Succession Rights For Illegitimate Royal Children

[Roslyn]

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.

The answer is no, because of the rules. But in my opinion this serves to illustrate the artificial and anachronistic nature of the whole system of peerages and royalty, which - if it is not blindingly obvious - I do not hold in high regard.

These days illegitimate children have the same right to inherit the fee simple estate of a parent who dies intestate as do that person's legitimate children. They share equally on intestacy and they have the right to make claims against the estate if the parent made a will but didn't provide for them. They can also now succeed as an heir under an entailed estate (though I am not sure about the position of a woman in a claim against an estate where the original grant was to A and the male heirs of his body). At the present time they just cannot claim property which is limited to devolve along with a dignity or title of honour if the letters patent limit the succession to the heirs of his body "lawfully begotten", but that could be cured by legislation.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It depends on the country. In the Netherlands, in Germany and in other states a natural child can request the Court of Justice to be known with his/her father's title and surname.

The two extra-marital daughters of the late Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (father of Queen Beatrix, grandfather of King Willem-Alexander) were recognized and shared equally in their father's inheritance. The two ladies in this example (Alicia Hala de Bielefelde and Alexia Bénédicte Irina Manuella Olivia Grinda-Lejeune) did not request to become known as Prinzessin zur Lippe-Biesterfeld, their father's title.

The current Duke of Parma has a son born long before his marriage with Anne-Marie Gualthérie van Weezel. This extramarital son, Carlos Hugo Roderik Sybren Klynstra, can request to become known as Prince de Bourbon de Parme with the prefix HRH. So far the (in the meantime adult) son has not requested the Court of Justice to be known with his father's title and surname. By the way, in this last case the current Duke has reached an agreement with the mother of Carlos that there would be no formal recognition of paternity. Carlos jr. will not share in the Duke's inheritance unless he takes steps to contest the legal document. His mother is a step-daughter of the Count van Rechteren-Limpurg. They own several castles and estates so the extra-marital princely-sprout-without-title has grown up in quite privilèged circustances anyway...

 

[Muhler]

It depends on the country I guess.

In Denmark all royal titles (except the Crown Prince/ss) and all new noble titles are created by the monarch only.
So in theory the child could get a title, but the child has absolutely no right to a title.
In the 1600's for example acknowledged illegitimate children of Christian IV were given the noble title of Gyldenløve = Golden Lion.
The rest, well, too bad.
- Why that was so is a long story.

So to sum up: Until there are two Thursdays in a week your descendant here has virtually zero chance of a title.

 

[Ceallach]

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.

When Louis only had a illegitimate daughter, he found a way to make her heir. Circumstances can lead to that and changes in law. The same countries have changed laws to make female succession possible when someone only has daughters.

However, presently in Monaco an illegitimate child has no succession rights (Jazmin, Alexandre, Raphael, Camille) until their parents marry (Sasha).

 

[Skippyboo]

In the proposed scenario, the person isn't the illegitimate child of the Royal but several generations down.

If you found out you are the great grandson of Edward Prince of Wales and Lady Thelma Furness. Your grandfather was born in 1934 and smuggled away to a family in the country to raise. You aren't going to BP and kicking Elizabeth off throne become King. She isn't going to make you Duke of Windsor just because of your Royal descent.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Pranter]

My goodness just think of the dozens upon dozens of descendants from some of the lines of the English Kings....illegitimate lines. If they all thought they were entitled to something because of their blood tie.....



LaRae

 

[Marty91charmed]

... I've always thought about possible and dramatic changes if illegitimate children would have taken up the throne... If a first born, out of wedlock (regardless of the gender) would have be King or Queen... Imagine that! I think we would have different line of succession even today!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It depends on the country I guess.

In Denmark all royal titles (except the Crown Prince/ss) and all new noble titles are created by the monarch only.
[....]

Is there still an active ennoblement policy in Denmark, that means: does Queen Margrethe still create new nobles outside the royal family? The last creation was the Greve/Komtesse de Montpezat title, I thought.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

... I've always thought about possible and dramatic changes if illegitimate children would have taken up the throne... If a first born, out of wedlock (regardless of the gender) would have be King or Queen... Imagine that! I think we would have different line of succession even today!

In most modern-day monarchies anno 2015 I guess there would be a republic earlier than making an extramarital child a successor.

Imagine that King Juan Carlos has fathered an extramarital child with a lady somewhere (there are people who claim to be Juan Carlos' child) and something dramatic would happen, I think Spain would earlier be a republic than going to Mr X in Marbella or Mrs Y in Bilbao, legalize them, create them Infante / Infanta de España, give them the surname Borbón and name it all. I do not see that happen. It would open Pandora's Box. No way.

 

[Muhler]

Is there still an active ennoblement policy in Denmark, that means: does Queen Margrethe still create new nobles outside the royal family? The last creation was the Greve/Komtesse de Montpezat title, I thought.

Not really.

But as you know when former princess Alexandra remarried, she was made Countess. - So it's a nice little option to have.
The same thing in regards to the Montpezat title. That placated the Prince Consort and leaves a door open should Prince Joachim's children (or at least grandchildren) become commoners some time in the future.

 

[Muhler]

In most modern-day monarchies anno 2015 I guess there would be a republic earlier than making an extramarital child a successor.

Imagine that King Juan Carlos has fathered an extramarital child with a lady somewhere (there are people who claim to be Juan Carlos' child) and something dramatic would happen, I think Spain would earlier be a republic than going to Mr X in Marbella or Mrs Y in Bilbao, legalize them, create them Infante / Infanta de España, give them the surname Borbón and name it all. I do not see that happen. It would open Pandora's Box. No way.

Agree. In this time and age a "King Ralph" scenario would be out of the question.

 

[JR76]

Out of Wedlock Children and Succession Rights

The House of Braganza is an illegitimate line of the previous royal House of Aviz which in turn is an illegitimate line of the previous royal House of Burgundy. John of Aviz was the illegitimate half-brother of the previous king Ferdinand I and was elected king by the Cortes (before Ferdinands daughter Beatrice) to preserve the country's independence from Castille. Centuries later in 1640 John of Braganza (although of illegitimate descent from the extinct House of Aviz the duke was seen as first in line to the throne) was proclaimed King during the uprising against Spain who had ruled Portugal for the last sixty years.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Skippyboo]

Agree. In this time and age a "King Ralph" scenario would be out of the question.

Even in King Ralph, it took the whole royal family to be wiped out before they even started to look for the illegitimate Ralph. There are numerous legitimate heirs for most monarchies. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that could be in a potential King Ralph scenario is Japan since they limit it to males only but even then they would allow woman on the throne before a illegitimate child.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Not really.

But as you know when former princess Alexandra remarried, she was made Countess. - So it's a nice little option to have.
The same thing in regards to the Montpezat title. That placated the Prince Consort and leaves a door open should Prince Joachim's children (or at least grandchildren) become commoners some time in the future.

That looks like the same situation as in the Netherlands: "De Koning verleent adeldom" (The King grants nobility). In reality this is more or less a dead letter and new nobility is only created within the Royal House. The last was to the late Prince Friso and to the children of Prince Constantijn, who were created Count (Countess) van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg.

For the rest it is about recognition of existing older nobility predating the Kingdom (for an example a title from the Holy Roman Empire or from the Napoleontic era which was used in the Netherlands) and about incorporation of foreign nobility (for an example, a Danish nobleman wants to become a Dutch citizen and requests the incorporation of his Danish title into the Netherlands Nobility). The last elevation into Nobility was for the old patrician family Van Valkenburg (1939).

 

[JR76]

Even in King Ralph, it took the whole royal family to be wiped out before they even started to look for the illegitimate Ralph. There are numerous legitimate heirs for most monarchies. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that could be in a potential King Ralph scenario is Japan since they limit it to males only but even then they would allow woman on the throne before a illegitimate child.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The difference in Japan is that should the situation arise they'd probably pick a male member of the quite numerous formerly imperial family branches that was demoted from their status after WWII. Apparently many of them still bear a grudge and consider themselves royal.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Marty91charmed]

In most modern-day monarchies anno 2015 I guess there would be a republic earlier than making an extramarital child a successor.

Imagine that King Juan Carlos has fathered an extramarital child with a lady somewhere (there are people who claim to be Juan Carlos' child) and something dramatic would happen, I think Spain would earlier be a republic than going to Mr X in Marbella or Mrs Y in Bilbao, legalize them, create them Infante / Infanta de España, give them the surname Borbón and name it all. I do not see that happen. It would open Pandora's Box. No way.

Or even imagine if the older sister of Juan Carlos hadn't renounce her titles... at this point her children would have beeen the current royal family...

 

[Skippyboo]

Doesn't Spain still have the male preference primogeniture? So how is an elder sister bumping Juan Carlos? King Felipe has elder sisters too.

Franco hand picked Juan Carlos to be King instead of JC's father who still alive. The father later on renounced his rights.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Michiru-Kaiou]

The only one I can think of off the top of my head that could be in a potential King Ralph scenario is Japan since they limit it to males only but even then they would allow woman on the throne before a illegitimate child.

Actually illegitimate children do have succession rights in Japan. Legitimate sons have precedence over illegitimate (even when older) sons, but an illegitimate son of the Emperor would (should he not have legitimate male children) take precedence over a legitimate brother of the Emperor. In fact, a couple of years ago one of the late Mikasa sons suggested Crown Prince Naruhito should take a concubine to produce an heir.

best wishes Michiru

 

[Skippyboo]

Thanks for the educational lesson ?

That's one of the great things about this forum. All of people around the globe to add to conversations.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Actually illegitimate children do have succession rights in Japan. Legitimate sons have precedence over illegitimate (even when older) sons, but an illegitimate son of the Emperor would (should he not have legitimate male children) take precedence over a legitimate brother of the Emperor. In fact, a couple of years ago one of the late Mikasa sons suggested Crown Prince Naruhito should take a concubine to produce an heir.

best wishes Michiru

That's interesting, I never knew that (though I'm not that knowledgable about the Japanese Imperial Family to begin with). Have there ever been any illegitimate Emperors?

 

[Michiru-Kaiou]

Have there ever been any illegitimate Emperors?

From the top of my head: Emperor Meiji, the great-grandfather of the current Emperor Akihito, was the offspring of a concubine.

best wishes Michiru

 

[Spheno]

Children of concubines and illegitimate children are two different cases.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Children of concubines and illegitimate children are two different cases.

Heu... no, because both are born outside the legal bond which is 'marriage'. Therefore the term 'illegitimate'. The children of Louis XIV with his maîtresses Louise de la Vallière and Françoise-Athénaïs de Rochechouart de Mortemart were 'bastards' and no legal offspring. The same with the numerous (!) children of King Charles II as a result of all his liaisons with his many mistresses.

 

[Spheno]

Heu... no, because both are born outside the legal bond which is 'marriage'. Therefore the term 'illegal'. The children of Louis XIV with his maîtresses Louise de la Vallière and Françoise-Athénaïs de Rochechouart de Mortemart were 'bastards' and no legal offspring. The same with the numerous (!) children of King Charles II as a result of all his liaisons with his many mistresses.

Children by concubines are absolutely legal.
European royals don't have and didn't have concubines.

 

[Biri]

Heu... no, because both are born outside the legal bond which is 'marriage'. Therefore the term 'illegal'. The children of Louis XIV with his maîtresses Louise de la Vallière and Françoise-Athénaïs de Rochechouart de Mortemart were 'bastards' and no legal offspring. The same with the numerous (!) children of King Charles II as a result of all his liaisons with his many mistresses.

At least European Kings' "bastard" sons didn't have to worry about their life, having no right to the throne.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Some societies recognise more than one way to have a legal child. In the Judeo-Christian culture and their offshoot nations the only 'legal' child is born within the bounds of matrimony but in the Middle East and Asia that isn't the case with those born to both wives and concubines as concubines also have legal status as an official partner of the man even if lower than that of the wife/wives.

 

[JR76]

Children by concubines are absolutely legal.
European royals don't have and didn't have concubines.

In fact many of them did have a maîtresse-en-titre (Head mistress) and had the children of said mistress legitimised and given titles of nobility. The children of Louis XIV was even considered equal in rank to the Princes du sang (Princes of the royal blood) and married into other branches of the House of Bourbon.
The children of some of Charles II mistresses were famously also given titles and in Scandinavia the families of Danneskiold-Samsoe, Gyllenhielm, Wasaborg and Hessenstein (the last three extinct) all descended from royal extramarital affairs. The House of Danneskiold-Samsoe ranks in the first class of the Danish Order of precedence together with government ministers, the Counts of Rosenborg and the Countess of Fredriksborg.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Spheno]

In fact many of them did have a maîtresse-en-titre (Head mistress) and had the children of said mistress legitimised and given titles of nobility. The children of Louis XIV was even considered equal in rank to the Princes du sang (Princes of the royal blood) and married into other branches of the House of Bourbon.
The children of some of Charles II mistresses were famously also given titles and in Scandinavia the families of Danneskiold-Samsoe, Gyllenhielm, Wasaborg and Hessenstein (the last three extinct) all descended from royal extramarital affairs. The House of Danneskiold-Samsoe ranks in the first class of the Danish Order of precedence together with government ministers, the Counts of Rosenborg and the Countess of Fredriksborg.

They had mistresses, not concubines.

 

[Muhler]

Children by concubines are absolutely legal.
European royals don't have and didn't have concubines.

Not concubines as such, but certainly official mistresses. And in some cases formalized. I.e. "married to the left hand".
That meant an official status for the mistress with children being officially acknowledged.
It also meant that the mistress was guaranteed (at least that was the idea and in fact mostly respected. Especially if the widowed mistress moved out of sight and lived discreetly) a suitable station and pension if you like, should the man (mostly a king) die before her.
Several Danish kings were "married to the left hand".

It also meant that the court did not have to pretend they didn't know about the king's mistress, that included the queen. She just had to accept the situation.
Very practical come to think of it. The marriage to the right hand (the queen) was for dynastic and political reasons. The marriage to the left hand (the mistress) was for love. - And of course the happiness and well being of the king is all important, right?!?

The (Lutheran) church didn't like it much, but it took a couple of hundred years after the Reformation before the concept of officially acknowledged mistresses finally went out of use. - Well, almost...

 

[Ish]

Not concubines as such, but certainly official mistresses. And in some cases formalized. I.e. "married to the left hand".
That meant an official status for the mistress with children being officially acknowledged.
It also meant that the mistress was guaranteed (at least that was the idea and in fact mostly respected. Especially if the widowed mistress moved out of sight and lived discreetly) a suitable station and pension if you like, should the man (mostly a king) die before her.
Several Danish kings were "married to the left hand".

It also meant that the court did not have to pretend they didn't know about the king's mistress, that included the queen. She just had to accept the situation.
Very practical come to think of it. The marriage to the right hand (the queen) was for dynastic and political reasons. The marriage to the left hand (the mistress) was for love. - And of course the happiness and well being of the king is all important, right?!?

The (Lutheran) church didn't like it much, but it took a couple of hundred years after the Reformation before the concept of officially acknowledged mistresses finally went out of use. - Well, almost...

While an official mistress may be better than a regular mistress, and the children born to an official one may be held higher than the children born to just any old mistress, the fact remains that in Europe, the children of a mistress were not as high as the children of a wife, nor was the mistress comparable to the wife. The children of an official mistress in Europe might be given titles and good marriages and belong to the nobility, but they didn't have succession rights.

The children of a concubine in the east, however, have a higher status than that. They are accorded a status owing from their father's position, regardless of their legitimacy. They are in the line of succession and can become monarch - and do so before their uncles. They might be less than their legitimate brothers, but they're more than an illegitimate European would be.