Succession Rights For Illegitimate Royal Children

[sarahedwards2]

Why are illegitimate and adopted children out of line for the throne, when they are clearly the royal's children? My brother and I are adopted (our youngest brother is not); my cousin and his girlfriend (on my dad's side) just had a baby girl last week; and 43 years ago my dad's sister got pregnant at 19 but they got married when she was three months along, and have been married for almost 43 years; with three sons, five grandsons and three granddaughters, plus a grand-dog (a chocolate Lab). Same on my mom's side; my mom's oldest brother got married at 22 when his 19-year-old bride was seven months pregnant with their daughter, and she already had an almost 2-year-old daughter from a previous relationship. My uncle adopted his wife's firstborn daughter, and until the day he died she never thought of him as anything but her dad. My uncle and aunt also had a son a few years later, and were married for almost 39 years before lung cancer took his life at 61.


Sent from my iPod touch using The Royals Community

[Countessmeout]

Adopted is because it isn't their child. When it comes to inheriting, it is about blood lines. Adopted children don't share blood, they don't carry on the family. Daughters may have a different last name, but they at least have blood.

Legitimate it's simply a matter of upholding the sanctity of marriage. Unfortunately royal men of the past weren't good about keeping their.... In their pants By restricting it to children born in wedlock, it also limits the chances of fighting for the throne. Until recent decades, there was no way to tell if your mistress was pregnant with your child. Many mistresses were married after all. If your bastard could be your Legal heir, how many would come out if the wood work claiming to be a royal child and eldest.

Not to say it didn't happen. Some childless kings did adopt heirs. They were related in some way. See that in Sweden. Monaco most recently. Rainiers mother was a bastard. Her father adopted her as his heir.

It was also highly common to give bastards titles and positions. The Stewart's, especially in their Scotland only days, were well known. But the English and French courts often did. Henry VIII did with one. Henry it is rumored considered making his son, who he named duke of Richmond, his heir after Elizabeth was declared bastard. But the boy died from consumption.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2

Why are illegitimate and adopted children out of line for the throne, when they are clearly the royal's children? My brother and I are adopted (our youngest brother is not); my cousin and his girlfriend (on my dad's side) just had a baby girl last week; and 43 years ago my dad's sister got pregnant at 19 but they got married when she was three months along, and have been married for almost 43 years; with three sons, five grandsons and three granddaughters, plus a grand-dog (a chocolate Lab). Same on my mom's side; my mom's oldest brother got married at 22 when his 19-year-old bride was seven months pregnant with their daughter, and she already had an almost 2-year-old daughter from a previous relationship. My uncle adopted his wife's firstborn daughter, and until the day he died she never thought of him as anything but her dad. My uncle and aunt also had a son a few years later, and were married for almost 39 years before lung cancer took his life at 61.


Sent from my iPod touch using The Royals Community

In most monarchies approval must be given for a royal marriage. For an example in the Netherlands even both Chambers of Parliament have to assemble in a joint session to read and debate a Bill of Consent for an intended marriage of a royal successor! Engaging into a marriage without and Act of Consent is equal to renouncing all rights. The intention is clear: the Government and Parliament wants to control who has access to the throne. If the rules are that strict (at the moment there are 5 royals in the Dutch royal family whom engaged into marriage without requesting an Act of Consent and have lost all rights, for themselves and for all their descendants).

Having said that, most monarchies have a provision for the eventuality that there is no legitimate heir anymore. In theory that is. In practice it will be the end of a monarchy and the start of a republic.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Illegitimate or adopted should get a portion of the wealth but inheriting thrones or titles should only be biological relations or legitimate children.

[ldmemail]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The most senior member of the British Royal Family to have a known child as the result of a one-night stand is Mark Philips. It was one of the reasons for the separation and divorce from Anne - not that he had done so but that he was found out.

Captain Mark Phillips is a former member by marriage of the British Royal Family, his illegitimate child affected no one .

[Ish]

Originally Posted by ldmemail

Captain Mark Phillips is a former member by marriage of the British Royal Family, his illegitimate child affected no one .

I would guess that his illegitimate child affected him, his wife, and his 2 children from his first marriage...

In terms of succession rights, I believe the closest-to-the succession illegitimately born children are in the Lascelles branch of the family... First, among the children of David Lascelles, 8th Earl of Harewood is his daughter Lady Emily Shard and son Hon Benjamin Lascelles, who were born before his marriage, and his grandson, Leo Lascelles (son of the Earl's 3rd child and heir apparent, Alexander Lascelles). Then comes Tanit Lascelles, herself the daughter of Hon James Lascelles, the Earl's younger brother.

[ldmemail]

Originally Posted by Ish

I would guess that his illegitimate child affected him, his wife, and his 2 children from his first marriage...

In terms of succession rights, I believe the closest-to-the succession illegitimately born children are in the Lascelles branch of the family... First, among the children of David Lascelles, 8th Earl of Harewood is his daughter Lady Emily Shard and son Hon Benjamin Lascelles, who were born before his marriage, and his grandson, Leo Lascelles (son of the Earl's 3rd child and heir apparent, Alexander Lascelles). Then comes Tanit Lascelles, herself the daughter of Hon James Lascelles, the Earl's younger brother.

That goes without saying! The fact that this child was born did not affect the Royal Family nor is the child affecting the succession rights of the Royal Family, which is the point of the discussion!

[ldmemail]

Originally Posted by ldmemail

That goes without saying! The fact that this child was born did not affect the Royal Family nor is the child affecting the succession rights of the Royal Family, which is the point of the discussion!

Also all of the illegitimate Lascelles are not able to inherit the Harewood title and have no rights to the Crown.

[GitaDeK]

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt

Belgian royal family illegitament children: Leopold I, the first Belgian king, had a mistress, Arcadie Cadet, for whom he arranged a marriage with an officer from his staff, Friedrich Meyer. Arcadie Meyer gave birth to two illegitimate royal children, Georges and Arthur. The king gave Arcadie and her children a nobility title, "Barron of Eppinghoven". Her descendants are living in Canada. Leopold II also had two illegitimate children with his mistress Blanche Delacroix, whom he married on his death bed. Lucien Delacroix became Duke of Tervuren, Philippe Delacroix Count of Ravenstein. Prince Charles, who briefly held office as Regent of Belgium after World War II, also had an illegitimate child, Isabelle Wybo.

In his book "A Throne in Brussels", author Paul Belien reveals that Count Michel Didisheim is an illegitimate son of King Leopold III, the father of kings Albert and Baudouin.

!!!!!!!!!!thanks to http://lvb.net/item/1170 --WARNING WEBSITE CONTAINS VERY NAUGHTY PICTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Untrue, Arcadie's mother arranged the marriage, Leopold didn't. No source or proof. She also had lovers, so her children may not have been his. She was dismissed as a mistress very soon after the death of Queen Louise because the King saw how much this fortune seeker was hurting his children.

Paul Belien is a loathsome source for information - his book is pure trash.

[Tatiana Maria]

I posted this question in a thread on a specific German family, but it applies equally to others:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

The fact that most people are supportive of the Belgian judiciary awarding royal titles to Delphine as a special favor restricted to her and her children without altering the unequal situation of other out of wedlock descendants of nobility, but - at the same time - adamantly criticize the laws of the republic of Germany which allow all children of titled families to receive the same titles in their names without discrimination on the basis of legitimacy - confounds me, to be honest. From my perspective the latter approach is more equitable than the former. Would anyone explain why most people have the opposing stance?