Succession Rights For Illegitimate Royal Children

[Mariel]

I sort of like the way the Luxembourgs handled the illegitimate birth of Gabriel to Louis and Tessy. They got married after his birth and I guess that made him legitimate. Then they made Tessy a Princess (later, after the wedding) and she gave birth to another boy, Noah, who became a Prince along with his formerly illegitimate brother Gabriel. But they do not have succession rights. Now I do think that the really good thing to do eventually is to give them succession rights. It has to come slowly, because this is a "big deal", and no one would want to say that you might as well have an illegitimate child. But now that Tessy and Louis, and their two sons, are a working part of the family (working, just like the other children of the Grand Duke Henri) I think they should consider making them part of the succession. They still would probably never inherit the throne, since Hereditary Grand Duke Guillome may have children soon, and who knows, Felix or Alexandra might marry and have children. But the "who knows" quotient is there: maybe no Prince or Princess in the present generation of that family will ever have children! Too much radiation in the air from Fukishima? Something else--war, displacement?
No one expected QE II to be in line for the throne. Perhaps fertility problems will arise as they did for the Japanese Royal Family? None of that is predictable. But I think they might consider this, because Gabriel and Noah are the only child Princes yet born in Luxembourg in this generation under 18. I dearly love the Biblical name of Noah! What a departure in a good direction from usual names of royals. How about Isaiah for Guillome's heir--a far out thought honoring a great prophet. The family seems to be sincerely devoted to God.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Thank you for your explanation, Artemisia. It makes sense to me now although I still find it sad that Rainier would change the rule on adoption considering his own mother's circumstances.

 

[NGalitzine]

According to the revised Monaco constitution adoption is no longer possible in order to get an heir. Heirs must be born of lawful marriage, but may be legitimated by the Prince marrying the mother of one of his illegitimate children.

 

[christythedreamer]

The King of Belgium only has one out-of-wedlock child, Daphne right??

 

[Rice]

Delphine Boel. It is my understanding, he has actually never formally acknowledged her as his daughter. I guess it's a little stickier than Prince Albert's and Prince Louis situation, in that King Albert was actually married to Queen Paola at the time of Delphine's conception, vs Prince Albert and Prince Louis being single.

 

[nascarlucy]

It's very different when the persons involved are single. When there is a wife, it's a much more complicated matter as the issue of cheating comes up in it.

 

[taylortcr]

I have an "IF" Question...
If a royal couple had a baby years before they got married(an illegitimate child), would it become legitimate after they became married(and would the child be able to succeed?
In this case, please don't explain if the couple married while she is pregnant because then the child would be legitimate, I am asking if an illegitimate child could become legitimate.
In this case, please focus on if the child was male.

Also, if the son is unable to succeed Will as King, would the son be a prince, and if not, would he be a member of the royal family?

 

[nascarlucy]

If the couple got married a couple of years after the child was born, something would be put into place where the son would succeed. It probably wouldn't take place right away and most likely would occur when the son was an adult or when the royal became King, he could change it where his son would succeed him. That is just my guess.
It wouldn't be something that would be done quickly unless it was necessary to do so.

 

[JR76]

Out of Wedlock Children and Succession Rights

If a Peer has a child and then marries the child's mother after the birth the child becomes legitimate but not eligible to succeed to the title.
I'm quite sure the same rules apply when it comes to the succession to the crown (but then again I'm not quite sure since neither Google or Wikipedia seems to be working for me at the moment)


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[nascarlucy]

That's true but a lot of times things are amended. For example if a King has daughters but no sons, changes have been made so that the eldest daughter becomes Queen until his death or if he retires. This has happened in a couple of European royal households to keep the family on the throne.

Things are amended and often are to suit the monarch or his heirs. Unless the heir to throne was mentally ill or had serious health issues which would make it impossible to fulfill their obligations, I don't see why this wouldn't be done, even if it was years later.

 

[Excalibur]

That's true but a lot of times things are amended. For example if a King has daughters but no sons, changes have been made so that the eldest daughter becomes Queen until his death or if he retires. This has happened in a couple of European royal households to keep the family on the throne.

Things are amended and often are to suit the monarch or his heirs. Unless the heir to throne was mentally ill or had serious health issues which would make it impossible to fulfill their obligations, I don't see why this wouldn't be done, even if it was years later.

No changes had to be made for the then Princess Elizabeth to succeed her father upon his death in 1952. The law stipulates that the succession is by male primogeniture, meaning that the oldest legitimate (not legitimized) male "heir of the body" succeeds to the throne. In the absence of a male heir, the oldest legitimate (not legitimized) female "heir of the body" would succeed.

Any changes to this law (such as the current Succession to the Crown legislation) must be passed in Parliament (and in the other realms where HM is monarch), which is not something that lends itself to appeasing the whim of the monarch or his/her heirs.

If William and Kate had had a son together prior to their marriage, that son would be legitimized by their marriage, but not "legitimate" in terms of succeeding to the throne. Prince George's place as 3rd in line to the throne is safe and secure.

 

[Ish]

This really depends on where you're talking about.

In Britain, only legitimately born individuals are in the line of succession to the throne. Likewise, only legitimately born individuals are in the lines of succession to the various peerages. In order to change the latter, legislature would have to be passed in Britain, and in order to change the former it would have to be okayed in all of the realms, with at least some of them passing legislature.

An example of such people would be the elder children of the 8th Earl of Harwood. While their younger bothers are in the line of succession to both their father's peerage and the British throne (the Earl being a grandchild of Mary, Princess Royal), Emily and Benjamin were born before their parents marriage and as such aren't in any lines of succession. They are styled as the children of an Warl, and have been since their parents marriage. Having out of wedlock children seems to be something of a Lascelles family tradition - the current Earl has 2 out of wedlock children and 1 out of wedlock grandchild (who was born to the Earl's heir), 1 out of wedlock nephew/niece, and 1 out of wedlock brother. None of them are in the succession to the Earldom of Harewood or the British throne.

Whether or not a legitimized person could hold royal title would probably be up to the monarch. I doubt that such circumstances would be covered under the 1917 LPs, so it would be up to the monarch to issue new LPs allowing that person to use royal titles and styles.

 

[Ish]

That's true but a lot of times things are amended. For example if a King has daughters but no sons, changes have been made so that the eldest daughter becomes Queen until his death or if he retires. This has happened in a couple of European royal households to keep the family on the throne.

Things are amended and often are to suit the monarch or his heirs. Unless the heir to throne was mentally ill or had serious health issues which would make it impossible to fulfill their obligations, I don't see why this wouldn't be done, even if it was years later.

Succession laws are not often mended, especially in Britain. Asides from the recent amendment to allow for equal primogeniture - which took about 3 years to change, and is still of debatable legality in some realms - the last time the Brits amended the succession was in 1701.

Some realms that had Salic law (like Denmark) have gone through relatively recent changes to drop Salic law and allow for female inheritance. Other realms have also been changing their succession laws to allow for equal primogeniture. Outside of Monaco, there doesn't seem to be any push for allowing illegitimate, legitimated, or adopted children to inherit, and Monaco has long had really rather unique succession laws.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The King of Belgium only has one out-of-wedlock child, Daphne right??

Delphine Boël claims that her mother, Sybille Baroness de Sélys-Longchamps had an affair with the Prince of Liège (King Albert II) but that claim has never been substantiated so far. Recently, on July 16th, Belgian media wrote that King Albert II possibly is not Delphine's father. That is very remarkably because the very same media always screamed with thick chocolade letters that Albert fathered her.

Some royalty watchers noted that Delphine's mother had affairs with several gentlemen. Delphine and her mother apparently have got shaky feet and doubt about a lawsuit against the former King. Now Delphine's villa in Uccle is for sale and the lady is moving to London.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In the Netherlands there is another dimension to royal marriages: Parliament has to pass a Bill of Consent for the marriage. This effectively means that first the King has to agree with an intended marriage (he initiates the Government to offer a Bill of Consent to the Parliament) then Parliament has a say about it. Such a Bill is discussed in a serious parliamentary debate. The King or a successor to the King looses his/her position when engaging into a marriage without a required Act of Consent. This also means that the "fruit" of this consented marriage is in line of succession. Anyone born outside this marriage means also born outside the workings of the Act of Consent and can not be in line of succession.

Such an Act of Consent is discussed in a special session. The last special session was when the Regency Act was discussed last year (Parliament agreed with the Government's proposal that Queen Máxima would become Regentess of the Kingdom when her daughter, the Princess of Orange, would assume the kingship at an age younger than 18 years). See picture how such a session looks: http://www.eerstekamer.nl/9370000/1...zc/vjf9v12tfgyv?sizew=512&sizeh=342&lm=mx904d

 

[Flamiss]

Does anyone know if Delphine Boel was awarded recognition status by the courts?

 

[Biri]

Princess Louise Auguste of Denmark was highly believed to be the biological daughter of Queen Caroline Mathilde & Johann Struensee.
As for her own three children, their fatherhood is attributed to her doctor, who cured her for infertility.

 

[Anonymous517]

Does the illegitimate child of a Prince/Duke receive a royal title? What about their

For example, let's say there is a Prince (for the purpose of this post, it will be an imaginary prince): Prince Billy, Duke of Oz. Prince Billy has an illegitimate child with a female servant. The public does not know about the child. The child is shipped off to another country to start their own life. Generations later (4 to 5), a DNA Test taken by the child's descendants confirms the royal connection. Would the child get a royal title, and would the descendants get one, as well? Even if the line was long forgotten, do they get a royal title? If yes, what would the title be? Would it be Duke, Prince, Baron, etc? Although the names have been made up, the situation is a real situation. I am curious as to what this means for me and my family. Thank you

 

[Ish]

No.

Illegitimate children are not entitled to any titles, nor are their descendants, especially if said child is not recognized.

There have been instances where a monarch has granted titles to their illegitimately born children, or to their mistresses and through them their illegitimately born children. Consider Henry VIII, Charles II, or William IV.

There have also been instances where children born out of wedlock gain some titles through their parents subsequent marriages - in Britain, for example, children born out of wedlock to peers are granted the courtesy titles of a younger child (not the heir apparent) if their parents marry, but are not in the line of succession. In Luxembourg, the Grand Duke has given his eldest grandson, Gabriel, titles (but not succession rights) a few years after Gabriel's parents married. In Monaco, illegitimately born children are eligible to succeed to the throne if their parents marry and they're subsequently legitimatized.

 

[Skippyboo]

If the illegitimate child wasn't created a peer in its own right, the child can't inherit a title or claim a place in the succession.

It was common back in history for the King to create a recognized illegitimate son to make a peer. Henry VIII made his son a Duke. He wasn't a Prince. Charles II gave peerages to his illegitimate sons, William IV made his eldest illegitimate son an Earl, the rest where styled as sons of a Duke as Lady/Lord which are courtesy titles.

Albert of Monaco has 2 illegitimate kids. They don't have a title and cant inherit Monaco. He could give them a title but doesn't have to.

There are lots of people related to royalty from the illegitimate children of various royals but if you don't have a title already from your family, you aren't going to get one.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ceallach]

But they can be legitimized and placed in succession too. Albert of Monaco's grandmother Charlotte was illegitimate and legitimized to become heir. Manuel of Bavaria was legitimized by his parents' marriage and put into succession. It depends, it differs from family.

 

[Roslyn]

I haven't looked into the legal issues in any depth, but I don't see how the UK can long continue to discriminate against the children of peers born out of wedlock if their parents subsequently marry.

The UK Government website states it has a policy of equality and, in particular, that:

"We want the UK to be a leader in equality and human rights. At our best, we are defined by our tolerance, freedom and fairness."

It is hardly fair if the son of a peer is unable to inherit his father's title simply because his parents were not married at the moment he was born. If a marriage ceremony took place while the woman was in labor, the child would be legitimate and would inherit, but if they married moments after the child had left its mother's body and the umbilical cord was cut, he would not. And if a child is born to a woman during her marriage even though fathered by another man, as long as the husband accepts the child as his then the child will inherit his titles.

I applaud the fact that Monaco allows subsequently legitimised children to inherit.

 

[Mermaid1962]

However, in the initial poster's question, the parents never married. Therefore, the simple answer is 'no'.

 

[Anonymous517]

So due to the fact that they never wed, we are not qualified for any title? I am obviously not knowledgeable on any of this, so I'm not quite sure how titles and everything in the royal family work. Is the passing of titles some sort of law, or is it more of a custom?

 

[Roslyn]

However, in the initial poster's question, the parents never married. Therefore, the simple answer is 'no'.

Correct. And Ish provided that simple answer in the second post in this thread. However laws change and some are retrospective. It is possible that the time will come when the descendants of a peer through an illegitimate offspring may be held entitled to inherit the title.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Passing titles down a line in the UK is governed by a legal instrument called 'Letters Patent' as well as 'common law'.


Illegitimate children have no rights to inherit titles in the UK. They may, if recognized, have some rights to monetary inheritance but only that child or grandchildren born while the 'father' was still alive to recognize them. They would have no claim generations later.


With regards to the first post - the current generation have no claims to any titles etc. They are in the same boat as many, many other people throughout history - the descendants of an illegitimate child. They can't be in the line of succession to titles or the throne due to the parents not being married.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Correct. And Ish provided that simple answer in the second post in this thread. However laws change and some are retrospective. It is possible that the time will come when the descendants of a peer through an illegitimate offspring may be held entitled to inherit the title.

First they have to allow women, legitimately born, I suspect.

There is also the issue of does the father have to acknowledge the child freely etc?

What would happen if say Prince Charles had an illegitimate son in the 1970s that no one now knows about? Then they change the law to allow an illegitimate child to inherit. This child comes forward and claims that he should be Charles' heir instead of William? How would people feel about that.

What would be the case, if say it turned out by DNA testing that Tom Parker-Bowles was actually Charles' (I for one don't believe that for a minute but this is hypothetically) - would he now be the heir to Charles as King rather than William?

That is why they don't allow illegitimate children to inherit.

 

[Ish]

First they have to allow women, legitimately born, I suspect.

There is also the issue of does the father have to acknowledge the child freely etc?

What would happen if say Prince Charles had an illegitimate son in the 1970s that no one now knows about? Then they change the law to allow an illegitimate child to inherit. This child comes forward and claims that he should be Charles' heir instead of William? How would people feel about that.

What would be the case, if say it turned out by DNA testing that Tom Parker-Bowles was actually Charles' (I for one don't believe that for a minute but this is hypothetically) - would he now be the heir to Charles as King rather than William?

That is why they don't allow illegitimate children to inherit.

I was going to say exactly this.

I tend to be in favour of legitimatized children born out of wedlock being in lines of succession, but just a general free for all with all illegitimate children is problematic.

 

[Ish]

So due to the fact that they never wed, we are not qualified for any title? I am obviously not knowledgeable on any of this, so I'm not quite sure how titles and everything in the royal family work. Is the passing of titles some sort of law, or is it more of a custom?

Exactly.

Titles are inherited through law in all realms. Some allow for children who are born out of wedlock but later legitimatized by their parent subsequent marriage to inherit titles or use courtesy titles, but none allow for illegitimate children to inherit titles.

 

[Ish]

But they can be legitimized and placed in succession too. Albert of Monaco's grandmother Charlotte was illegitimate and legitimized to become heir. Manuel of Bavaria was legitimized by his parents' marriage and put into succession. It depends, it differs from family.

Charlotte was adopted by her biological father (who had no other children) in order for her to be able to inherit. She later renounced her succession rights in favour of her son, Rainier.

Until the early 2000s, Monaco's succession laws allowed for adopted children to succeed, but not illegitimate ones. When Rainier changed the succession rules he did away with allowing adopted children to inherit and allowed legitimatized children to marry, although I believe that a child in Monaco can only be legitimatized if they weren't born of adultery; as such Alexandre could theoretically inherit if his parents married, but Jazmin couldn't.