Succession Rights For Illegitimate Royal Children

[Noble Consort Ming]

From the top of my head: Emperor Meiji, the great-grandfather of the current Emperor Akihito, was the offspring of a concubine.

best wishes Michiru

Meiji's successor, Emperor Taisho, was also born to a concubine. Taisho was the last Japanese emperor to be born to a concubine.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The difference in Japan is that should the situation arise they'd probably pick a male member of the quite numerous formerly imperial family branches that was demoted from their status after WWII. Apparently many of them still bear a grudge and consider themselves royal.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Actually illegitimate children do have succession rights in Japan. Legitimate sons have precedence over illegitimate (even when older) sons, but an illegitimate son of the Emperor would (should he not have legitimate male children) take precedence over a legitimate brother of the Emperor. In fact, a couple of years ago one of the late Mikasa sons suggested Crown Prince Naruhito should take a concubine to produce an heir.

best wishes Michiru

Under the current Imperial House Law, which entered into force in 1947, only legitimate male-line offspring of an emperor may be members of the imperial family, and only male members of the imperial family may succeed to the imperial throne.

Prince Tomohito's "concubine" suggestion in 2005, if it had been taken seriously, would have meant repealing the legal ban on polygamy in Japan. But reinstating polygamy was never seriously considered. Before Prince Hisahito's mother announced her pregnancy in 2006, the Japanese government planned to amend the Imperial House Law to allow the emperor's firstborn (legitimate) child to succeed, regardless of gender. Reinstating former imperial family branches was considered, but rejected.

The feelings of the former imperial branch members are unknown because all but one of them agreed to keep their views on imperial succession issues to themselves.

The Imperial House Law - The Imperial Household Agency

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f68/succession-issues-4108.html
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...current-events-july-2005-may-2008-a-7675.html

 

[Denville]

While an official mistress may be better than a regular mistress, and the children born to an official one may be held higher than the children born to just any old mistress, the fact remains that in Europe, the children of a mistress were not as high as the children of a wife, nor was the mistress comparable to the wife. The children of an official mistress in Europe might be given titles and good marriages and belong to the nobility, but they didn't have succession rights.
e.

Exactly. In some cases Louis XV as I recall legitimised some of his illegitimate childrene but that just gave them a slightly higher status and problaby was done to gvie them better marraige chances. It didn't mean they were in the succession. Mistresses had no rights, Concubines and their children do.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In the Netherlands royal succession for persons born outside the royal marriage is impossible. This because a dynast needs to be born in a marriage which has been approved by an Act of Consent. To put it stronger: a royal person engaging into marriage without an Act of Consent looses his/her very own succession rights.

Article 28 of the Constitution

28.1
The King, engaging into marriage without an Act of Consent, abdicates the kingship.

28.2
When a successor engages in a marriage without an Act of Consent, he and the children born from said marriage as well their descendants are excluded from the hereditary succession.

Article 28.2 applied on the following persons who did not request for an Act of Consent:
HH Prince Floris van Oranje-Nassau, Van Vollenhoven x Aimée Söhngen (2005)
HH Prince Pieter-Christiaan van Oranje-Nassau, Van Vollenhoven x Anita van Eijk (2005)
HRH Prince Friso of the Netherlands x Mabel Wisse Smit (2004)
HRH Princess Christina of the Netherlands x Jorge Pérez Guillermo (1975)
HRH Princess Irene of the Netherlands x HRH Prince Carlos Hugo de Bourbon de Parme (1964)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Many illegitimate sons became monarchs in medieval Europe, most often when their father did not have any legitimate male heirs.

Succession in the medieval Kingdom of Norway
The Royal House of Norway - The unification of Norway

In the Middle Ages the Kingdom of Norway was a hereditary electoral monarchy – in other words, the monarchy was based on a combination of inheritance and electoral consent. All the king’s sons, legitimate and illegitimate alike, inherited an equal right to the throne and could bring their claim before the assembly. Those present at the assembly would decide whether to elect the son who sought the throne. Acceptance by the assembly – the people’s consent – gave legitimacy to the authority of the king.

 

[jujubes]

Hypothetically if Kate had gotten pregnant before she and William got married, would they have married ASAP in order to avoid an illegitimate child

 

[Osipi]

I really don't have the answer to this but I would imagine that a legitimate child is determined at the time of birth and not conception. Legally, even if conceived before the marriage, the child would have been born to legally wed parents.

At least that's my take on it.

 

[Pranter]

That's not happened in some decades although there are rumors about the generation prior to the Queen...supposedly David had at least one 'love child'.

Previously they didn't marry the woman because she *usually* wasn't in the right class for them to marry even if they had wanted to.


LaRae

 

[Anfisa]

Hypothetically if Kate had gotten pregnant before she and William got married, would they have married ASAP in order to avoid an illegitimate child

I think they would have. It would make a big scandal if Kate gave birth to Will's child out of wedlock.

 

[Zonk]

Let's stay on topic..we don't need to speculate what would have happened if Kate had a child with William before marriage. The fact is, she didn't.

We can certainly discuss the succession rights for illegitimate children....say if Harry had a child before marriage but Harry hasn't married anyone yet.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The rules are very clear:

A child born out of wedlock has no succession rights.

A child born the day after the parents marry is legitimate, born within wedlock and so has succession rights.

If a couple finds out they are expecting before marriage and they have things like titles riding on the child they may very well marry so that the child is able to inherit. These days, with the aristocracy, they may even go so far as to find out whether it is a boy or a girl as boys can inherit titles but not girls (throne excepted) so if it was a girl they may not worry about getting married until after the child is born while if it is a boy they may very well hurry to do so.

 

[Anfisa]

It's funny how Henry VIII, Charles II, etc had many illegitimate children without much consequence, but if it happened today it would cause a scandal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But they didn't try to have those children acknowledged as the heirs to the throne. No one would really care if William or Harry had an illegitimate child unless they wanted that child to succeed as it opens a whole can of worms.

William IV also had a number of children before he married Adelaide (David Cameron, former PM, was a descendant of one of those children) and there are rumours about illegitimate children for Edward VII and Edward VIII.

 

[cepe]

Zara Tindall summed it up in an interview for a prog for PRincess Royals 60th birthday.

2 rules: No tattoos; no pregnancies before marriage.

 

[Ish]

I really don't have the answer to this but I would imagine that a legitimate child is determined at the time of birth and not conception. Legally, even if conceived before the marriage, the child would have been born to legally wed parents.



At least that's my take on it.

A child is considered legitimate if they are born after their parents wed, regardless of whether or not they were conceived before or after the wedding. There was a time when conceiving before the wedding would have been scandalous, so you see weddings having taken place very quickly followed by "premature" babies who weren't exactly small.

How scandalous a baby born out of wedlock to a couple that married after the birth was would have depended on the class, period, and overall circumstances.

 

[Pranter]

But they didn't try to have those children acknowledged as the heirs to the throne. No one would really care if William or Harry had an illegitimate child unless they wanted that child to succeed as it opens a whole can of worms.

William IV also had a number of children before he married Adelaide (David Cameron, former PM, was a descendant of one of those children) and there are rumours about illegitimate children for Edward VII and Edward VIII.

Henry VIII toyed with the idea and I think would of pushed it further had his natural son not died so young.


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

The only acknowledged 'natural son' of Henry VIII I can find is Henry Fitzroy who died in July 1536 two months after he had married Jane Seymour by whom he still hoped for a legitimate son - which he did get.

He already had two daughters and one was undoubtedly legitimate - Mary.

I think he may have considered trying to name Henry as his heir if he didn't have a son and if he believed the country wanted it but the evidence is that by the time Henry died Henry VIII was still very hopeful of a son and the country were quite supportive of Mary as his heir anyway.

 

[Denville]

Henry VIII would only have considered it because he had no option.. as he didn't want his daughters to inherit. occasionaly royals have had their children legitimated to give them status, or very occasionally (In Monaco) an illegitimate child has inherited the throne.. because there were no legitimate heirs. but it is rare. its not supposed to happen

 

[Skippyboo]

Until Mary, there wasn't a crowned Queen Regent before so you had to have a boy because the girls were ignored succession wise. Once it's ok for descendants of a female to inherit the throne and woman themselves, you don't run out of heirs. Even when the Tudors ran out, then the crown jumps to the Stuarts via a female Tudor.

Also there isn't the strict morality of later times, rich men had mistresses and protection wasn't as easy as it was back then. It was okay for the guy to screw around just the not royal wife.

It would still be scandalous today if a prominent British royal pulled a Prince Albert of Monaco especially if it was some sort of one night stand. How much money would be spent try to keep the baby mama drama from being in the press all the time? Mum holding the sad looking little kid on the front of the DM wondering why Daddy lives in a palace but child doesn't. Stuff like that. It would be tabloid gold.

 

[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.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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?