What If A Royal Adopted?

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I think the topic was discussed before on TRF. According to the British posters, under British law, the legal mother is the surrogate mother who gave birth to the child, even if the child's DNA is not hers, but somebody else's.

I don't know about the father though, which would matter in this case as far as any inheritance of titles is concerned. My interpretation is that, since the father is not married to the legal mother (i.e. the surrogate), then, even if the biological father is recognized as the legal father, the child would still be illegitimate and could not therefore inherit the title. Is that correct ?

Yes

Under British laws, a surrogacy contract is not recognized/legal. Even if the parents sign an agreement with the surrogate, it has little standing. The baby belongs to the surrogate until after birth, and she signs rights over. Basically even if the wife supplies her egg for implantation, and the baby is hers biologically, if she doesn't carry the baby, she basically has to adopt.

And yes, the father has to be married to the mother of the baby for it to be in line for the throne. Technically in Monaco, if the couple marries after the birth the baby is legitamite (not the case in the UK), but the prince is not about to marry the surrogate mother.

It would be different if it was IVF. If the wife is able to carry a baby, her eggs are just not viable, they could use surrogate eggs. As long as the royal father supplied the sperm, and his wife carried the baby.

But we're talking men being the royal. Now the question comes if Charlotte was unable to have kids then there would be no option. If her eggs were fine but she couldn't carry, she couldn't use a surrogate.

Well, it seems to me that there would be an actual point to the rules, that is, to promote legitimate heirs and because there has to be some kind of standard for heirs, right? If that is the case, then can't they just change the rules?

The government, who oversees succession laws, could look into changing.

I don't see them ever accepting full adopted children as in line. But recognizing a child of a surrogate, if it can be proven that the couple are its biological parents, may need to be considered.

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by Curbside

Whoever makes the rules, of course!

That would be the Parliament - and in the case of the succession of British Royals - the Parliaments of all the other countries of whom Elizabeth II is Queen.

[Ish]

This isn't really an issue of succession laws, though. British (and Commonwealth) succession laws limit the succession to the legitimate descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Legitimate isn't really expanded upon - thus, "legitimate" is restricted to what other laws define as legitimate.

The succession wouldn't necessarily need to be changed - you could simply change the rules regarding who the legal parents of a child born via a surrogacy are. In the current system, the legal mother of a child born via a surrogacy (in Britain) is the woman who gave birth to the child, and the legal father is the birth mother's husband or partner (this applies to same-sex relationships).

Looking it up, if the biological parent(s) get a parental order (which has to be applied for within 6 months of the birth), it might be that the child will then have the same legal status as a child born through natural means to them - some FAQs about this can be found here, and the way I'm reading it there's certainly grounds for a child born via a surrogacy whose parents are established via a parental order could inherit a title.

If, however, a parental order isn't possible, then the child is adopted, and thus has the same legal status of an adopted child who isn't the biological child of the parents - that is, they can use the courtesy titles due to a daughter or a younger son, but aren't themselves able to inherit any titles.

I wouldn't expect this to be challenged by the BRF though - typically it seems that this kind of thing is challenged first by your average person, then members of the peerage, then finally once it's "accepted" among the majority it is seen in the BRF.

[AdmirerUS]

Is "legitimate" defined differently in the various Commonwealth Nations? Odds are, yes.

Throughout history, Royals have had success with adoption of children into the line. Various Native American Tribes used the practice. I think the Egyptian dynasties may have as well? I'm sure there are other examples. Plus all the supposed legitimate issue that might have been, in fact, the result of dalliances.

It's interesting to think about. How some royal situations lend themselves to inviting in people the rulers love/find skilled. And how in other royal situations, power is aggregated in single hereditary lines - often with less than spectacular results.

We in the US are just seeing the Victoria series episodes where Albert questions the ID of his father so that's been very interesting...

[Ish]

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

Is "legitimate" defined differently in the various Commonwealth Nations? Odds are, yes.

Throughout history, Royals have had success with adoption of children into the line. Various Native American Tribes used the practice. I think the Egyptian dynasties may have as well? I'm sure there are other examples. Plus all the supposed legitimate issue that might have been, in fact, the result of dalliances.

It's interesting to think about. How some royal situations lend themselves to inviting in people the rulers love/find skilled. And how in other royal situations, power is aggregated in single hereditary lines - often with less than spectacular results.

We in the US are just seeing the Victoria series episodes where Albert questions the ID of his father so that's been very interesting...

I would actually think that "legitimate" is probably defined very similarly in each of the realms - each realm finds British law in its foundations, and a legal concept that predates their individual foundations as an independent country most likely find basis in British law. Legitimacy and attitudes towards succession all come from a common British law. I can't speak for other realms, but I know that in Canada where there is uncertainty in Canadian law, the courts are able to look for a precedence in British and other Commonwealth laws (or at least that's what I took from my grade 11 law unit in Social studies many, many years ago).

It becomes trickier when it comes to more recent changes - ie surrogacy laws. I'm not sure what the attitude towards surrogacy is in the other realms, and who the legal parent(s) would be, if it would be an adoption, etc., however unless a child is born outside of the UK I would think that each realm would adhere to the legitimacy status of the child within the UK. What would be particularly interesting is if a child was born via a surrogate in California, where the biological parents can establish their legal parentage prior to the birth of the child. Then you have to wonder how the UK succession rights would come into play - would the UK courts recognize the child as legitimately born?

[Curbside]

Originally Posted by Ish

I would actually think that "legitimate" is probably defined very similarly in each of the realms - each realm finds British law in its foundations, and a legal concept that predates their individual foundations as an independent country most likely find basis in British law. Legitimacy and attitudes towards succession all come from a common British law. I can't speak for other realms, but I know that in Canada where there is uncertainty in Canadian law, the courts are able to look for a precedence in British and other Commonwealth laws (or at least that's what I took from my grade 11 law unit in Social studies many, many years ago).

It becomes trickier when it comes to more recent changes - ie surrogacy laws. I'm not sure what the attitude towards surrogacy is in the other realms, and who the legal parent(s) would be, if it would be an adoption, etc., however unless a child is born outside of the UK I would think that each realm would adhere to the legitimacy status of the child within the UK. What would be particularly interesting is if a child was born via a surrogate in California, where the biological parents can establish their legal parentage prior to the birth of the child. Then you have to wonder how the UK succession rights would come into play - would the UK courts recognize the child as legitimately born?

In the United States, adopted children are considered legitimate, full stop. I guess that's not the case elsewhere?

[Somebody]

The issue is that most royal houses do not only require that the child is 'legitimate' but that it was born 'of the body' within a marriage. So, it's not that the child's status as legitimate or illegitimate is at stake in the case of adopted children (they could be born either legitimate or illegitimate but are legitimate children once adopted - if that is even a relevant distinction) but them not being their parents biological off-spring within a (legitimate) marriage.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Curbside

In the United States, adopted children are considered legitimate, full stop. I guess that's not the case elsewhere?

That's because in the US you don't have hereditary titles. In the UK, an adopted child is not granted the same succession rights as a legitimately born child; nor for that matter is a child born illegitimately to parents who subsequently married.

Say John Smith becomes the Duke of Somewhere and has three sons:
1. Tom, his eldest son, born before he married his wife (Tom's mother)
2. Dick, his middle son, adopted after he married his wife
3. Harry, his youngest son, born after he married his wife

Tom and Dick are both able to use the courtesy title "Lord" before their name, but it is Harry who will one day inherit his father's titles, and thus uses the courtesy title Earl Something.

[Denville]

Exactly, and a second born son, however legitimate, isn't going to inherit a ttitle either. If John Brown is Duke of Dash and has 2 sons, both legitimate, lets call them WIlliam and James.. the elder one, William si the one who will become Duke of Dash when his father dies, not James..

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by nascarlucy

I don't know of any law that would prevent a royal from adopting - most likely the child wouldn't be in the line of succession if they didn't have royal blood but what if they did? If the child was distantly related to them or directly related to them would this make a difference.

In Middle Eastern monarchies, civil laws that observe Islamic family law prevent royals, and private citizens, from legally adopting a child.
Jordanian law uses legal guardianship, in which the guardian is responsible for the child, but the child does not take the guardian's family name and has no part in inheritance.

Adoption in Jordan
Parents decry ?loopholes? in foster care system - Jordan Vista


In Japan, the Imperial House Law of 1947 prevents members of the Imperial Family from adopting.
The Imperial House Law - The Imperial Household Agency

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Yes

UnBut we're talking men being the royal. Now the question comes if Charlotte was unable to have kids then there would be no option. If her eggs were fine but she couldn't carry, she couldn't use a surrogate.



The government, who oversees succession laws, could look into changing.

I don't see them ever accepting full adopted children as in line. But recognizing a child of a surrogate, if it can be proven that the couple are its biological parents, may need to be considered.

I can't see it happening. the British RF aren't short of heirs..

[Curbside]

Is it an issue of being short of heirs? Wouldn't Prince Harry want to pass along a title to his children?

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Curbside

Is it an issue of being short of heirs? Wouldn't Prince Harry want to pass along a title to his children?

Harry knows how it works. I cannot see the BRF pushing for change on this topic.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Curbside

Is it an issue of being short of heirs? Wouldn't Prince Harry want to pass along a title to his children?

I have no idea. If they are adopted children, or surrogate children. he can't. honestly don't know why this is being made an issue of.... Ther's no reason to suppose that he wont have his own children anyway....

[Curbside]

I'm not saying it's an issue, it just seems unfair to treat an assisted reproduction child differently than one who has been conceived naturally.

[Denville]

There are lots of unfair things about royal life. Why should the eldest son/child inherit?
On the other hand, if a royal person adopts a child, the child is going to be very wealty and privileged....

[Duc_et_Pair]

In the Netherlands adopted children of nobles have the right on the title and surname of the adoptive father. Still that does not mean an adopted child of a royal can have title and surname and even succession rights.

There is an extra hindrance: the States-General (Parliament) have to agree, in a joint session of both Chambers, of a proposed Bill of Consent for the marriage of a successor. Only children born in such a marriage can be a hereditary (!) successor.

There are plenty of born children and grandchildren to Dutch royals who have NO succession rights at all, purely because their parents married without obtaining an Act of Consent (for an example because there were plenty of successors higher up in the pecking order, so a royal made the decision not to press for the heavy parliamentary procedure of a Bill of Consent).

By the way, in the Netherlands any person can be declared a successor. Not by adoption but by an Act of Parliament, which has to assemble in a special joint session and has to approve a Bill with a qualified majority (2/3rds of the vote). It is very unlikely this will ever happen. My guess is the Royal House will sooner become extinct than that Parliament will revive it by appointing a successor to the last King.

Princess Irene, the eldest sister of former Queen Beatrix, did not obtain an Act of Consent for her marriage to Prince Carlos Hugo de Bourbon de Parme. So neither she nor her descendants are successors. Even for her, Parliament has to assemble in a special session to decide if she, a Dutch princess of the blood royal, can be appointed a successor or not. So it is really not about adoption, it is about being a hereditary (!) successor, born in a marriage which was agreed by a parliamentary Act of Consent.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Curbside

Is it an issue of being short of heirs? Wouldn't Prince Harry want to pass along a title to his children?

What Harry wants isn't really relevant. Andrew might want to pass on his title to Beatrice but cannot. If Harry only has daughters he most likely (depending on the rules for his title) will not be able to pass it on. The current duke of Edinburgh would like his title to remain among his descendents and it has to be recreated for it to happen, as he can only pass it on to Charles whose titles will merge with the crown eventually...

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Somebody

What Harry wants isn't really relevant. Andrew might want to pass on his title to Beatrice but cannot. If Harry only has daughters he most likely (depending on the rules for his title) will not be able to pass it on. T

True. Its funny that a lot of people have been sayng that "Harry wont want titles for his children.." and that he would be content with them to NOT have the title of Prince and princess. (or that he wont want a royal dukedom for himself).
I think it is possible that when Harry does get his Royal dukedom, it will be made inheritable by a female heir.. or by the eldest child regardless of gender. But not sure.

[SapphireParure]

I often wonder if non adopted can be raised to Royal Status? Seems to me like it has something to do with The Royal Letters Of Patent.