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..

Charles the second had lots of illegitimate children, many of whom were given dukedoms, some of which are still in existence today.

Royal adoption not going to happen then for all sorts of reasons, obviously. Imagine being the social worker charged with assessing the fitness of a Royal peronsage and partner to adopt a child.

Not currently

They could if they were later legitimised. All the monarchs since the wars of the roses have been direct descendants of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster and Katherine Swynford who were not married until after all their children were born because John was married to someone else. When they got married their children were legitimised.

They still issue children with a new birth certificate when their parents get married. When DD was born the the registrar rather pompously told us to come back and get her a new one if we ever got married. I am not sure what the benefits of this would be as she can’t have much of a claim to the throne.

thats what happened when James VII and II had a son by his second wife.

accusations were levied that the baby was not his child (the warming-pan scandal). The main issue was that James was openly Catholic. His son would take precedence over his daughter Mary and her husband, William of Orange, both of whom were Protestant. James was ousted and Mary and William took the throne.

The Bill of Rights 1689 and Act of Settlement 1701 excluded Catholics such as James, and his son and his heirs from the English and British thrones.

It wouldn’t happen now with royals.

The two eldest children of the Earl of Harewood (Princess Mary’s grandson) are not in the line of succession even though they were legitimised by his subsequent marriage. His younger son is also the heir.

Though it’s not long since it happened in Monaco. Prince Albert’s grandmother was illegitimate. When her father had no legitimate heirs he adopted her. She was 20 and the legality is/was v.dodgy.

she never reigned though, there was an agreement she’d stand aside when her son Rainier turned 21. He succeeded his grandfather instead of her.

Beauforts were specifically excluded in 1407 from inheriting the throne, though (although that itself was of questionable legality).

kristiedean.com/beaufort-legitimacy-guest-post-by-nathen-amin

Excellent notion. They should also have a good name, like Perkin Warbeck, False Dimitry IV, or Sobieski Stuart.

I think that's where Lambert Simnel went wrong. How can you work up martial ardour in defence of a bloke called after a cake? it'd be like fighting for Fred Scone or Terence Apple Turnover.

Sobieski Stuart

Or John Sobieski Stolberg Stuart, to give him his full name. Still not as impressive as Charles Edward Louis John Sylvester Maria Casimir Stuart, though.

False Dimitry IV

I have just googled the False Dmitry (plural) and this just cracked me up from wiki. (some argue that False Dmitry IV is just False Dmitry III due to bad record keeping) "Bloody hell! not only do I have to try and overthrow the Tsar and seize the throne, I've got to keep the passports up to date as well!"