahowski severed the little finger of his left hand and placed it on the Emperor's grave stone. He was later declared insane and institutionalized.

I have seen at least one descendant chart showing both Helene and Frank as the Emperor's children, but no sources were referenced for the entries.
__________________
ŕ i vethed...n‚ i onnad. MinlŻ 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
  #111  
Old 07-26-2011, 08:18 AM
shari-aree's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by H.M. Margrethe View Post
As far as i can remember Queen Margrethe of Denmark tolde in the serie "A royal family" that the littel girl was put up for an adoption because it was not the best story to tell if Thyra was going to marry in to another royal family with alot of power and welth.

It is amazing that this 'little baby' - was never traced, discovered, outed!

I hope she lived a life with love all around her, when I heard about her parents' story it made me cry, he must have loved her so much to end it all because he'd caused her to be shamed.

There quite possibly is a Greek family out there, (besides QM Sister), with very strong ties to the DRF.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:01 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,394
Up until recent times, things like this were carefully hidden. A child born out of a wedlock to a royal (usually man) and a commoner who was put up for adoption might never be told the truth about their true parentage. Or the people adopting them were not told of this royal ancestry. Birth certificates then were most likely altered to conceal the truth. This way it would be highly unlikely that this story would get out especially if the parents who adopted them didn't know.

If they were adopted by royal relatives or people of noble or aristocratic backgrounds, then most likely they would either discover the truth or their parents would figure it out since many of them are very close knit. I would think to avoid detection that the child might be placed with a family who had wealth but were not nobility or of aristrocratic backgrounds. One would have to wonder how many people that are out there are related to royality and don't know it.

If the child stayed with the biological mother or the mother's family, they would probably be told at some point the truth. How they would handle this or what they would do with this information would vary with the person. Some of these children had distant relationships with their biological father (there was an understanding that this person was their father but it was never mentioned or discussed). Other had no contact with their fathers and went about their life.

Very complex issue even though it's not complex.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 07-27-2011, 09:11 PM
Leslie2006's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 445
Out-of-wedlock children are nothing new in the Grimaldi family; their dynasty was practically founded on illegitimacy. Charlotte, Sovereign Princess of Monaco (1898-1977) was born the illegitimate daughter of Prince Louis II of Monaco and his mistress, Marie Louvet. They eventually married and legitimized Charlotte, and being an only child, she was able to rule Monaco after her father's death.

Queen Victoria's grandson, Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein (son of Princess Helena) fathered an illegitimate daughter, Valerie Marie, with a Prussian noblewoman named Bertha, who died shortly after giving birth. Valerie was immediately adopted by the Schwalb family.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-27-2011, 09:24 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,394
Very interesting stories. I bet if you go into any royal household's history you will find countless examples over the centuries of these children being born. Many of them lived very quiet lives without being known. Others seemed to be in the limelight to a certain degree.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-27-2011, 09:35 PM
Midwestern Mom's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Smalltown, United States
Posts: 135
In centuries past kings generally didn't bother to hide their illegitimate children...some of them were quite proud about it, or so it seems. A good many of them were given titles and properties.


MM
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-27-2011, 09:42 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 7,677
I didn't see this mentioned anywhere on this thread, so I thought I'd add that Tsar Aleksandr II of Russia had (I believe) three out-of-wedlock children with his mistress Yekaterina Dolgorukaya. The children were later known as Prince/Princess Yurievskii.
__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 07-27-2011, 09:55 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,394
Especially during the Reign of Charles II. Taxpayers paid the expenses of some of these children and I would imagine taxpayers at the time paid for the titles and properties as well. Even he said having all these children was getting expensive.

Today this would never fly and it would never happen. Can you imagine what the reaction in Britain would be if Prince Charles or Prince Andrew admitted to fathering several children out of wedlock with several different women. putting them on public display, bragging about this while being interviewed and then giving these children titles and properties?

Their countrymen/women would be outraged to say the least. People would be asking them "What were you thinking?" Or they would say that they would have to pay for all these children that they fathered, not the taxpayer.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 07-27-2011, 09:57 PM
Leslie2006's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daria_S View Post
I didn't see this mentioned anywhere on this thread, so I thought I'd add that Tsar Aleksandr II of Russia had (I believe) three out-of-wedlock children with his mistress Yekaterina Dolgorukaya. The children were later known as Prince/Princess Yurievskii.
Oooh yes he did! I completely forgot about Alexander II! However, they married less than a month after the death of the tsar's first wife, Maria Alexandrovna. So the children were legitimized, but never included in the line of succession. They were Ekaterina, Georgy, Olga and Boris.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 07-27-2011, 10:20 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 7,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leslie2006 View Post
Oooh yes he did! I completely forgot about Alexander II! However, they married less than a month after the death of the tsar's first wife, Maria Alexandrovna. So the children were legitimized, but never included in the line of succession. They were Ekaterina, Georgy, Olga and Boris.
Thank you . I was pulling that out of my memory, so mistakes were going to be unavoidable. It's been a while since I read anything on the Romanovs.
__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 07-27-2011, 11:25 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,330
Prince Charles does have income-generating property that he could conceivably confer property upon children out of wedlock, but it's my understanding that only the Queen can confer titles.

Prince Andrew has no substantial properties to confer on anyone (I believe the Queen is largely responsible for endowing him with income, but whether he can give any of that income permanently to anyone else, I don't know - I'd like to know). It seems the Queen is set on the two legitimate princesses having jobs - and refused Andrew's request for Beatrice to be a working royal and follow in Andrew's footsteps - doubtful there's enough in that particular pie to be liberally distributed to other kids (as opposed to back in the days of the Plantagenets, Tudors or Stuarts).
__________________

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 carl philip chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death denmark duchess of cornwall fashion fashion poll felipe vi france funeral general news germany hereditary grand duchess stťphanie infanta leonor king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima official visit picture of the week president hollande prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince frederik prince of wales princess ariane princess beatrice princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mette-marit princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spanish royals state visit sweden the hague victoria 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 09:02 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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