A silly thought/question

[Dustyblue]

I went down a youtube rabbit hole on the royal family the other night. Eg, the doco "Duke & Duchess of Disaster" about the Yorks was hell funny.

It got me wondering what royals do about contraception. Bear with me- thinking of Charles, Andrew & William etc as unmarried (or indeed, married) men. They couldn't afford to impregnate the wrong woman could they?

Do they wear 2 condoms and use spermicide and demand to see a diaphragm inserted, or what? You wouldn't think they'd be taking chances with their potential heirs.

Told you it was silly.

Illegitimate children wouldn't be heirs though, according to the current set up. They wouldn't be in the line of succession or eligible for any of their parents inherited titles.

They couldn't afford to impregnate the wrong woman could they?

As an heir has to be 'legitimate' (i.e. born within wedlock) an unplanned pregnancy outside marriage would be something of a scandal and an ongoing expense, but not a complete disaster. Plenty of monarchs in the past have had openly acknowledged illegitimate children - Charles II had no legitimate children but 12 illegitimate offspring, on whom he bestowed various titles.

Ah, ok. So the family would have to declare the child "illegitimate" so as to avoid any claim on titles etc.

Crikey, imagine the scandal nowadays. My Nanna used to call such a situation "a child born on the wrong side of the bed", whatever that means exactly 🤔

Then again, they've managed to get themselves out of other scandals I suppose.

Still wonder what contraceptive they get.

i don't really understand your question? you know they tend to marry virgins. and that the women tend to undergo medical exams to ensure fertility and ability to bear children.
so no contraception before marriage on the women's part. following wedlock theoretically they shouldn't be with others.

Ah, ok. So the family would have to declare the child "illegitimate" so as to avoid any claim on titles etc.

no, there wouldn’t be a claim in tirles

liok at the Australian chap claiming to be Charles III son, he has no claim in anything

Really? Diana was a virgin. But Fergie, Sophie, Catherine and Meghan weren't virgins. You have absolutely no idea that any of these women underwent any medical exams. The papers speculated about Diana was examined by Dr Pinker, the Queens gynaecologist, but it was unsubstantiated gossip.

You don’t seriously think Catherine was a virgin ! She lived with William for a long time before they wed .

Lots of stuff you can do and still maintain virginity.

If you take Prince Albert, the current ruler of Monaco as an example (two legitimate children from his marriage, two acknowledged children from flings before he was was married and two other claims that he is the father of children) he’s clearly not been that bothered about effective contraception!

It's the wrong side of the blanket, not bed

Not the point but wearing 2 condoms would be counterproductive.

fallfallfall · Today 05:25
i don't really understand your question? you know they tend to marry virgins. and that the women tend to undergo medical exams to ensure fertility and ability to bear children

Do you genuinely believe that?

I'm guessing they're religious(!) about contraception and if they're women they're on the pill.

Who was the last king to acknowledge illegitimate children? I think William IV, who had about 10 of them? Makes you wonder what sort of birth control someone like Edward VII used as he was a noted player but I've not heard that he had any bastards.

Ah, ok. So the family would have to declare the child "illegitimate" so as to avoid any claim on titles etc

They don't have to be declared illegitimate. Any child born outside of a legal marriage (with monarchical consent, for senior royals) is automatically so.

It's why, in recent times, the heirs mistresses would be married women, so that if a child were born, it would legally be assumed to be the husbands (Charles had two mistresses at the time of his marriage - both were married)

Of course in the more distant past, they just openly had second families (pre or post marriage) such as Mrs Jordan (who had a family of 10 DC with the Duke of Clarence, later William IV, who had the surname Fitzclarence - the "Fitz" surname prefix indicating royal bastard)

Prince George the Duke of Kent (George VI’s younger brother, who was married to Princess Marina and was killed in WWII) was rumoured to have two children from liaisons before his marriage.

One was a Michael Canfield who was adopted by an American family, brought up in the US and was married for a time to Jacqueline Kennedy’s sister Lee. That rumour is probably more reliable than the one that he fathered Barbara Cartland’s daughter Raine (later Diana Spencer’s stepmother!).

And the father of the current King of Belgium has acknowledged an illegitimate daughter from an affair he had when he was married. After she brought court cases against the former King she’s been officially recognised by the Belgian court and is styled as Princess Delphine.

No, there would be no need to declare them illegitimate- if you aren’t married then the child is illegitimate by default and are not entitled to inherit titles/ are not in line for the throne.

I forgot about him! Can't remember his name, but he appears to be proper batshit crazy with his theory😂

Hmm, the history doesn't bode well does it?

Religious about contraception- love it!!