Succession Rights For Illegitimate Royal Children

[magnik]

Originally Posted by Odette

Catherine the Great also had at least one daughter with Count Orloff she sent to hiding

Her eldest daughter Anna Petrovna's father was probably Stanisław August Poniwatowski (later last Polish King).

Stanisław August as a King had several out-of-wedlock children
- with Elzbieta Grabowska (his later morganatic wife):
Stanisław and Michał Grabowski,
- with Magdalena Agnieszka Lubomirska:
Konstancja Zwanowa,
Michał Cichocki,

August II the Strong King of Poland, Electorof Saxony had several out-of-wedlock children. According to Princess Wilhelmine of Prussia, Margravine of Brandenburg-Bayreuth he had from 365 to 382 children. However only few he recognized like:
- with Countess Maria Aurora von Konigsmarck: Herman Maurice Comte de Saxe,
- with Countess Joanna Teresa Estrele (nee Lamberg): son,
- with Fatima later Maria Anna von Spiegel:
Frederick August Rutowski
Maria Anna Katharina Rutowska,
- with Urszula Katarzyna Bokum/of Altenbockum wife of Prince Jerzy Dominik Lubomirski and later Frederick Ludwig von Wurttemeberg-Winnental:
Johann George Governor pf Dreseden,
- with Henriette Renard-Duval:
Countess Anna Karolina Orzelska mistress of Crown Prince Karl-Frederick of Prussia and wife of Charle Ludwic Frederick von Schleswig-Holstein-Sondrerborg-Beck,
- Anna Konstancja von Brockdorf Countess Cosel
dead son ?
Augusta Anna Konstancja Cosel
Fryderyka Aleksandra Cosel
Fryderyk August Cosel,
- with Maria Donhoff later Princess Lubomirska: child.

King Jan III Sobieski had one out-of-wedlock son born between 1646-48.

King Władysław IV Waza with Jadwiga Łukowska: Władysław Konstanty.

King Zygmunt II August Jagiellończyk and Barbara Gizanka: Barbara Woroniecka.

[LordMountbatten]

Nowadays, do we still consider having illegitimate children as scandal even for the royals?

[nascarlucy]

Several years ago when the Crown Prince of Norway was engaged to be married to a woman who had a child from a previous relationship, an issue was made about the fact that this child was born out of wedlock. Given that Norway is a much more progressive thinking country than the United States on this matter, why this even was made an issue is beyond me but in a way it is the double standard rearing its ugly head. If a male heir to a European throne fathered a child out of wedlock, it might be mentioned at the time (then dropped) but usually it would be years down the road if it were mentioned at all. In a lot of cases, it never would be mentioned at all. There would not be endless debates about it nor would he be judged as harshly as a princess would be. Any Crown Princess who did this would be judged very very harshly and would have to answer to her family and her country. A Crown Prince would not have to do this.

[Thena]

Princess Wilhelmine of Baden, Grand Duchess of Hesse, married her much older cousin Grand Duke Louis II of Hesse. Her first two children, Louis and Karl, were definitely his. Louis would his succeed his father while Karl was the father of Louis IV, husband of Princess Alice.

But the paternity of her later children was questionable. The grand duke purchased a home for his chamberlain, Baron von Senarclens, in Heilingenberg. Grand Duchess Wilhelmine promptly moved out of her husband's residence in Darmstadt and moved into the property at Heilingenberg. She went on to have four (five) more children, but only the last two lived to adulthood. Grand Duke Louis acknowledged the children as his own, though everyone knew they really could not have been his.

So who were these last two children? One was Prince Alexander of Hesse, who was the ancestor of the Battenberg (Mountbatten) line. The other was Princess Marie, future consort of Tsar Alexander II and grandmother of Nicholas II.

[Kastalia]

Originally Posted by LordMountbatten

Nowadays, do we still consider having illegitimate children as scandal even for the royals?

No i don't think so. I remember when Prince Albert of Monaco revealed that he has two kids out of wedlock from two different women nobody was shocked,but when King Albert's of Belgium paternity to Delphine Boel was revealed the press treated him very cruel.Monaco's Prince didn't received negative publicity due to the fact that he fathers two illegitimate kids but for hiding it for so many years (i think that Rainier died without knowing for Albert's second child).

[Seraphine]

Prince Christian Sigismund of Prussia, uncle of the Head of the House of Hohenzollern Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia, has a child born out of wedlock. He is the heir presumptive, because Georg has no children yet.

Isabelle-Alexandra Grandmontagne-Prinzessin von Preussen (b. 18 September 1969)

Prince Christian-Sigismund of Prussia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Royal Fan]

King Charles II of England had quite a few

[nascarlucy]

King Charles had at least 15 children. His brother King James had 5 children with 2 wives and then at least another 10 children with various mistresses. There is a total of 30 or more children between the two Kings. King Charles was often refered to as the Father of England. When you count the number of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc, it adds up. The father of England fits well. How interesting given that he's the Defender of the Faith (Head of the Church of England).

I believe Princess Diana and Fergie were decesendents of two of these mistresses.

[Kotroman]

There has been so much fuss about adopting gender-blind primigeniture lately but, as far as I know, nobody has yet stopped to wonder: why shouldn't illegitimate children be granted succession rights equal to those of legitimate children?

The most-cited argument for adopting gender-blind primogeniture is: "This is the 21st century." Well, in the 21st century, there is increasingly less and less stigma of illegitimate children. "Female monarchs are not less able than male monarchs." True, and illegitimate children are not less able than legitimate children; just take Elizabeth I of England as an example.

So, is there a good reason to exclude illegitimate children from succession?

[COUNTESS]

Elizabeth I was only illegitimate in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Her father and her mother had married. Exunt the illegitimacy. Other illegitimate children's parents have never married, ergo, no contract for legitimacy of inheritence. They will never inherit, even in the most open of socities. Unfortunately, legitimate children will, I believe, always have an upper hand on the latter. Even in the 21st Century.

[RoyalistRiley]

I think one reason why illegitimate children are prohibited from the succession is because in some cases, particlarly the UK, the Church has been strongly linked to the Royal House. Another factor may be that when succession rules were drawn up, society was not as considerate of illegitimate children as we are in the 21st century.

[Rascal]

It could also be a "deterrent" used against scheming "gold-diggers", so to speak. True, the mothers of illegitimate children tend to benefit financially and, in some cases, property through their offspring with a royal in line to a throne. But imagine the stampede of willing sexual partners (predominantly female) to the bedchamber of a royal prince in line to inherit a throne if they knew that an illegitimate child would be first in line behind the irresponsible father! It would be like Tiger Wood's dance card....LOL!

IMO it also removes some level of responsibility from the (predominantly) male heirs who see no problem with having unprotected sex with whomever offers themselves. In case there is an "accident", at least they don't lose the family firm, they just pay some hush money or make some provisions for the comfort and education of the child which undoubtly includes a higher standard of living for the mother.

[Kotroman]

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.

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Elizabeth I was only illegitimate in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

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.

Another factor may be that when succession rules were drawn up, society was not as considerate of illegitimate children as we are in the 21st century.

True, of course, but the same can be said for female heirs.

[Kastalia]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Elizabeth I was only illegitimate in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Her father and her mother had married. Exunt the illegitimacy. Other illegitimate children's parents have never married, ergo, no contract for legitimacy of inheritence. They will never inherit, even in the most open of socities. Unfortunately, legitimate children will, I believe, always have an upper hand on the latter. Even in the 21st Century.

I agree,i also believe the same.
Look what happened to Belgium with King Albert's illegitimate daughter. She seems to be an intelligent and well educated lady but never gained acceptance.In this case i believe that if the King was not married to Queen Paola things would be different,he would be more free to support her emotionally and financialy.On the other hand his children with Paola enjoy all of their privileges.I'm not judging anyone.But even in the 21st century some clichés and prejudices will remain the same.

[Boris]

The most peculiar current case regarding this issue might be Monaco.
Present Heiress of the reigning monarch Prince Albert is still his sister Caroline; while Albert will most probably have children with his future wife, he has two older children out of wedlock, who are on one hand no legitimate heirs, but on the other hand acknowledged by him as his own - Jazmin Grace Grimaldi, 18 years, and Alexandre Coste, 7.
Since Monaco does have a history of turning illegitimate children into legitimate heirs (Prince Rainier’s mother Charlotte, born illegitimately as the daughter of a laundress in Algeria and later declared to be Heiress to the Throne), future developments might be interesting to watch.

[prsgoddess]

Albert's illegitimate children no longer have the rights to succeed him. Copied from Wikipedia:

"In 2 April 2002 Monaco promulgated Princely Law 1.249 which provides that if a reigning prince dies without surviving legitimate issue, the throne passes to his siblings and their descendants of both sexes, according to the principle of male-preference primogeniture. In October 2005 (after Albert's accession to the throne), this law took full effect when ratified by France, pursuant to the 2002 Franco-Monégasque Treaty regulating relations between the Sovereign Principality and its powerful neighbour. His sisters and their legitimate children thereby acquired the right to succeed to the throne. Under the current constitution, neither Jazmin nor Alexandre has a claim to the throne of Monaco because they are not legitimate. Monegasque law stipulates that any child legitimatized by the eventual marriage of his/her parents automatically obtains the rights to which that child would have been entitled if born in lawful marriage.[12] Thus Alexandre would become Monaco's heir apparent under current law if Albert were to ever marry his son's mother."

As Albert is now engaged to Charlene Wittstock, the likelihood of his marrying either of his illegitimate children's mothers is extremely remote.

[Boris]

Thank you for providing the summary of the present Monegasque law, prsgoddess!

I am aware that Prince Albert's children have no succession rights – currently.
That's why I was alluding to the fact that a belated legitimization has been orchestrated before, in order to be able to turn the child of Prince Louis II of Monaco, Charlotte Louvet, Prince Rainier's mother, who was also born without succession rights, into The Duchess of Valentinois and Heiress Presumptive to the throne of Monaco.

Wiki’s entry about her, also mentioning the sudden changes of law back then and the doubts about the legality of the process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes...of_Valentinois

In the history of Royalty, the existence of illegitimate children, especially when acknowledged by their royal parent, has always represented an imponderability.
Which of course makes the subject fascinating.

[auntie]

I believe that if Albert would have wanted to he would have legitimized his illegitimate children, and is saying something by not doing so, both mothers "accidently" became pregnant and by doing so have a free ticket to a life of luxury. So this is his way of not getting back at them. They may have squeezed out of him child support and a chunk of inheritance, but they will never be a real part of the Royal family.

[nascarlucy]

Knowing that there are women out there who deliberatedly seek them out for the sole purpose of having a child for financial gain, you would think that male royals would be careful of who they associated with or perhaps looked into the background of the woman before getting too involved with her. This wouldn't be 100% but would discourage some of these women from using them in that way.

[Polly]

I can't agree with you, nascarlucy. The responsibility is mostly that of the male royal concerned. Surely, there's not one of them who doesn't know how to prevent a pregnancy? Most of the illegitimate children are the result of lust, pure and simple, and I'm inclined to give the women involved the benefit of the doubt: i.e. they become flattered and overwhelmed by the royal attention. And I'd ask - how easily can commoners, on the 'make', as it were, 'seek them (the royals) out'? In reality, the moves and invitations come from the royals concerned. For instance, an air hostess could hardly ring up the palace and invite a prince to dinner unless she had his personal phone number and had been asked or encouraged to do so.