Could an illegitimate child take the throne?

[SleepingStandingUp]

Just idle musings.

If a woman came forward and declared she'd had a fling with William at Uni and her (now adult) child was his, would he be next in line to the throne after Wills or would they be able to discount him? Assuming she could prove it of course and whilst the Royals try to say nothing, I imagine a woman with a say 20 yo son who looks the spit of William who can prove she knew him at the time would be hard to just ignore?

My eldest is younger than Charlotte so no secrets to expose on This Morning, just brain wandering..

No.

They need to have been born as a legitimate heir.

Not sure they’d have any claim to the throne but I’m not an expert. Something similar happened in Belgium fairly recently (although not relating to the current king) and I think the DD in question now uses a royal title.

They could certainly cause a kerfuffle though.

There is that fella in Australia who claims he's C&C's lovechild.

Just googled, she’s now known as Princess Delphine of Belgium. Link here www.tatler.com/article/exclusive-princess-delphine-of-belgium-on-finally-being-accepted-into-the-royal-fold 😊

No, has to be born in marriage to be heir.

it would be an entertaining scandal though

Sorry, I could have googled, but I didn't lol.

Ooh ill read the article

Read about Monaco's RF there is a convoluted story about an illegitimate child thatwas then adopted so they changed their laws.

Gosh, she knew from 16, and only got it proven 2 years ago at 52. And to have grown up so close to them all as well

No they wouldn't have any claim to the throne.
Historically it wasn't uncommon for royals to have children outside marriage but none of them are in the line of succession.

No

Inheriting the throne (and most/all peerages) is about the only area where legitimate, illegitimate and legitimated offspring are treated differently.

For the throne, it has to be the legitimate child of a marriage that had monarchical consent (if the person marrying was in the top 6 in line to the throne at the time of their marriage)

Even legitimated DC (ie if the parents subsequently marry) don't count for the Monarchy (they might for some aristocratic titles - anyne know for sure?)

Henry VIII had illegitimate children including (allegedly)at least one boy but still needed a legal male heir to inherit his throne.

Illegitimate child would have to raise their own army and match on London surely?

I hope they bring lots of horses. I like horses.

^march not match!

No. The whole point about a child being "legitimate" is that they are recognised in law as someone's child and, in cases of automatic inheritance of lands or titles, heir.

In Scottish history it wasn't uncommon for landholders to go through a process so that a son born out of wedlock was recognised as legitimate under the Great Seal, so that they would inherit under Scottish succession laws.

Unless that legitimation process was carried out, a child born out of wedlock would not automatically inherit, although they could be left legacies in a will.

eg: archives.collections.ed.ac.uk/repositories/2/archival_objects/12293
Letters under the Great Seal by King James V, legitimising James, Walter, and Alexander Douglas, brothers, bastards [no other designation nor indication of parentage], and giving them full power to dispone or deal with their property, as if born in wedlock. At Edinburgh, 10th July 1525. On the back of the writ is a certificate by Crysty Gask, one of the Serjeants of the burgh of Perth, stating that on 23rd March 1526-7 he, at the command of Thomas Ramsay, one of the bailies of said burgh, openly proclaimed and published the above letters of legitimation at the market cross, and made inhibition against all who violate their tenor.

Centuries ago it was considered quite normal for a king to have a number of illegitimate children, they were often acknowledged and given titles but only a legitimate child could be heir to the throne. If Henry VIII had been able to do this he wouldn't have felt the need for so many wives to get an heir as his mistresses had been more successful in producing sons.

I wonder if the importance of condoms was impressed upon William and Harry so as to avoid any such embarrassing incidences. Years ago, the royals could fling their seed around without a care in the world.

Ooh, interesting discussion with historical examples here, when the law on titles and children subsequently legitimated by matrimony was being debated in the House of Lords in 1995.

hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1995-03-08/debates/0a2d032d-315d-4fa3-8f6f-0b47958dc351/LegitimatedPersons(SuccessionToTitles)BillHl

I love this sort of thing. What would happen if the monarch adopted a child, or if there were to be concerns that a child wasn't actually fathered by the monarch? I suppose IVF etc could all cause issues as well.

If an adopted child inherited the throne it would show the whole 'blue blood' thing to be a load of nonsense. So I suspect an adopted child becoming monarch would be a non-starter.

They could just change the law though if they wanted to, or is that too simplistic?

No idea about adoption.

DC born to a married mother are in law the children of the marriage and therefore legitimate. So people can have all the concerns they like, but when a child is born in wedlock then they are legitimately in the succession

(Father can repudiate them, but no-one else gets a say in that)

It's a reason why adultery with the wife of the monarch/heir has historically been considered treason. Paternity of offspring needed to be beyond reproach

'Blue blood' is clearly a nonsense and I doubt if anyone believes it is true. Genetics and DNA are real though.

Henry VII's claim to the throne was via Margaret Beaufort who was part of an illegitimate line (John of Gaunt eventually married his lover and their children were legitimised by the church). Mind you, he did have to go to battle to win the crown.

I am guessing this was much more of a thing before contraception was invented so I am guessing no has to be a legitimate heir.