Mistresses, Out of Wedlock Children, Royalty and Legitimacy
 

Most Princes of Wales have had at least one mistress and Charles is the first to be castigated for having a mistress. What do we know about previous royal loves and their influence on the princes in their lives?

Lillie Le Breton Langtry - Mistress of Edward VII

Camilla Parker Bowles - Love of Charles, Prince of Wales

Once again, I must ask that everyone post the links to the photos only. Next time a photo is posted but not the link the photo will be removed.
Thank you.

Mary Boleyn - Sister of Anne and mistress of Henry VIII

https://www.tudorplace.com.ar/images/Boleyn,Mary.jpg

This is a very noty threat :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I belive they have more than one .............................................

Alice Keppel & Agnes Keyser

https://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/07509...02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Most Prince of Wales didn't publically humiliate their wives in the process.

hi...

I did read the book or somewhere.. One of Camila's great grandma was involved with King Edward VII .. Is that right??? I forget her name Alice??? or other person???

Thank you
karla

Don't talk such utter rot! Of course they did but they didn't have to put up with the press to blow it out of all proportion.

Do you think Catherine of Aragon liked having her husbands paramours flaunted in her face and having to accept them as part of her household.

Do you think Queen Alexandra had any choice other than to act graciously when her husbands various mistress's were presented at court and, in many cases were amongst the intimate circle known as the Marlborough House Set? You may recall that Edward VII was named as a corespondent in an infamous divorce case. Queen Alexandra was also publicly informed by Lord Randolph Churchill, Sir Winstons father, that her husband had written love letters to a certain lady whose husband now intended to divorce her.

I the days prior to the gutter press how much more public can you get?

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

No need to get so hot under the collar. You must care about Prince Charles a lot.

I won't comment on Henry VIII since hopefully no one will use him as a gauge for any kind of marital behavior.

As far as Edward VII, I don't believe he took up primary residence with one of his mistresses, and told everyone who would listen that he never loved Queen Alexandria anyway.

Primary Residence????

Not while he was married to Diana &, if my memory is correct, not while she was alive.

Yes, Camilla does now spend a good deal of her time at Clarence House & Highgrove but Charles is now a widower in the eyes of the Church and a divorced man by law.

If he wants a live in lady friend he is entitled too.

The only reason Diana didn't move her paramours into Kensington Palace was that the Queen would have booted their & her rear's out of the place!

Yep, Alice Keppel B)

Camilla & her great grandma - both Royal Favorites

Mistresses
 

I beg to differ. Even before the advent of the gutter press, British Kings and princes have flaunted their mistresses in front of the entire country.

Case One:
Charles II: Half the aristocracy in England owes their titles to this man's bastard children. His wife had no living children. Out of guilt, Charles did not divorce Catherine of Breganza nor did he get rid of her when he had the chance. But guilt did not prevent Charles forcing his wife to accept his lovers as her ladies in waiting.

Case 2:
George IV, the Prince Regent: His marriage was the scandal of the day. He lived with Mariah Fizherbert for years. After he died, his family still aknowledged her. He actually married her illegally. She was Roman Catholic.

Case Three:
Henry II: He was married to Eleanor of Aquataine, the richest heiress of her time; the Queen of both France and England. She bore Henry five sons. She married him months after being divorced by Louis of France. She had an affair with Henry's father, Geoffrey the Fair of Anjou while still the French Queen.

(Side Note: Interesting story:re: Henry's parents. They had a famously stormy marriage. It was his first marriage and her second. She was the only remaining child of Henry I of England and thirty when she married Geoffrey. He was FIFTEEN! They famously hated one another. They had an actual agreement to stay out of the same region of Anjou and Normandy whilst married. They had five children who apparently had affection for both their parents. Their marriage worked. They came together for ruling matters and to have children. They went their separate ways when not procreating. He died when he was thirty-eight. She outlived him.)

Eleanor was not a princess in a tower by any means. She actually raised several of William's children by other women with her own children in the royal nursary. It is only when Rosamund Clifford came on the scene that trouble began. To make a long and very complicated story short, Eleanor incited rebelliion amoungst her sons and tried to dethrone Henry. In return, he confined her to a castle until the end of his life.

These examples come from many different periods. The rulers of England have always been interesting to say the least. Charles is actually quite boring. He only had one mistress. And now, he is not married. he doesn't even rate in the top ten of bad husbands when you tally up the Princes of Wales and Kings of England.

Bad Husband List:
10. Charles II: he was charming but would you want to be married to a man who slept around as much as he did?
9. Edward VII: Mistresses by the Royal box load. After his wife got menengitis and became partially deaf, he went merrily on with his social life. Went running back to her when scandal arose and when mummy threatened him.
8. Haarald II: Denied being married to his wife of many years in order to make an alliance with William, Duke of Normandy. Cast doubt on the legitimacy of his children and eventually lost the throne to said William the Conquerer.
7. and 6. Edward II and Richard the Lionheart of England: That whole gay thing. Not to say that some gay men haven't made good kings and husbands. Just that these two were not very good husbands. Edward's wife retaliated by killing him. Her son imprisoned her for life after he grew up for doing it. I doubt Richard could have even described his wife.
5. Henry I of England: Had over thirty bastard children. Stole his wife from a Scottish convent. Got her pregnant beforetrying to get her vows annulled.
4. John I of England: Divorced his first wife after ascending the throne. Told her just before he married her off to another man. Married a thirteen year old a few months later.
3. George I of England: locked his wife up in a castle for adultery after murdering her lover. She died there.
2.Henry II: The reasons: The usual illegitimate children combined with a bad temper, locking up Eleanor in a castle for getting mad, and having children with the fiancee of your oldest surviving son.
1.Henry VIII: Killed 4 of his wives. (I count Katherine of Aragon seeing as he harassed her to an early death)


See, Charles in not even in the same league.

Cheers

Thank you, Dreamcatchergrl, for a very interesting info on Kings´mistresses!

Commenting on the pics of Alice Keppel, it is no wonder she catched King Edward VII eye. She was a knock-out. Camilla is just a poor copy of her.

Quote:

Edward VII: Mistresses by the Royal box load. After his wife got menengitis and became partially deaf, he went merrily on with his social life. Went running back to her when scandal arose and when mummy threatened him.

Alexandra's deafness was congenital. Her mother was also profoundly deaf. I believe that she had Glandular Fever not meningitis.

Who knows anything about the so-called daughter of Camilla and Prince Charles ?
Apparently she was conceived 2 months before the royal wedding between Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer ; and is a student in London.

Well, is that not hypocritical?? What is good for the goose is good for the gander!!

Since Charles is now married, is there any point carrying on this argument?

Perhaps we could get the thread back on the general topic of mistresses.

Sorry Elspeth, I just found it so hypocritical.

Yes they are married now and the issue of being mistress is no longer valid.

However, I do not think anyone is going to forget how long she was a mistress and how lucky she is not to have remained one. Not many royals marry their mistresses. Very few examples exist such as Matilde Kchessinka, Madame de Maintenon (although never acknowledged and a morganatic marriage), and Mademoiselle de Choin (she married Louis XIV's son morganatically).

as of Prince Leopold and Czar Nicholas II, too.

what kind of language are u using??????????????????????? can't believe it...... don't u think that many ppl who used to love and still love Diana can get upset when u try to defend Camilla and Charles?

Alice Keppel was Edward VII's lover, and she is Camilla's great- grandmother, she used this to chat Charles up the 1st time they met at a polo competition, back in 1970.

PS- as Camilla descends from Sonia, the 2nd kid of Alice K., born in 1900, who many said was The King's child, Camilla could descend from Edward The VII, too.

Maria Fitzherbert ,who was a Catholic, and maybe the only woman George IV ever loved, became the morganatic ,secret wife of The Prince Regent.

is there any more modern examples besides typical Charles and Camilla?

I don't mean to open a can of worms here so I will tread very carefully....

I have heard (from several sources) that Prince Philip has had a number of affairs during his marriage to Queen Elizabeth II. I believe the rumours have involved French actress Helene Dordet, actresses Katie Boyle and Merle Oberon, and even Princess Alexandra of Kent.

Has anyone else heard these rumours, or have a comment?

Eliza

I've heard similiar things although I can't remember the source. :confused:

I think those are quite common rumours; whether they've been substantiated is another matter entirely, of course! Prince Philip's comments have been along the lines that with his police protection along at all times, it would have been impossible for him to conduct affairs. Upon which, a person is tempted to respond to the effect that it didn't seem to stop Charles, Diana, or Fergie.

Illegitimate Children
 

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

I remember reading, not too long ago, that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor also may have had a child.

It's interesting that these stories come out and I wish the rumours could be put to rest once and for all, one way or another.

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.

I do not believe that at all about Margaret or the Windsors....The Duke had...shall we say...difficulty performing..

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor did not have any children. The Duchess, long before she met the Duke, became pregnant and had a botched abortion. This abortion prevented her from having any more children. Even if she could have a child, the Duke did have problems "in that area".

There are many royals with several illegitimate children. William IV had 10 by Dorothy Jordan, a famous actress who supported him financially. However when his niece Charlotte died, William abandoned Dorothy to find a wife who would give him legitimate heirs to the throne. Dorothy was told if she went back to acting she would lose her children. Penniless, she had to return and lost her children. She died penniless in 1824.

Henry I sired many illegitimate children, but only 2 legitimate ones. His legitimate son, William, died in a tragic boat accident. His remaining child, Matilda, was Dowager Holy Roman Empress . Henry wished to pass the crown to Matilda but the feudal lords would not acknowledge her when Henry died and gave the crown to Henry's nephew Stephen of Blois. Stephen was the son of Henry's sister Adela. This caused a great civil war between Matilda and Stephen until a treaty was signed that Matilda's son, Henry, would be the next King. (Henry II was from Matilda's second marriage to Geoffrey, Count of Anjou).

Charles II's libido is well known and many of today's aristocrats are descended from him and his mistresses. The only woman who couldn't give him a child was his Queen, Catherine of Braganza.

The sons of George III, including William IV, were all pretty bad!

I've seen the website of that woman claiming to be the daughter of the Windsors. Looks like a hefty dose of imagination to me.

this is the site

the site

I've seen that site too. I guess it would be a miracle if the Duke and Duchess had children, especially since Wallis could not conceive after 1940 due to uterine tumors, which resulted in an operation in the U.S.

I heard he was sterile due to an attack of the mumps after puberty.

Well, that makes it doubly unlikely that this woman is who she claims to be!

Looking at the evidence this woman puts forward, the whole claim looks VERY dubious. There's not one real piece of proof this woman has to offer.

Unfortunately, there are lots of people ready to capitalize on connections - either real or manufactured- to royals.

Eliza

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.
.

Margaret's baby shock!
 

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

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

.

Les efants de la duchesse de windsor
 

"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.

Questions of Royalty and Legitimacy
 

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You win. :cool:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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).

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.

2. Valerie - Duchess of Arenberg. Her father was Prince Christian, son of Princess Helena of Great Britain, and Victoria's grandson.

Revealed for the first time - the other woman in the Queen Mother's marriage | Mail Online

(probably not really a mistress)

No silly little Filrtation

sweet flirtation I think, not comparable to James hewitt who blabbed.

Possible illegitimate daughter of Edward VII
 

Family rumor says that my grandmother was the illegitimate daughter of Edward VII. I would like to contact others who have a similar story concerning Edward VII.

Over the centuries, hundreds of children were fathered by royalty (mostly male royals). While many of these children were acknowledged, some were not. It would be interesting if anyone could estimate how many children born in the last 50 years or so were fathered by royalty and who were born out wedlock from unions of royals or nobility. The true number probably will never be known. In the later part of the 20th century, preventive measures made this number decline.

What would happen if a woman or a man got on television and claimed that King so and so or heir to the throne so and so was their father and had proof of it. What would happen in that case.

So far as the position of today's British royal family is concerned, no person born illegitimate has any right of succession to the British throne. If an illegitimate claimant appeared, then, according to my understanding, all he or she would be entitled to would be to petition for financial support if still a minor.

I think that the days of being given a surname of Fitzsomething and a Dukedom are long-gone!!

I am not expert in European Royal and Princely families, but from memory, Prince Albert of Monaco has faced several paternity claims over the years. I believe that in at least one case, Prince Albert has admitted paternity and paid child support. I think that the settlement provided that there was to be no right of sucession to the Princely throne. Someone more expert than me on Monaco's reigning family would be better placed to assist, I feel.

Various claims of illegitimacy are not unknown in the recent past of the British Royal Family, although succession has never been the issue. The Duchess of Cornwall's great grandmother, Alice Keppel, was the mistress of Edward VII and may or may not have borne him any children. The Television Annoucer, Mary Malcolm, who died quite recently was the grand daughter of Lily Langtry, mistress of Edward VII, the implication being that Mary Malcolm was the illegitimate grandaughter of the King. There has never been any question of any illegitimate offspring the King might have had claiming succession to the throne.

The situation with regard to Prince Albert's father Prince Rainier is also interesting. Prince Rainier's mother, Hereditary Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Valentinois was born illegitamely. She was the only child of Prince Louis II and she was later legitimised through formal adoption and subsequently named heiress to the throne of Monaco. The Monagasque succession therefore extends to legitimsing offspring, which is not permissable under British Laws.

I am sure that someone better qualified than me can help you.

Good Luck

Alex.

If anyone who claimed to be the illegitimate child of a monarch or heir to the throne had proof of their parentage, they would be far better off to approach the family in private rather than burn their bridges by taking the matter public. In my opinion, a proven illegitimate child would probably be given a settlement and have to sign a confidentiality agreement, regardless of age, just to keep it secret.

I doubt any royal family today would take kindly to having their dirty laundry aired, considering that all the constitutional monarchies basically survive on the good will of their subjects.

Prince Albert of Monaco has acknowledged 2 illegitimate children, and Alex is correct in saying that these children are not in the line of succession to the throne of Monaco.

If Albert had married either of the mothers of these children, even after the fact, they would be made legitimate in the eyes of the government and would indeed have had succession rights.. but as he is about to marry Charlene Wittstock, the chances of that happening are currently at zero.

I think the only thing out of wedlock offspring would have claim to would be any private monies or properties that are owned by their alleged royal parent.

Isn't Albert de Monaco the only modern ruler who has acknowledged his children? Granted, he had to be forced into it by modern science. I wonder if Albert willingly gave DNA samples or if someone else in the family did. Anyone know?

BTW, I'm a fan of Albert. Thank goodness he wasn't married.

Albert of Belgium has also acknolwedged Delphine de Boel (I think her name is). And Queen Beatrix's father did as well before his death...he had two children outside of his marriage with Queen Juliana.

With DNA testing, paternity is proven. If someone files a false claim, then DNA proves it. A woman who makes a false claim will be found out. Why someone would do this, I can't imagine. What does such a person get out of it? It does nothing to benefit them and people think badly of them. I've never understood this.

King Albert never acknowledged the paternity of Delphine Boel; but at the same time he never denied it, so it is generally assumed as a fact that he is her father.

He cannot denied his paternity. She looks so much like him.

https://img.vandaag.be/tmp/450/350/r/...met-tshirt.jpg

https://www.gala.fr/var/gal/storage/i..._reference.jpg

There is the same rumor in our family, I have very few details however

Prince Bernhard actually acknowledged his two daughters (Alicis and Alexia) out of wedlock in an interview that was published after his death (as he had agreed on with the journalist). They fully shared in his inheritance.

Lots of people seem to want to believe that they are connected to royalty. I've had a few people tlel me that they are descended from X or Y - either famous or royal people, even if it is really impossible to prove...

Henry FitzRoy,Duke of Richmond and Somerset natural son of Henry VIII and Elizabeth Blount,Baroness Tailboys of Kyme was of great importance and also the only illegitimate offspring of whom Henry VIII acknowledged.

I wonder had Henry VIII any other illegitimate offspring?

I would say unlikely... I don't think that Henry was all that fertile, esp as he grew older. If he had had other bastards, he would have acknowledged them and made a point wth ending his first marriage that he was capable of fathering children, but that his marriage to Catherine was cursed and had only resulted in miscarraiges and one daughter.