Succession Rights For Illegitimate Royal Children

[HM Queen Catherine]

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.

 

[Mirabel]

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.

 

[PaulaB]

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.

 

[AristoCat]

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.

 

[Next Star]

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.

 

[nascarlucy]

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.

 

[shari-aree]

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.

 

[Lenora]

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

 

[cath]

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?

 

[shari-aree]

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.

 

[Donovan]

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.

 

[shari-aree]

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!

 

[PrincessKaimi]

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.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

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.

 

[shari-aree]

Just out of curiosity - is there any Royals who are in-line for a throne who are or have adopted?

 

[shari-aree]

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.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

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.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

History and tradition have changed many times - if you go back far enough. Charlemagne, for example, support his illegitimate grandson's ascendency to the Italian throne. So which "history and tradition" is supposed to be supported? Only the most immediate one?

Since rights of accession vary from nation to nation and over time, and they do change, they can change again.

It makes way more sense for any monarch to choose from among all their offspring (legitimate and not, adopted and not) the one who is best suited for the role of monarch. This is one reason why some monarchies in the deep past encouraged so much concubinage (and some monarchies still permit a monarch to have more than one wife...)

Telling an adopted child that they should be happy with what they've got and forget about being treated as a regular, real child...well, that doesn't seem quite just to me.

Of course, male primogeniture isn't going to go away quickly in any but the most progressive of monarchies. But, if it does, that will pave the way for other equally humane changes.

KittyAtlanta, do you know the reasons for the adoption? Did they have any other children?

Anyway, I doubt I'll live long enough to see male primogeniture challenged in the U.K., as it has worked out nicely for them that Charles and William are both firstborn males. If Charles is truly progressive, he will abolish male primogeniture (especially if his first grandchild is a girl...what a thing that would be!)

 

[PrincessKaimi]

BTW, the Beaufort story (first page of this thread) really makes the point - things change. Lines become legitimised when need arises.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

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.

Hi Lenora,

Did Edward VIII(later Duke of Windsor) have an out of wedlock child? I have heard rumors, but I am not certain.

Also, Mary Queen of Scots actually miscarried the Earl of Bothwell's twins AFTER she had married him, during her imprisonment at Lochleven(?)after she was forced from the throne.

They were of course conceived OUT of wedlock however.

 

[shari-aree]

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.

Do Americans really think that much about Royal Families?
Just curious, as you all seem to be very proud of your Republicanism, it seems strange that you would even consider the traditions of Royal systems of other Nations and Commonwealths at all?
(Please read as a genuine question - No dis-respect intended at all)
To a lot of people, America seems to be obsessed with celebrity, naming 'Rock Royalty' or 'Hollywood Royalty' or 'Political Royalty' - but celebrating (hugely) the break from Britain many years ago as one of, if not THE favourite holidays!
Celebrities are worshipped despite the antics they get up to & sometimes because of them!!! -bed-hopping, multiple marriages, drug taking & drinking or behaving badly to fans or their partners seems to get them more attention and adulation.
Whereas Royals are pounced on if they step out of line - they have a different code to live by, and this can mostly be put down to respect.
Respect for their position, their people and their traditions.
I personally believe that you cannot strip away all traditions without de-value-ing the position, the system or the history.
Tradition & Respect go hand in hand, and both are required for the survival of any Royal Family.
I send you friendship, and I do value your opinion & response - please know I am not arguing with you - I am just trying to understand our 2%of USofA are worried about if a Royal Family adopts?
(I feel I need to add a bit of personal information here - In Australia we are very multi-cultural and my family is like the United Nations -17 different nations & 8 different religions!!! & we also have Adopted family members, so I checked with many before I posted, the common thread was 'major change would be the downfall')
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Well, although I am American, my family is very proud of its British, Hawaiian, French and American backgrounds. I've never really internalized that I should think mostly about the U.S., which is probably why I chose a career that is international in orientation.

It's true that, today, Royals get pounced on (a lot), but in the past, some Royals got away with murder (literally). And illegitimate children *did* ascend to thrones.

I'm not saying that 2% of Americans worry about anything. I pointed out that 2% of Americans are adopted - and the figures are similar all over the world. That means that 1 in 50 people you know are adopted - although you probably don't know that about them, as we don't go around in real life announcing we're adopted. Our parents don't introduce us to others as "the adopted kids."

Which is why, I would hope if a Royal did adopt (and it seems they do this only very rarely - there's only one example given on this thread) - I would hope they treat the child as their very own child.

I am not living in the U.K., or any part of the Commonwealth. I have read here on the Royal Forums posts by Australians that say that when Queen Elizabeth dies, they hope that Australia abolishes the monarchy (that would be a major change); I've read the same from Canadians. I have no idea how widespread this sentiment is. I hear it arises in England as well (and certainly in Scotland and Wales and Ireland). So while the Royals may treasure tradition, they walk a fine line in which some people think of them as too backwards-looking (or too expensive) to continue to exist. I've heard many people here with far more experience in thinking about these issues than myself say that they expect the British monarchy, one day, to cease to exist.

Now *that* would be radical change. Denmark, which is a very old monarchy, changed its rules regarding female succession, in 1953. It was a fairly significant change, actually - but they are still in business and very much respected in their nation.

Many times in British history, the rules have changed (Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth I should not have, by rights, been regent under the rules of male only regency that had come before them; Empress Maude was opposed by many and although she still "ruled" I do not believe she was ever crowned, IIRC). So things change.

If it ever came to pass that a monarch had no biological offspring but still wanted the joy of childrearing, I would hope they would set a good example and adopt. Kids out there need adoption. I doubt that any rules would change right away - but that doesn't mean they *shouldn't* change.

And what should change first is the exclusion of female firstborns from being first in line. Queen Elizabeth II is an amazing monarch, an example monarch in my view - what a shame it would be not to have more female monarchs. And how backwards it would be if William and Kate had a couple of little girls (each of whom would be an heir apparent for a time under the right circumstances) and then those girls had to take back seat to a third born little brother. There's no reason it has to be that way.

Many non-western lineages did not do it this way, and there are reasons for change. If the monarchy in Britain is so weak that it could not survive such a change, then I guess I will begin to agree with those here who say it is doomed anyway.

If I had any real belief that no changes had occurred in the British monarchy over the past 1000 years, I'd say differently. But it has been constantly evolving, all manner of "rules" have been changed or broken, and usually for some reason.

I will applaud Prince Charles if when he becomes King (I can't remember which number Charles he'll be!) he decides to allow females equal succession, in honor of his mother. I think he can pull it off.

I do enjoy discussing this with you Shari-aree. I too come from a large multicultural family (I have two families: one biological and one adopted, I know both of them well), with lots of adoptees. We too span several nations and many different religions. We have a lot of rebels in my family though (that's why so many different religions, over the generations, a lot of my family have changed nations and changed religions and continue to do so - I was not born in the United States, but Hawaii became a state after I was born - my grandparents came to Hawaii from other nations - the U.S. and Canada).

 

[shari-aree]

I loved that you said some in your family are rebels!! -I guess we all have some of them!
(but they do make life interesting!!)

An adopted child IS the child of adoptive parents (there can be no greater love, & to choose a child from a position of wanting so badly is an amazingly wonderful thing). A Royal adopted child would be treated no differently in every important way -loved, cared for, educated & respected.
I still think that the bloodline would be 'followed' ... so the next in (the blood)line would inherit the title of Monarch, I stand by that it would be too problematic to do otherwise.

Yes some Commonwealth countries have people wanting a republic; luckily for us we get to vote & at the last vote it was a "no".

I believe the UK government did discuss changing the male succession law but decided to do so would mean too many changes, one of them was the 'no Catholic Monarch' rule too.
It would be hard to 'interfer' with one tradition without endangering the others.

I couldn't agree more that HMS Queen Elizabeth II is an amazing Monarch and woman, (I can't imagine working has hard as she has, and for so long!!!); which is why I believe she is much loved - around the world.

Charles did speak of using another name when he becomes King, like his Grandfather did; so we might not get King Charles III .. will have to wait & see

I really like your passion, you are a valuable advocate for adoptees and Royal watchers alike.

I look forward to talking to you again;
with love & friendship xoxox

 

[shari-aree]

OOOO Princess Kaimi - I haven't found the original article but this is covers the topic that I read years ago; ...

His Royal Highness Prince Charles will become king on the death or abdication of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. It is thought extremely unlikely that she will abdicate, that is to give up being Queen voluntarily.
Charles' full names are "Charles Phillip Arthur George" and, while he could choose any of these names - or any name at all -he will probably become King Charles III.
The story that he would become King George VII appeared in the British newspapers in December 2005 and was denied a few days later by official sources who said that no decision has yet been made about what his title will be. If Charles were to die before his mother, the next person in line to the throne is his eldest son, Prince William.

IMO if Charles was to use another name then I'm voting for Arthur.
King Arthur & Camilla - sounds good too!
King Arthur of Camelot ​

 

[Donovan]

I agree with what has been said, that adopted children definitely should be treated as any other child would. However, the question isn't whether or not the royals would treat an adopted child as their own, but if the law of succession would. Since the royals do not make their own succession laws anymore, it is out of their hands and goes to Parliament.

For example, when Charles married Camilla, some asked if Queen Elizabeth could exclude him from the line of succession in order to pass the crown to Prince William. She can't. Unless Charles married a Catholic, he cannot be removed. Plus he had a civil ceremony and not a religious one so I'm not sure if he even needed the Queen's permission to marry a second time.

The main issue here is that Parliament would have to amend the succession laws for most anything, including getting rid of male-preference primogeniture. Since the British monarch is also the head of all 16 Commonwealth realms, that would mean that all 16 countries would have to agree to any changes. Can you imagine how hard that would be?

Monarchies, especially the British, have survived by adapting to the times. But mostly they have been a few steps behind the rest of society because they have a burden of representing the past, present and future. Change too little and they're considered archaic and unnecessary. Change too much and they no longer represent tradition, which is what they're mainly around for these days.

Also, considering that some Commonwealth countries have been talking about getting rid of their monarchies (and some have even voted on this issue in recent years), if you start making numerous changes to laws concerning things such as succession you open Pandora's box. If they allow the firstborn to inherit regardless of gender, and if they allow children not of the blood to inherit, why not choose which descendant you want to ascend the throne. Well, if it's now not a matter of birth but choice, why not elect someone who might not be from the Royal Family? Well, there goes the monarchy. The monarchy would be signing its own death warrant if that happened.

This is not to say I am not in support of allowing the firstborn to inherit the throne regardless of gender or allowing children not of the blood to inherit, I definitely am. I firmly believe that all children should be treated as equals. I am just trying to point out the huge problems such changes could cause for the institution of monarchy.

And as for not allowing members of the Royal Family to marry Catholics, I believe the biggest reason is that the monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. When you get married in a Catholic ceremony, you promise to do everything in your power to raise your children in the Catholic faith. If that were to happen, then eventually someone of the Catholic faith could be sitting on the throne. Thus a Catholic, who is answerable to the Pope, would be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which severed its ties with the Pope centuries ago.

 

[shari-aree]

 

[nascarlucy]

What if a royal couple (one of whom was heir to the throne) physically couldn't have children, and they had a younger brother or sister,or cousin who has a child out of wedlock. Let's say the couple for whatever reason couldn't take care of the child or decided to give the child to the royal couple to raise as their own child. The child is legally adopted by the couple. The child is of royal blood or at least half-royal (usually children born out of wedlock are half-royal, father being royal, mother not being royal or mother being commoner).

Because this child is not their biological or natural child, this child would be by-passed for the throne. I think in a case like this, an exception could be made. Since most royal couples have children, something like this would be rare.

Adoption would not be as complicated a matter as children who are born of wedlock. People chose to adopt and it's a happy occasion. It's announced to the world. It's not something that one would try to hid or cover up like they might with an out of wedlock birth. It's not a threat to anyone within the family unit unless one is greedy or selfish.

Children born of wedlock are not automatically guaranteed inheritance rights when it comes to their biological father. In most places this is left up to their biological father as to whether or not they will remember them in their will. It is not required by law that they include them in their will even if their name is on the birth certificate. Adopted children and children born within a marriage have inheritance rights. But of course you can have brother and sister related by blood fight over the inheritance, especially when it involved large sums of money.

 

[Grandduchess24]

They are the "embarrassments" and "mistakes" of princes who had flings with other women who were not their wives, but hey if I carried royal blood in my veins I would have my father give me a title at least or recognize me as his child,and not abandon me.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Only legitimate children should be recognized; children born of a marriage between mommy and daddy. Some royals throughout history have had too many darn illegitimate children to count and even considering putting them into lines of succession would cause countless amounts or arguments and warfare.
Comparing a child born out of wedlock and a child born with ovaries is slightly insulting. Recognizing a woman born of a King and his Queen is just as good at ruling as her brothers is one thing; but saying the product of a possible one night stand with a woman who might have been somebody else's husband while also sleeping with somebody else other than the Prince/King is another.
The only times I can think of that an illegitimate child has become the ruler of a country is when there was literally no other choice OR the child himself defeated his naysayers in battle and forced people to recognize that he was the legitimate ruler.
These monarchies have an easy time of looking the other way when someone comes to the throne by breaking the rules, if said person brings stability and good for the country (Catherine the Great, Henry VII).
In the case of adoption, I haven't heard of a royal couple who is rule or will rule adopting unless it was a close relatives son who was already 1st in line to the throne. I think it makes sense that an inheritance of power, money, and ruling a nation only stays within the blood family. If putting an illegitimate child into succession laws would cause problems, putting a person who has no blood ties to the family and saying this is your new ruler would cause civil war after civil war. The child himself would probably not live very long.

 

[PaulaB]

I agree, but children are not supposed to be discriminated due to their parents' mistake. I am sure that, in most (if not all) European monarchies illegitimate and legitimate children of commoners have equal inheritance rights for that reason.



Actually, the Church of England also considered her illegitimate. The marriage of her parents was declared null and void by the Church of England. She was considered illegitimate by everyone and, unlike Mary I, she never attempted to legitimise herself.

Henry VIII as head of the church of england declared her illegitimate as he did Mary I but shortly before he died he legitamitesd both of them so legally at the kings death both sisters where legitimate.