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.

Thank you for clearing up that processes constantly evolve. You may be interested to know that it hasn't changed re: illegitimate children.
What's your evidence for this child's existence, anyway?

I've not read or listened to the rumours because I think it's in very poor taste
So I haven't got a clue what's going on I really hope she emerges at Easter with massive knockers and a tiny button nose----

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

If you are a lawyer and constitutional law is a particular interest have you not already had this discussion with lawyer colleagues in RL? 😵‍💫

But the law wasn't changed for this hyperthetical child was it? Look I'm not sure I really give a shit, but say it's true? Man sleeps around, man has many kids by many women, man hides it, man is in a position of power, man is heir to a throne.

So ever was

Men got to men.

Dud it hold Boris back?

Nothing I don't see everyday IRL.

Nonsense. Public opinion about the rights of children born out of wedlock would have zero bearing on the right of this fictional child to inherit the throne.

Plus the change that removed male supremacy in the line of succession wasn't retroactive. Charlotte comes before Louis but Anne still comes after Andrew and Edward.

But we’re all “lesser children” as far as the royals are concerned - that’s literally their USP.

😂😂😂

😂

The rules didn’t change retrospectively. Only females born after the law was put in place take precedence over younger brothers. That’s why Anne is still lower in the line of succession than Andrew, Edwards and their children.

I can’t see anyone having support for illegitimate children being in the line of succession, not royals, politicians or the majority of the public. Yes children born out of wedlock happens very often in normal life and there is no longer any stigma. But look at Princess Delfine of Belgium and proving her paternity at age 18, think how the public would react if they found out that our next head of state is a child born of a fling that the heir had before he married - the public doesn’t know who they are, the child hasn’t been brought up in royal life and doesn’t know anything of their constitutional duties.

Not saying that the father shouldn’t have a relationship with the child and provide financial support, of course they should.

Also this wouldn’t only affect the line of succession, it may be relevant for all inherited titles and estates so a much wider impact than just royals.

FWIW I don’t believe the affair rumours. Having been caught in the crossfire of his own parents very publicly, I don’t believe William would want that turmoil for his own family. No evidence of the affair has been found (and one of the journalists did say that they tried really hard to find some dirt) and the person who started the rumour admitted he made it up. So why does this rumour keep coming back 🤷🏽‍♀️

This. These rumours get ever more batshit. Plus, IF William was having an affair, do you really think Kate's sister, with whom she is v close, would honestly name her latest child after the OW? Highly unlikely

Obviously not.

Exactly - the change came about as a result of societal change. Although I take your point that the change was made in anticipation not after the event.

I think the societal pressures would be huge to accept an ‘equal’ relationship with all offspring equally - especially if he was a divorcee.

Changing the laws of primogeniture to allow daughters an equal place in the laws of succession as sons meant passing new legislation in the UK and also in the 14 other realms where the British Royal family are head of state. In the UK that was via the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. In Australia, for one example, the Succession to the Crown Act 2015 effected this change.

So not exactly an evolution, a legislative change is needed. And changing the law further to allow illegitimate children to have rights in this situation would be a revolution given centuries of past practice, not an evolution!

Changing social mores aren’t likely to impact this I don’t think. For example, King Albert of Belgium and Prince Albert of Monaco both have illegitimate children. Both recognised publicly, and by their families (Delphine in Belgium even has a courtesy title!). But there has been absolutely no public clamour for them to be in line of succession. None at all.

Glad to clear that up for you! 😀

If you were a lawyer, you would know that children of a marriage are considered to be the legitimate children of the marriage. So even if the scenario you mentioned was correct, Roses daughter would be the legitimate child of her husband., no matter who her biological father was. She would not be in the Line of Succession. Also what @Serenster said.

Thank you for clearing that up so well, @Serenster .

Suggest you have a read of some of the step parenting threads on MN.

No they don't and unless they change the rules illegitimate children won't have any more rights than they ever did, despite peoples opinions.

Yes, legislative change is what I am discussing - hence the mention of Rishi Sunak in the OP.

Absolutely bizarre that so many posters seem keen to convince me I am not a lawyer.

I haven't heard anyone in RL talk about this absolute shit show in a tea cup.

I was out socially last night, zero mention.

No one I know is talking about it.

It's all self fuelled, self perpetuating click on line click hysteria.

Apart from the ethics of press photography NO ONE CARES. There is no constitutional crisis and that's it. There's also zero public clamour.

And you're a " lawyer ". Yep.

Yep " bizarre ".

Funny you didn’t mention that then…?

Anyone could call themselves a lawyer. I could, because I have a law degree (or two). I haven't practiced, but I could call myself a lawyer if I wanted!

Plus, I think we would imagine that lawyers would base things on evidence, not gossip.

There’s a ton of threads about it. And a load of TV interviews. And it was the main BBC Newcast story this week.

And you are commenting on this thread.

No one I know is talking about it They are.

The main BBC newscast story was that William has a child by Rose Hanbury?
Can you provide a link?