Constitutional chaos.

[TheSuggestedAmendment]

Kate is ill (reasons plural - physical and mental etc) but what if that isn’t the main story.

What if the rumours are true and Rose Chum’s third child is William’s? Born 2016, she’s older than Louis.

Massive constitutional headache. Does Daughter Chum enter the line of succession ahead of Louis? Illegitimate but maybe people would demand William treat her as an equal child. Maybe this is what Rishi Sunak has been grappling with.

There would be huge public/social splits on the issue. Church of England issues filling the papers, endless ‘Well, what is the point of marriage’ op-eds from lawyers, and so on. Plus KC3 with health looking shaky….

And what about Kate? Stay or go?

Big ole mess.

What an unpleasant idea for a thread.
Have you not got anything better to occupy your time with?

If only there was a precedent for the King having illegitimate children to work out what would happen...

Not really. I’m a lawyer and constitutional law is an interest.

At least I’m not pruriently discussing what illness Kate may have. Lots of those threads.

🙄

Calm down dear.

The royal family board is starting to give this site a bad name. Very low brow now.

You're a lawyer with an interest in Constitutional law, yet you don't understand about children born outside of a royal marriage?
Really?!

They'd never admit it! Anything like that gets swept under the carpet!

You’re a lawyer - what’s your evidence for ANY of this? Pure tittle tattle.

But that was then.

This is 2024. To have a ‘lesser’ child would be to say children born out of wedlock (ie plenty of the British public) count for less.

Ok, I'll help you out. The line of succession will remain as it is, even if it turns out that William has fathered another child outside of marriage. This is because you have to be born of married parents in order to be in line.

The thread.
Oh and I’m a brain surgeon!

I think you misunderstand. That's the law, it doesn't matter about our opinion. Legitimate children inherit.

Are children born within a marriage still assumed to be the husband's children?

The rules change. They were amended before George was born so as not to prejudice a female successor.

I think keeping an illegitimate child out of the line of succession would go down very badly with lots of people.

And you any evidence at all of your wild assumptions?

Ok. If you think so, OP. I'm just going on the facts.

Only the fact that most people would consider siblings ‘equal’ in normal life in 2024.

Illegitimate children are not part of the line of succession. Kings have openly had illegitimate children in the past - they might get a title and land bestowed on them, but they have no claim to the throne.

And you’re using rumours from rubbish newspapers as the source of your misinformation

I'm very surprised that a lawyer would take rumours as fact. Also that someone with an interest in the constitution doesn't understand about the line of succession. However, I hope people have at least cleared up the latter point for you.

You’d have to contend with the rest of the aristocracy. There would be uproar if illegitimate children could suddenly inherit titles. It’s not just limited to the Royal family. It would then also bring into question other rights if succession- entails for example. Or the rights of trans me. To inherit about their younger biological male siblings.

I’m asking ‘What if’? And it’s definitely a relevant question to ask since this is the opposite of personal. This is the public part of being in line to the throne.

There can’t be a person in the UK by now who hasn’t heard the rumours. We’re long past sanctimonious finger wagging about anyone who discusses it.

You're a lawyer who doesn't seem to understand the nature of 'evidence'.

Well, I haven't heard the rumours, OP.
So not everyone has. What's the evidence?

Well, in your ‘surprise’ you may be interested to know that constitutional law is constantly evolving. In particular, it evolves at times of crisis.

Glad to clear that up for you.