Succession Rights For Illegitimate Royal Children

[Daisiesforever]

The problem is that today an illegitimate child is usually refered to as a "love child".

 

[Princess B]

its kinda sad that illegitimate children of royalty have no succession rights. its really not the childs fault.
while i dont think they should get succession rights, since it wouldnt be fair to the legitimate heirs, it would be fair to give the illegitimate child a dukedom or an earldom

 

[Tilla]

Yes!

 

[PaulaB]

its kinda sad that illegitimate children of royalty have no succession rights. its really not the childs fault.
while i dont think they should get succession rights, since it wouldnt be fair to the legitimate heirs, it would be fair to give the illegitimate child a dukedom or an earldom

As someone who has the feeling there may be an ofspring of my late dad hanging around I have different feelings. If your mother is slapper enough to sleep with a married man you should not be rewarded by getting money from the family for the unwanted one. If it turns out he did have more kids they will not get anything from us as
a my father left debts nothing else
b biological relationship or no they are unwanted unwelcome and told to get lost if they ever turn up.

 

[American Dane]

As someone who has the feeling there may be an ofspring of my late dad hanging around I have different feelings. If your mother is slapper enough to sleep with a married man you should not be rewarded by getting money from the family for the unwanted one. If it turns out he did have more kids they will not get anything from us as
a my father left debts nothing else
b biological relationship or no they are unwanted unwelcome and told to get lost if they ever turn up.

But out of wedlock doesn't always mean a married man having children from infidelity. Prince Albert II of Monaco's children are illegitimate yet he was single and unattached when they were conceived and born. Should they not be allowed succession rights?

 

[nascarlucy]

Out of wedlock means the parents were not married to each other. Usually they are single but in some cases one is married, the other is not.

I don't like the word illegtimate. A child who had no say over the matter shouldn't be subjected to people saying that to them or calling them that. No one's family is perfect. Love child is a nicer way of saying the same thing, except that if the child was the result of a one-night stand, this is hardly a "Love Child."

 

[PaulaB]

But out of wedlock doesn't always mean a married man having children from infidelity. Prince Albert II of Monaco's children are illegitimate yet he was single and unattached when they were conceived and born. Should they not be allowed succession rights?

NO, only legitimate children should have these.

 

[Nicolas of Albania]

As someone who has the feeling there may be an ofspring of my late dad hanging around I have different feelings. If your mother is slapper enough to sleep with a married man you should not be rewarded by getting money from the family for the unwanted one. If it turns out he did have more kids they will not get anything from us as
a my father left debts nothing else
b biological relationship or no they are unwanted unwelcome and told to get lost if they ever turn up.

I don't mean to be rude, PaulaB but aren't you being cruel? Is it fair to punish these peopel for their father's sins? My father had a similar thing going on, but both of my parents said it didn't matter because they were still my siblings, even if only by half.

 

[Nicolas of Albania]

Having read all of the posts, my opinion is still the same as it was before; illegitimate children shouldn't be allowed to inherit unless their parents marry at some point and they are thus techanically legitimized. It is the best way to avoid all sorts of succession conflicts. At the same time, illegitimate children shouldn't be hidden and despiced; they didn't choose to be born that way, so why punish them? Being from a family where "illegitmacy" was common, and both my parents were "illegitimate", those are my feelings. also, they should be given money from their father's estate, it is only fair. There is precedent for this, as some kings made their illegitmate children nobles or made sure their illegitmate daughters married well. Joanna, Princess of Wales, is a good example of the latter

 

[PaulaB]

I don't mean to be rude, PaulaB but aren't you being cruel? Is it fair to punish these peopel for their father's sins? My father had a similar thing going on, but both of my parents said it didn't matter because they were still my siblings, even if only by half.

As I said you get that sort of punishment if your mother is that much of a slapper. If anyone comes to me saying they are my long lost half "brother" or "sister" they are going to be told to go away and never come back.

 

[Lumutqueen]

As I said you get that sort of punishment if your mother is that much of a slapper.

Continually calling the mother a "slapper" leads to no surprise in your opinion. Perhaps you ought to change that narrow minded male view of yours and actually realise what you're saying is cruel and shallow.

 

[Lady74]

Continually calling the mother a "slapper" leads to no surprise in your opinion. Perhaps you ought to change that narrow minded male view of yours and actually realise what you're saying is cruel and shallow.

I think PaulaB has had a hard time and I understand how they feel so the old " walk a mile in my shoes " applies here

 

[Mirabel]

But out of wedlock doesn't always mean a married man having children from infidelity. Prince Albert II of Monaco's children are illegitimate yet he was single and unattached when they were conceived and born. Should they not be allowed succession rights?

Obviously he didn't think so, or he could have married one of the mothers to give their child a claim.

 

[American Dane]

Obviously he didn't think so, or he could have married one of the mothers to give their child a claim.

I wasn't asking it as if I thought they should, I was merely continuing the conversation and asking if the fact that it wasn't an extramarital affair made a difference...

 

[Nice Nofret]

For me no diffrence - Children born in legal wedlock ore "legalised" children are in line to the throne. In Germany, Austria etc. a lot of children weren't considered as possible heirs even if the parents were married because it was morganatic ... - .. so out of wedlock is not a possibility.

It has nothing to do with beeing a family; We also have a grandchild, and our son and that girl didn't marry - of course he is our grandchild and we love him, and look after him. But that's on another level - we are private people.

 

[wanderingnana]

Remembering all the fuss around the time of Albert's marriage and that he had to take a DNA test. have we ever heard the results of that test? Was this real or just a publicity stunt on the part of some paper or attention seeker?

 

[bekalc]

As I said you get that sort of punishment if your mother is that much of a slapper. If anyone comes to me saying they are my long lost half "brother" or "sister" they are going to be told to go away and never come back.

Because the child chose her mother/father. You don't think a child in that situation suffers enough. Not to mention how do you know the entire situation. For all you know that child's mother was lied to. Not to mention certainly said child isn't entitled to anything from their stepmother or siblings, but said child certainly is entitled to something from their biological father. Their father created them has a responsibility...

For the record I think giving illegitimate children succession rights creates a can of worms, perhaps their should be some kind of loophole for the father to acknowledge a child if so wants, but it would create a HUGE ton of issues.

I also don't think adopted children should get succession rights. The reason I say this is because being King/Queen is all about birthrights/blood. Its not fair to the person who is next in line, if someone who is of no blood relation can take their spot. The basis of one's right to throne is normally based on bloodlines.

Doesn't mean adopted children shouldn't get treated the same otherwise.

 

[shaya]

I feel it depends on what happened. was the father marryed and had a child with someone if so then i understand the child not getting a title but the father should very much be in that child life period. however if these are two single people that are together and it just happens that they having a baby then i feel that he should still very much be in the child life in it should not be a big deal because they are both single this is 2012. but if the two pwople became marryed later on i feel yes the child should get a title.

 

[agogo]

Remembering all the fuss around the time of Albert's marriage and that he had to take a DNA test. have we ever heard the results of that test? Was this real or just a publicity stunt on the part of some paper or attention seeker?

Nothing ever came of it. Probably just a paper wanting to make a story. Very unkind considering this happened right before his wedding. By the way, Prince Rainier changed Monaco's constituion befored he passed. Only a legitimage her can inherit the Monagasque throne.

 

[orv]

Sorry to drag an old thread up, but what would happen if a couple had a child before they got married but got married afterwards?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Sorry to drag an old thread up, but what would happen if a couple had a child before they got married but got married afterwards?

The child would still be illegitimate.

 

[Artemisia]

Sorry to drag an old thread up, but what would happen if a couple had a child before they got married but got married afterwards?

The child would be legitimised by the subsequent marriage of his parents, but would have no succession rights (both to the Throne and any peerage title).

For example, David Lascelles, 8th Earl of Harewood has four children with his former wife, Margaret Messenger - Emily, Benjamin, Alexander, and Edward. The first two (Emily and Benjamin) were born before their parents married and were legitimised by their parents' marriage. However, although Benjamin is the eldest son, it is his younger brother Alexander (born after their parents' marriage) who is Viscount Lascelles and Heir Apparent to the title Earl Harewood. Benjamin can have no claims to the title and should Alexander have no legitimate issue, their younger brother Edward will inherit the title.

Until 2004, adopted or legitimised children of Peers had no rights to hold any courtesy titles or styles. However, a Royal Warrant 2004 gives adopted and legitimised children the right to hold the styles younger children of their parents are entitled to. Such children are still ineligible to inherit peerages or be in the Line of Succession to the British Throne.

A theoretical case to explain better:
If William and Kate had a son before their marriage, that son would have no succession rights of any kind. The subsequent marriage of William and Kate would legitimise him (a formal decision of the Privy Council would be required for that), but he would still not be in the Line of Succession, nor would he be a Royal Highness or a Prince. After William and Kate's marriage, however, that son would be entitled to be styled as a younger son of a Duke - Lord Name of Cambridge (or Lord Name Mountbatten-Windsor).

 

[Meraude]

A theoretical case to explain better.
If William and Kate had a son before their marriage, that son would have no succession rights of any kind. The subsequent marriage of William and Kate would legitimise him (a formal decision of the Privy Council would be required for that), but he would still not be in the Line of Succession, nor would he be a Royal Highness or a Prince. After William and Kate's marriage, however, that son would be entitled to be styled as a younger son of a Duke - Lord Name of Cambridge (or Lord Name Mountbatten-Windsor).

Other countries have made other choices when it comes to the titles of out of wedlock children when their parents marry. Prince Louis of Luxembourg gave up his and his children's succession rights when he married Tessy Antony and his wife and children had no royal titles. Later on in 2009 Tessy got the title Her Royal Highness Princess Tessy of Luxembourg and both boys got the title His Royal Highness, Prince of Nassau by their grandfather, even if one of the boys were born before their parents married and the other after the marriage.

 

[Artemisia]

Other countries have made other choices when it comes to the titles of out of wedlock children when their parents marry. Prince Louis of Luxembourg gave up his and his children's succession rights when he married Tessy Antony and his wife and children had no royal titles. Later on in 2009 Tessy got the title Her Royal Highness Princess Tessy of Luxembourg and both boys got the title His Royal Highness, Prince of Nassau by their grandfather, even if one of the boys were born before their parents married and the other after the marriage.

You are right, of course; different countries have different rules.
I was referring to the British system.

Regarding Luxembourg; it is my understanding Prince Louis didn't have to give up anything - he chose to, mostly so that his future children (born in legitimate marriage) and his first-born (born out of wedlock) had equal rights.

 

[Meraude]

Regarding Luxembourg; it is my understanding Prince Louis didn't have to give up anything - he chose to, mostly so that his future children (born in legitimate marriage) and his first-born (born out of wedlock) had equal rights.

Well, prince Louis' uncle prince Jean did the same thing in 1986 after the birth of his firstborn child out of wedlock, he married the girl's mother in 1987 and had three more children, so whether Louis had to give up or chose to give up his and his children's succession rights (a question of semantics), he did follow the example of his uncle.

 

[nascarlucy]

In some cases succession rights to the throne is a moot point due to the fact that many royals have several brothers or sisters older or younger than them and most likely these brothers and sisters will at some point have children. The only one that really would be affected by this the most would be the children of the heir to the throne.

Given that Prince Louis has two older brothers, it would be highly unlikely that any children he had would be the heir to the throne, even if he were married to Tess when their son was born.

In some countries a female regardless of their parents martial status would never be a heir to the throne. In other countries the female was heir to the throne because she had no brothers and this was basically by default so to speak.

If Prince William and Kate had two children (a daughter and a son), the son would become heir to the throne. The daughter would have succession rights but would be second in line. The only way she would become heir to the throne would be if she only had sisters or had one brother and he died, or something happened to him where he was unable to fulfill the duties of being a monarch. As of now, this is how it stands, unless this changes.

If Prince William and Kate had a daughter before they got married, and then had one or two sons after they got married, then the daughter's succession rights would be forfeited. Their sons succession rights would be intact merely by their parents being married to each other. This is all you need to insure succession and inheritance rights.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

It may have already been mentioned but for me the Prince Albert situation is complicated by the fact that his paternal grandmother was born illegitimate. Her own father was able to adopt her(even though she was already his daughter) and make her his heir.

I wonder if Albert could do the same with one of his children if he and Charlene don't end up having any.

 

[Artemisia]

It may have already been mentioned but for me the Prince Albert situation is complicated by the fact that his paternal grandmother was born illegitimate. Her own father was able to adopt her(even though she was already his daughter) and make her his heir.

I wonder if Albert could do the same with one of his children if he and Charlene don't end up having any.

He couldn't.
Changes in law (passed during Prince Ranier's reign) mean that now adopted children can not have rights to the Throne.
If Prince Albert doesn't have legitimate issue, his successor will be Princess Caroline or (if Caroline predeceases Albert) Andrea Casiraghi.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

He couldn't.
Changes in law (passed during Prince Ranier's reign) mean that now adopted children can not have rights to the Throne.
If Prince Albert doesn't have legitimate issue, his successor will be Princess Caroline or (if Caroline predeceases Albert) Andrea Casiraghi.

I didn't realize the laws had been changed. Did Rainier have something to do with the change? It would seem strange to me if he did considering his mother's situation and the fact that he would never have been prince of Monaco if not for her adoption.

 

[Artemisia]

I didn't realize the laws had been changed. Did Rainier have something to do with the change? It would seem strange to me if he did considering his mother's situation and the fact that he would never have been prince of Monaco if not for her adoption.

Prince Rainier instigated the changes.

In 2002, Monaco adopted Princely Law 1.249 which stipulated that if the Reigning Prince dies without legitimate issue, the Throne goes to his siblings and their legitimate descendants, according to laws of male primogeniture. The law has been in effect since 2005 (after ratification by France).

Until 2002, the crown of Monaco could only pass to the direct descendants (including adopted children) of the reigning prince. This meant that Princess Antoinette was not in the line of succession and that as soon as Prince Rainier died, Princess Caroline, Princess Stephanie and their descendants would not be in the line of succession as well. Since Prince Albert had no legitimate issue, it endangered the very future of the Monegasque Throne (because, in theory, that could mean Monaco’s annexation into France). The 2002 changes dealt with that problem, granting Caroline, Stephanie and their legitimate descendants the right to be in the line of succession, and ensuring the line will go on whether Prince Albert had children or not.

One of the articles of the 2002 changes also mentioned that in order for someone to be in the line od succession, his/her parents should be married either at the time of his/her birth, or marry subsequently. For that reason, Princess Stephanie’s two eldest children, who were born out of wedlock, are in the succession line (they were legitimised by their parents’ subsequent marriage), but her youngest child, Camille, is not since Stephanie never married her father.

Thus, Prince Albert’s children born out of wedlock, Jazmin and Alexandre, cannot have claims to the Throne because they are illegitimate. Prince Albert may adopt them legally, but they would only have succession rights if he married their respective mothers. So, in theory, if Prince Albert marries Jazmin’s mother then divorced, and then married Alexandre’s mother, both children would have full succession rights (with Alexandre ahead of his sister based on male primogeniture). Since that didn’t happen and Prince Albert is now married to Princess Charlene, the question is mute.

Right now, the Hereditary Princess of Monaco is Princess Caroline; she is the Heiress Presumptive to the Throne. If Prince Albert has legitimate sons, the eldest boy will become the Heir Apparent; if he only has daughters, the eldest will be Heiress Presumptive.