Succession Rights For Illegitimate Royal Children


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I think you are right. Good definition.
 
nascarlucy said:
A mistress is a woman (married or single) that has a relationship with a married man for a period of time. Sometimes it's a short time, other times it's long term or it's an on again off again relationship with may last for a long time. That my definition of a mistress. It's not a one-night stand.
Click to expand...


Hi, nascarlucy. Maybe my understanding is incorrect about Jazmin's mother. I thought she and Albert "hooked up" during a vacation and did not have a long-term/ongoing/onandoff relationship...which is why I referred to her as a one-night-stand. I do know that the mother of his second known/acknowledged child was a long-standing affair that continued even after the birth of their son. Is my understanding incorrect about Albert and Jazmin's mother? Please let me know.

Thanks!

Rascal
 
What I was saying was a general statement as I don't know what the relationship was between Albert and Jazmin's mother.
 
That's cool...my definition of mistress is pretty much the same as yours btw.
 
Basically Albert did not have a long term relationship with Tamara (Jazmin's mother) but he did have one with Nicole (Alex's mom). I don't believe it was exclusive but that is the topic for another thread ;)
 
To me , it makes sense that only legitimate children can succeed to the throne . Not because I view the illegitimate children as lesser creatures or because I find it immoral but because a succession law which allows illegitimate children to succeed could be proved very dangerous . Just imagine it - a King dies( I mention King only because I believe that a Queen could not hide an illegitame children because she would be carrying it - at least not easily) and then, when everyone expects that the Crown Prince or Princess will succeed him naturally, an older illegitame children appears and says: "You know I was the first child of the late King - so it is my birthright to succeed him". So what does the government does then, and the Royal Family and the people when the whole succession line is being turned upside down? And anyway , if illegitimate children have the same succesion rights with legitimate ones , how can people be sure that their King or Queen is the legitimate one, when there would be always the possibility that an illegitimate sibling would appear?
 
I don't believe that illegitimate children should have succesion rights. I think it could be very messy. Just think about the past....Charles II had how many illegitimate children...some within the same year. Charles dies, and Child X becomes King, then everyone realizes that Child Y was born before X. Would they be the King now? And how do you prove that both were the children of Charles II. Now we have DNA but it could have definitely been messy in the past. Its worked thus far, I see no reason for a change.

I think they should have inheirtance rights but that is about it. And of course, a relationship with their parents.
 
I agree with Zonk here because it's bad enough that so many irresponsible parents have children out of wedlock but when royalty is involved it's even worse. After all, the Royal Family is supposed to set an example for the rest of us to follow.
 
Yes, the entire line from William the Conqueror descends from William, the Bastard of Normandy. Ironic, isn't it?

Elizabeth II is a descendant of him through two lines.

It's always interesting when one church holds another church's legitimate offspring to be illegitimate. History seems to have every variation.

Charlemagne's grandson, Bernard, was illegitimate (and was accused of treason by the legitimate branch, tortured and executed) but Charlemagne himself gave him the title of King of Italy after his father (Pepin, King of Italy) died.

Fortunately, Bernard was able to reproduce (and his eldest son be given the title of Count of Vermandois, IIRC) and his line was therefore continued as a royal line.

He doesn't seem to have schemed against his cousin as much as refused to bow to him, and he paid dearly. But the underlying theme was that no bastard should be inheriting the Crown of Italy, even if Charlemagne wanted it that way.
 
In medieval times it was pretty easy: as wives were often barren through diseases but men needed heirs, they accepted illegitimate offspring as part of the family and, in times of need of heirs, the king granted the inheritance or part of it to an illegitimate son if need be.

In German we even have an expression for such a household consisting of a father's legal and illegal children: "Kind und Kegel" - "Kind" = legal child, "Kegel" = illegitimate child. It is used to say that the whole of a family comes visiting , or moves or goes on holiday, then they go with "kind und Kegel".

But it wasn't accepted for Royality and with good reason. They believed that the right to the throne was a god given right and why should God give that right to an illegitimate child? And who dared to declare a child out of wedlock as a "God given" monarch and anoint him in a coronation service?
 
out of wedlock children

A particularly sad case in my mind is that of James Croft, the first born son of Charles II. He was given the title of Duke of Monmouth but he found it very difficult not to be bitter although he was very much loved by his father.
It was made even more difficult as the King had no legitimate son.
There is a difference between an illegitimate child and a natural child, in the first case it is when one of the parents was married or for some reason could not legally marry, the second was when there was no impediment to a marriage.
James was a natural son and in the end his bitterness got the better of him and he rebelled.
I can't say that I think this law is wrong, it is just terribly unfair to an innocent child and in many cases a very worthy heir to a throne. I believe this law will last as long a monarchies last and in some cases it is just as well. In fact in principle I agree with it.
 
The problem with the rights of children born out of wedlock has sure been a problem and caused a lot of problems throughout history!

In Denmark, the Law of Succession states very clearly that only children born within a legal marriage (*) can claim the throne.
Beforehand in the 15-1700's, acknowledged children born out of wedlock got the title of Gyldenløve = Goldenlion, which was not hereditary. They were the fortunate ones, they at least had a resonable position in life to start from.
The rest, well, at best the mother got some money as compensation. And sometimes the mother could confide to the child: "You are really the son/daughter of a king/prince".
Illegitimate children wasn't really a problem except for those with a position and in particular in connection with inheritance, for everybody else below that position in life, they were an extra set of hands. Children were after all born out of wedlock all the time. People were no better back then than they are now. The more strickt and Christian interpretation of moral only gained some popularity much later.

(*) Legal marriage back then meant a Lutheran wedding. It was not unheard that kings married to their "left hand", King Christian IV did.
He married his mistress and by marrying her to his left hand, she gained status as the kings official and beloved mistress. She was officially treated as his second wife, subserviant (officially and in theory) to the queen.
That was seen as a very practical solution to the problem of the king having a relationship based on love and at the same time being married out of duty. Now, the mistress didn't have to hide or visit the king in secrecy and should he die, her status was still secured. - I.e. quietly retiering to some manor somewhere.
And as official mistresses were mostly noble, she and her family, retained a status that was worthy of the status she was born into.
Just as importantly, any children were officially aknowledged with all that implied.
The church, unsurprisingly, was very much against the practise of "marrying to the left hand" and managed to stamp it out eventually.
(Very breifly and simplified).
 
I hate to say this, but I don't think out of wedlock children should be allowed succession rights. It would open a can of worms. People could come out of nowhere, claiming to be heirs. I don't think children born out of wedlock are any less worthy, but giving them succession rights would make it too easy for climbers. DNA testing could always be insisted on, but it would be done in private, meaning it wouldn't be bound by honesty.

It almost seems illogical to bar out of wedlock children, when they are born into long term relationships (such as India Hicks's) but the reality is that there needs to be a consistent standard. If you create a "three years together" rule like the de facto rule, things get even messier. What constitutes a relationship? What if a child is born early in a relationship, the parents stay together, and one of the parents dies shortly after the birth?

There are too many shades of grey :sad:

That said, I would love for the rights of artificially conceived children to be considered. It would be great if the rules could be updated to suit twenty-first century reproductive medicine. Where does everyone stand on the issue of genetic material? I personally like the idea of following the bloodline, but, on the other hand, what if the partner in the line of succession is infertile? Could this be considered unfair?

There's really alot to consider...
 
Last edited:
Who is India Hicks? Not familiar with this story.

In a perfect world, everyone would be born to parents who are married to each other and are happy together. But we are not in a perfect world Never will be. A perfect world is not in this domain.

The answer to this question is not very easy as there are so many complexes to the issue just as they are in relationships. If the child was a result of a one-night stand, then the answer to this question is more clear cut. If the parents were in a relationship for several months were together for a long time, then it gets more complicated. A lot of people would say in both situations, "Well, then get married to each other, problem solved." Easy thing for someone to say who basically is on the outside looking in and who probably doesn't know the couple personally or what their relationship is like. Human relationships are complicated.
 
India Hicks is the granddaughter of the late Earl Mountbatten. The daughter of Lady Pamela Mountbatten and David Hicks. She was a bridesmaid in the wedding of Charles and Diana.

She has four children but hasn't married their father (with whom she is in a long time relationship). Lives in the Bahamas, a model, designer, author, etc.

Her children are not line to the British succession because they were born out of wedlock. Not that it matters....she is 521.
 
Thank you Zonk for the information.

If the child born out of wedlock is the child of the heir to the throne, then it becomes an issue. A lot of questions come up. To many people, the solution to the question of succession would be for the couple to marry each other, problem solved. If the child was the result of a one night stand, this would not be advisible. If the couple were together for several months or were together for several years, marriage would seem a good option but again one doesn't know what their relationship is like or if it's advisible if they do marry.

I guess any legally recognized marriage even those who are miserable or unhappy passes the standard (they are married when the child is born), thus their child would get succession rights. A child who was born out of wedlock would be out of luck period. For succession rights for children, any marriage will do.
 
As I've observed,in Britain(or let say historical kingdoms of England and Scotland) the royal illegitimate spring had more rights then in other countries and since William The Conqueror was considered as the bastard ,it had become nearly a family tradition.The most famous is probably Charles II(though I read in a source that Duke of Monmouth was not his son) ,whose blood runs in the veins of nearly every British noble,who had 12 illegitimate children just officially(do not know if he had any kids with Francisca Stewart).Prince William will be the first king who descended from Charles II.
Henry VIII acknowledged only one official bastard,that was Henry Fitzroy.I wonder why he did not recognize Mary Bolleyn's son,maybe it was because he was latter married to her sister Ann.Then there were probably George IV,William IV and Edward VIII.
I wonder that it more difficult to guess about queens' illegitimate kids,though Mary Queen of Scots had two twins out of wedlock.
 
Quite a number of royals are born out of wedlock, too. I hope they will model a good family. If the people has a wrong model, the entire society suffers.
 
I read that Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria had at least one child (daughter Helen) with his long-time secret lover Anna Nahowski. Is it true, or just rumour?
 
PetraHel said:
I read that Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria had at least one child (daughter Helen) with his long-time secret lover Anna Nahowski. Is it true, or just rumour?
Click to expand...

Anna Nahowski's diaries were published in 1986, but I don't believe she came right out and said that she had children with Franz Joseph. Whatever the truth of the matter, Anna was paid millions in today's money by the Habsburgs to keep her secrets.

Helene was married in 1911 to the composer Alban Maria Johannes Berg, and is reported to have confided to her close associates that she was in fact, the Emperor's daughter.

Franz Joseph and Anna's relationship lasted for 14 years (overlapping his affair with Katarina Schratt), and the German Wikipedia article about Anna says there is some real speculation that her son, Franz-Joseph (Frank) Nahowski, was the son of the Emperor as well.

Apparently, on what would be the Emperor's 100th birthday (18 Aug 1930) Frank Nahowski severed the little finger of his left hand and placed it on the Emperor's grave stone. He was later declared insane and institutionalized.

I have seen at least one descendant chart showing both Helene and Frank as the Emperor's children, but no sources were referenced for the entries.
 
Last edited:
H.M. Margrethe said:
As far as i can remember Queen Margrethe of Denmark tolde in the serie "A royal family" that the littel girl was put up for an adoption because it was not the best story to tell if Thyra was going to marry in to another royal family with alot of power and welth.
Click to expand...
:previous:
It is amazing that this 'little baby' - was never traced, discovered, outed!

I hope she lived a life with love all around her, when I heard about her parents' story it made me cry, he must have loved her so much to end it all because he'd caused her to be shamed.

There quite possibly is a Greek family out there, (besides QM Sister), with very strong ties to the DRF.:)
 
Up until recent times, things like this were carefully hidden. A child born out of a wedlock to a royal (usually man) and a commoner who was put up for adoption might never be told the truth about their true parentage. Or the people adopting them were not told of this royal ancestry. Birth certificates then were most likely altered to conceal the truth. This way it would be highly unlikely that this story would get out especially if the parents who adopted them didn't know.

If they were adopted by royal relatives or people of noble or aristocratic backgrounds, then most likely they would either discover the truth or their parents would figure it out since many of them are very close knit. I would think to avoid detection that the child might be placed with a family who had wealth but were not nobility or of aristrocratic backgrounds. One would have to wonder how many people that are out there are related to royality and don't know it.

If the child stayed with the biological mother or the mother's family, they would probably be told at some point the truth. How they would handle this or what they would do with this information would vary with the person. Some of these children had distant relationships with their biological father (there was an understanding that this person was their father but it was never mentioned or discussed). Other had no contact with their fathers and went about their life.

Very complex issue even though it's not complex.
 
Out-of-wedlock children are nothing new in the Grimaldi family; their dynasty was practically founded on illegitimacy. Charlotte, Sovereign Princess of Monaco (1898-1977) was born the illegitimate daughter of Prince Louis II of Monaco and his mistress, Marie Louvet. They eventually married and legitimized Charlotte, and being an only child, she was able to rule Monaco after her father's death.

Queen Victoria's grandson, Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein (son of Princess Helena) fathered an illegitimate daughter, Valerie Marie, with a Prussian noblewoman named Bertha, who died shortly after giving birth. Valerie was immediately adopted by the Schwalb family.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert,_Duke_of_Schleswig-Holstein#cite_note-2
 
Last edited:
Very interesting stories. I bet if you go into any royal household's history you will find countless examples over the centuries of these children being born. Many of them lived very quiet lives without being known. Others seemed to be in the limelight to a certain degree.
 
In centuries past kings generally didn't bother to hide their illegitimate children...some of them were quite proud about it, or so it seems. A good many of them were given titles and properties.


MM
 
I didn't see this mentioned anywhere on this thread, so I thought I'd add that Tsar Aleksandr II of Russia had (I believe) three out-of-wedlock children with his mistress Yekaterina Dolgorukaya. The children were later known as Prince/Princess Yurievskii.
 
Especially during the Reign of Charles II. Taxpayers paid the expenses of some of these children and I would imagine taxpayers at the time paid for the titles and properties as well. Even he said having all these children was getting expensive.

Today this would never fly and it would never happen. Can you imagine what the reaction in Britain would be if Prince Charles or Prince Andrew admitted to fathering several children out of wedlock with several different women. putting them on public display, bragging about this while being interviewed and then giving these children titles and properties?

Their countrymen/women would be outraged to say the least. People would be asking them "What were you thinking?" Or they would say that they would have to pay for all these children that they fathered, not the taxpayer.
 
Daria_S said:
I didn't see this mentioned anywhere on this thread, so I thought I'd add that Tsar Aleksandr II of Russia had (I believe) three out-of-wedlock children with his mistress Yekaterina Dolgorukaya. The children were later known as Prince/Princess Yurievskii.
Click to expand...

Oooh yes he did! I completely forgot about Alexander II! However, they married less than a month after the death of the tsar's first wife, Maria Alexandrovna. So the children were legitimized, but never included in the line of succession. They were Ekaterina, Georgy, Olga and Boris.
 
Last edited:
Leslie2006 said:
Oooh yes he did! I completely forgot about Alexander II! However, they married less than a month after the death of the tsar's first wife, Maria Alexandrovna. So the children were legitimized, but never included in the line of succession. They were Ekaterina, Georgy, Olga and Boris.
Click to expand...

Thank you :flowers:. I was pulling that out of my memory, so mistakes were going to be unavoidable. It's been a while since I read anything on the Romanovs.
 
Prince Charles does have income-generating property that he could conceivably confer property upon children out of wedlock, but it's my understanding that only the Queen can confer titles.

Prince Andrew has no substantial properties to confer on anyone (I believe the Queen is largely responsible for endowing him with income, but whether he can give any of that income permanently to anyone else, I don't know - I'd like to know). It seems the Queen is set on the two legitimate princesses having jobs - and refused Andrew's request for Beatrice to be a working royal and follow in Andrew's footsteps - doubtful there's enough in that particular pie to be liberally distributed to other kids (as opposed to back in the days of the Plantagenets, Tudors or Stuarts).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

iceflower
General Questions and Information about Danish Titles
Replies
11
Views
2K
blooms_rulers
B
Misskitty
Question about Queen Camilla
Replies
6
Views
1K
Iluvbertie
Iluvbertie
Somebody
Earning a living as a non-full time royal
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Silverpot
Silverpot
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
2 3
Replies
69
Views
9K
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
2K
Tatiana Maria
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom