Succession Rights For Illegitimate Royal Children

[nascarlucy]

You're right. I didn't think of it that way when I wrote the post.

 

[Next Star]

I know all children should be loved and treated the same but it does not matter to the law illegitmate children will not have the same rights of those who are legitmate.Here in the 21st century it stays the same they are allowed to be acknowledge and get child support and a apart of their father's inheritance but they have no rights to the throne.

 

[Kotroman]

I know all children should be loved and treated the same but it does not matter to the law illegitmate children will not have the same rights of those who are legitmate.Here in the 21st century it stays the same they are allowed to be acknowledge and get child support and a apart of their father's inheritance but they have no rights to the throne.

That is the way it is. I too doubt that illegitimate children will be treated like their legitimate siblings in near future. But is it the way it should be? Is that right?

And can we talk about "equal primogeniture" while the eldest child is not always the heir in reality?

Polly is absolutely right. But nobody has answered my question: should the children of such irresponsible people be discriminated due to their parent's mistake?

 

[COUNTESS]

At least, today, they are not discarded and hidden. Of course, Charles II, had many and gave them all titles of sorts. Children of these unions will never be accepted into the fold, especially if there are "legitimate" heirs. It is hard enough to get a "legitimate" girl to supercede her younger brother, than to see succession rights for "illigitimate" children. As they are recognized, financially, at least, they have less problems. I don't know what is right or wrong. Who, really, does.

 

[Zonk]

I believe the chance of the Monaco succession law closed the loophole that Boris is referencing. Hence Albert can not adopt his children and make them his legitimate heirs. He would have to marry Nicole to do that for Alexandre and as Tamara was married at the time of conception/birth of Jazmin, he can't marry Tamara to make her legtimate.

Also in reference to Delphine I would hardly blame Paola for her not having a relationship with Albert. Surely her simple presence will be a constant reminder of her husband affair, but really its up to Albert and Delphine on whether or not they don't want to have a relationship. Now surely, its hard to have a relationship with someone when they don't want to have one with you. But it surely not Paola's fault. Now if Albert did not have a relationship with his daughter because Paola wouldn't allow it....then shame on both of them.

 

[nascarlucy]

Children pay for the mistakes and decisions that their parents make. It's not fair but sadly this is how it is. Other people hold against them even though they had nothing to do with it.

 

[COUNTESS]

The sins of the Fathers....it, reallly, is the sins of the mothers, too. In Paola's case, she, is certainly, a victim. But Albert and Nicole knew the risks. And, I am sure, Nicole, was wise enough to see the situation impossible. Again, in Jazimin case that, too, was a folly and both thier parts. Nobody, I should quailfy that, good people do not see the children as a problem, just the situation. I, hope, all these children have good lives.

 

[nascarlucy]

We know that many royal households thoughout history have had children born out of wedlock, mostly fathered by male royals, although in recent times there have been a few females here and there. An interesting question would be of these children born out of wedlock and acknowledged, how many of male royals later married their child's mother. Or in the few cases involving female, how many marriages later took place. It would seem that in cases involving females, the percentage would be a little higher. My guess is that the percentages are not very high (1 to 5%) and I might be over estimating this as the true count of this will never been totally known. Only a small faction of these cases are really known.

 

[The.Laird.Arcadia]

What about William the Conqueror and the Beauforts

House of Beaufort
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
House of Beaufort

Armorial of Beaufort
Country Kingdom of England
Ancestral house House of Plantagenet (legitimised)
Titles
Earl of Somerset
Marquess of Dorset
Duke of Beaufort
Founder John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset
Current head David Somerset, 11th Duke of Beaufort
Founding 1373
Ethnicity English, French (see details)
Cadet branches
House of Tudor (non agnatic)
The House of Beaufort descended from John Beaufort (1371-1410) the legitimized son of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Katherine Swynford. Although officially barred from inheriting the throne the Beauforts played an important role in the dynastic struggles of the fifteenth century as powerful nobles with close ties to the royal family, especially the House of Lancaster.
Henry VII traced his claim to the English crown through his descent from Margaret Beaufort, his mother, who was a granddaughter of John Beaufort, and great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (see above).
The Beaufort family in the male line is today represented by the Duke of Beaufort, a descendant of Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset through his illegitimate son Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester.
Notable Beauforts included:
John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset (c. 1371–1410).
Henry Beaufort, 2nd Earl of Somerset (c. 1401–1418).
John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset (c. 1404–1444).
Lady Margaret Beaufort (1443–1509), mother of King Henry VII of England
Joan Beaufort, Queen of Scotland (c. 1404–1445)
Thomas Beaufort, Count of Perche (c. 1405–1431)
Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset (c. 1406–1455).
Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset (1436–1464).
Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford (c. 1427–1474)
Edmund Beaufort, 4th Duke of Somerset (c. 1438–1471).
John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset (c. 1455–1471)
Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Devon (1409–1449)
Henry Beaufort (c. 1375-1447), Cardinal Bishop of Winchester
Thomas Beaufort (c. 1377–1426), Duke of Exeter
Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland (c. 1379–1440)

 

[Next Star]

That is the way it is. I too doubt that illegitimate children will be treated like their legitimate siblings in near future. But is it the way it should be? Is that right?

And can we talk about "equal primogeniture" while the eldest child is not always the heir in reality?

Polly is absolutely right. But nobody has answered my question: should the children of such irresponsible people be discriminated due to their parent's mistake?

No the children should be discriminated by the choice of their parents'.But the law is the law it cleary says only parents who have children at wedlock or if they are allowed to legitmitize them though marriage will be in line to the throne period no question asked.

 

[asma]

I think the illegtimate children will never be treated as legtimate ones due to the poisition of the royal families and the monarchies in general as they represent the social traditions and religeous concepts and allowing illegtimate children to have succession rights will be against these traditions and concepts.

 

[nascarlucy]

The rules of succession rights were made by males. This was to protect their recognized children from their poor judgement and irresponsible behavior. It had little to do with religion or traditions. It was to protect the status quo.

When their mistress or girlfriend has a daughter, these men rejoice because succession rights are a non-issue. The daughters that their wife has don't have succession rights either for the most part.

Sons could try to challenge this and that is a different matter. When their mistress or girlfriend has son or sons and their wife doesn't have sons or can't have children, then you can have a real problem on your hands. Sometimes the sons of the mistress or girlfriend are their first born. To protect their interests, this is why these laws or rules were made in the first place.

You don't see as many of these children nowadays because there are ways of preventing this. Even so, from time to time unrecognized children are born. They are not as hidden as they once were and when they are it's for different reasons than in the past.

 

[SLV]

Didn't the Dutch Prince Bernard's illegitimate daughters get their equal share of their inheritance when he passed, together with the four Dutch princess'?

 

[MAfan]

Yes, they did, and if I don't mistake they got a very high amount of money; but this has nothing to do with any succession right, that they can't claim at all.

 

[nascarlucy]

Didn't know about this story. Well that's good that he acknowledged them and included them in his will.

 

[chabot4me]

No the children should be discriminated by the choice of their parents'.But the law is the law it cleary says only parents who have children at wedlock or if they are allowed to legitmitize them though marriage will be in line to the throne period no question asked.

Illegitimate children getting treatment that is different from those that are legitimate has been a problem through out history. In my genealogy research I have seen how this has happened countless times. My line is a perfect example, Guillaume IV of Aquitaine had two illegitimate children. The first was Pierre de Chabot and the second was Guillaume de Talmond. Pierre de Chabot's line continued having male children and this is the reason my name surname continues as Chabot. Henri de Chabot married a Rohan and he named his children Rohan-Chabot. At the time the french throne was conducting a campaign against the
Huguenot in southern France.

Philippee de Chabot the Admiral of France married an illegitimate daughter of the line of Valois. Yet I do not see anywhere in history where the Royalty alows the connection to be legitimized.
If the illegitimate children of royalty were allowed to be conected to the throne then I think it would help the Royals keep it in their p--ts.
So illegitimate children in my opinion in a good idea for the throne and the wives of the royals!

I have seen through out history that when a King was not very religious that he often conducted his business the way he wanted. In ancient Wales there was a King where his favorite son was illegitimate so he made him the successor to his rule even though the church did not approve of it. Ultimately I think it is the church tiring to illegitimacy from taking place. However I don't think that this worked very well. Just look at how many of the Kings ran around on their wives.

Didn't the Dutch Prince Bernard's illegitimate daughters get their equal share of their inheritance when he passed, together with the four Dutch princess'?

I believe you are right

 

[Warren]

Inheritance rights are quite different and separate to succession rights and shouldn't be mixed up or confused.

 

[nascarlucy]

Imagine if such a law were passed where the first born of the heir to the throne would automatically succeed him. It wouldn't matter what the sex of the child was or the martial status of the heir. First born is first born. No and, ifs or buts about it. So if the heir has a child with his girlfriend, then this child is the heir. If he marries someone other that his girlfriend and they have a child, then that child is second in line to the throne. I imagine his marriage prospects would be more limited as how many women would marry this heir knowing that any children she has with him will play second fiddle as far as succession rights goes. Second in line.

Fur will fly if the heir is a married man with no children. If he already has children, the fur will still fly.

This would never happen because the status quo and distribution of power would be threatened by this especially if the first born were female or a lot of first borns were females.

The children of royals who are born out of wedlock have generally not been heirs of the throne. Prince Albert is an exception to that but I can't think of any other male royal who is an heir to a throne who is known to have fathered a child out of wedlock, as least in modern times.

I don't know if this is true, but someone told me that a male royal who fathers a child out of wedlock is more likely to have a female child than a male child (60/40 I believe is what this person told me). When you go back in history some of them had many more daughters than sons. It would be interesting if someone did a study on this to see what the statistic is on it.

 

[Esmerelda]

King Charles II of England had quite a few

As did William IV and several of Queen Victoria's uncles.

 

[Catherine Helvin]

Emily, Benjamin and Mark Lascelles (grandchildren of Princess Mary, daughter of HM King George V) were born out of wedlock so are excluded from the line of succession to the throne.

 

[Marengo]

The duke of Noto and his wife Sofia Landaluce had a son (b. 1993) before they were married (m. 2001). But I blieve that prince Jaime of Bourbon-Two-Sicilies has been legitimized and is number 2 in the succession (of this branch of the family).

 

[nascarlucy]

In recent times has any out of wedlock child been titled or given some type of title when the parents didn't marry? I know when they have married, then they are usually titled at some point.

 

[MRSJ]

At least, today, they are not discarded and hidden. Of course, Charles II, had many and gave them all titles of sorts. Children of these unions will never be accepted into the fold, especially if there are "legitimate" heirs..

Actually a lot of illegitmate children were not discard through out history but were in fact given titles and land- Henry VIII gave his iilegitment son a title of Duke of Bainbridge (I think it was bainbridge but may have that wrong) and many of Queen Victorias uncles lived with their misstresses and illegitmate kids before they had to race to make an heir- it was far more excepted in history for Kings to have many lovers and children born of those liasons

 

[Smart]

I'm against any recognition of illegitimate children for succession. The LAST thing we need is the praising of adultery daily by saying "Your Majesty!"

 

[Simeon]

Legitimation and Pedigree??

I don't know how recent you think this is (1919), but Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Valentinois parents never married, and she was legitimated and adopted.
More specifically, I am curious how nobility of other realms recognize marriage after children.
i.e. Scots law allows noble inheritance if the couple subsequently marries, yet england, ireland, and uk peerages do not. Personally curious about Spanish nobles right now, but would like to hear others. Thx.

 

[Biri]

Emily, Benjamin and Mark Lascelles (grandchildren of Princess Mary, daughter of HM King George V) were born out of wedlock so are excluded from the line of succession to the throne.

And also Tanit Lascelles and Martin Lascelles (and his daughter Georginia)

 

[nascarlucy]

Back in the old days there was no DNA or blood tests to prove paternity. The only way a King, heir to the throne or male royal could tell without a doubt if they were the father of their mistresses children would be if the child looked like him, looked like other family members of his (sister, mom,etc), was a carbon copy of him, or had some other feature would would connect him to his family. If the child looked like a clone of the mistress, it would be very difficult to tell. Some people you can't tell who their parents are as they don't look like either parent.

In my case, I have a very strong resemblance to my biological father's family. I looked like I'm related to him. No one could dispute this. It's very difficult to find any features of mine that are my biological mother (it's there but you really have to look at me to see them). Neither of them of course are heirs to any throne nor do they sit on any throne.

I imagine it was an unwritten rule that a mistress be completely faithful to the King, heir to the throne or other male royal if they wanted to continue to enjoy his company. Most probably were but some were not.

 

[Rascal]

I imagine it was an unwritten rule that a mistress be completely faithful to the King, heir to the throne or other male royal if they wanted to continue to enjoy his company. Most probably were but some were not.

Well in two of the most recent cases that has not been true...although it depends on how you define mistress.

The mother of Jazmin Grace Grimaldi was married at the time she conceived her daughter with Albert of Monaco. It was only a one-night-stand if reports are correct so IMHO she was not a mistress.

Also in Monaco, Caroline was pregnant with Ernst August of Hannover's child before his divorce and their subsequent marriage. As he was still marriage to his first wife, Caroline was his mistress, although at the time she was apparently not involved with anyone else.

And the most prominent example is The Duchess of Cornwall. The former Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles was the mistress of the POW before, throughout, and after her marriage to her husband. Since she had two children by him, she certainly wasn't being faithful to the POW.

 

[Lenora]

The illegitimate children of Charles II

There were many children who apparently were of royal Stewart blood.But not all of them seem to be reliable.
For example,Duke of Monmouth was said to be the son of a different man and not Charles II.Only the Duke of Richmond seemed to be the son (on 100 %) of the king.

 

[nascarlucy]

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.