Mistresses, Out of Wedlock Children, Royalty and Legitimacy - Page 3

Iain · #41 09-13-2005, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duchess

I just read the thread that had some postings about the possibility of an illegimate child for Margaret and Townsend.

There was an article in one of the British papers a few months ago about a man who is supposed to be Margaret's son.
.

Warren · #42 09-13-2005, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain

There was an article in one of the British papers a few months ago about a man who is supposed to be Margaret's son.

Discussed at greater length through the last two pages of the Princess Margaret thread, here...

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ead.php?t=1022

.

Lord Williams · #43 09-13-2005, 10:12 PM

"There's also a website for the man that says he's the child of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor (I'll see if I can find it) that shows resemblances of people with the same kinds of claims."

This woman lives near to me, I am not sure about it. It looks odd to me as well. Very odd. WE3... highly doubtful.

KathyMoore · #44 07-29-2006, 05:27 PM

This is purely a hypothetical question:

What would have happened if Diana found out that she was pregnant after the divorce?
Either conceived with Charles prior or after the divorce)

Would the baby be considered a royal and 4th in-line to the throne?

Thanks!

BeatrixFan · #45 07-29-2006, 05:31 PM

Well, status is decided on birth and not on conception so if the baby was born after the divorce, the parents wouldn't be married therefore the baby would be legally a bastard and wouldn't get Royal status automatically. But in that situation, I imagine the Queen would have given the baby Royal status and a nice title, the baby would still be illegitimate though and wouldn't be in line for the throne.

Toledo · #46 07-29-2006, 05:49 PM

I doubt the Queen would have allowed Charles and Diana to get a divorce if she was expecting his child during the process of the divorce. She is after all the one with the final say in that family. So, the baby would have been born legitimized. But, in the hypotetical situation that the divorce was unstopable and the child was born later, I side with Beatrixfan, an illegitimate child would be excluded from the throne line.

branchg · #47 07-29-2006, 05:49 PM

The baby would still have been a royal prince/princess and in line for the succession provided The Queen agreed to acknowledge the child as royal.

BeatrixFan · #48 07-29-2006, 05:52 PM

British law clearly states that a child must be born in wed lock to be considered legitimate, whether Royal or Common. So, if Charles and Diana were divorced, their baby would be born out of wedlock and thus illegitimate and the only thing that would legitimise the child is the marriage of the parents which in this situation didn't and wouldn't have happened. The title would have been given by the Queen in the same way she gave titles to William and Harry but as an illegitimate child, the baby wouldn't be in Royal succession.

Toledo · #49 07-29-2006, 06:00 PM

Now, let's spice this up. If the child is born after the divorce but, like in this hypotetical case, conceived within the matrimony, what would the status be? Would the royal child's status within the family go by birth or by conception?

This brings up the recent celebrity case of actor Charlie Sheen, whose wife filed for divorce while being pregnant. So, things like this do happen.

BeatrixFan · #50 07-29-2006, 06:04 PM

Well, British law goes on the status of the parents at birth, hence why, if you get pregnant, marrying before the baby's birth will make the baby legitimate. If you don't and the baby is born out of wedlock, it's illegitimate, no matter what the status was at conception. In Britain, it's always done by birth.

Toledo · #51 07-29-2006, 06:05 PM

You win.

Elspeth · #52 07-29-2006, 06:21 PM

If the state of the Wales marriage was as bad as they said it was, the chances are that if Diana was pregnant at the time of the divorce, Charles wouldn't have been the father.

If she'd become pregnant while married but Charles had insisted that there was no way the child was his, and a genetic test showed as much, the child would also not be in the line of succession.

BeatrixFan · #53 07-29-2006, 06:27 PM

Indeed Elspeth. I think that such an event would cause such a scandal that succession would have to be reviewed and we'd get into the whole Catholic debate and there would be questions raised about the very nature of the Monarchy and that would be dangerous.

branchg · #54 07-29-2006, 07:59 PM

For all practical purposes, Charles and Diana were divorced after their separation was announced, so it's highly unlikely this would ever have come to pass. They were living totally apart for some time.

branchg · #55 07-29-2006, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

The title would have been given by the Queen in the same way she gave titles to William and Harry but as an illegitimate child, the baby wouldn't be in Royal succession.

The Queen didn't "give" William or Harry any titles. Under the 1917 Letters Patent of George V, they are automatically princes of the UK with the rank of HRH as male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign.

BeatrixFan · #56 07-29-2006, 08:09 PM

Indeed but without the Sovereign they can't have those titles. In an illegitimate case, the child wouldn't have any titles automatically.

KathyMoore · #57 07-29-2006, 10:58 PM

Thanks for the very informative replies! :)

A couple of follow-up question:

(1) did Diana(or other wifes or royals) have to be examine
by a doctor prior to getting a divorce, so as to make
she wasn't carrying a royal baby?

(2) have there been any illegitimate children in the British
royal family in the last 100 to 200 years? If so, how
are/were they treated?

Thanks!

Iluvbertie · #58 07-30-2006, 04:58 AM

With regard to Question 1 - no idea

With regard to Question 2 - the Queen's cousins - the Harewood's (descedents of George V's daughter) have illegitimate children in there somewhere. They have no titles or entitlement to any titles by inheritance and are NOT in the line of succession.

George III's sons had many illegitimate children who were acknowledged by their fathers during the lifetime of the fathers but not much acknowledgement afterwards - I have heard no reference to Victoria for instance acknowledging her haf-siblings through her father but she did spend time with her half-brother and half-sister through her mother (they were born in wedlock).

Kotroman · #59 03-03-2009, 05:05 PM

Aren't people recquired to spend a specific amount of time seperated before divorce can be done? I believe it is a year or so (perhaps it is just in my country). I think the purpose of this seperation time during which spouses are still legally married is exactly the legitimacy of an unplanned child.

Skydragon · #60 03-03-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman

Aren't people recquired to spend a specific amount of time seperated before divorce can be done? I believe it is a year or so (perhaps it is just in my country). I think the purpose of this seperation time during which spouses are still legally married is exactly the legitimacy of an unplanned child.

You must have been married for a minimum of one year before you can start proceedings. If it is not being contested and allowing for paperwork backwards and forwards to the people concerned and the court, a degree nisi can be granted within 2 to 3 months. After the degree nisi is granted, by law the petitioner must wait six weeks and one day before applying for a decree absolute. It is possible to apply for a divorce after 2 years separation if the partner cannot be contacted for any reason, it is also possible to drag it out to 5 years. Therefore I don't believe it has anything to do with a possible pregnancy.