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.

I can understand any lawyer having an interest in constitutional matters. Understand anyone having an interest in what could happen if a member of the Royal family has an illegitimate child.

However it has always been clear cut. Even step-children are excluded.

OP I understand what you mean, as I was pondering this myself.

It could be another incident which brings the antiquated nature of monarchy into sharp relief.

Which could lead to open questioning of the institution itself and perhaps serious calls for abolition.

It is a huge issue for hereditary power.

PS I would ignore the posts telling you not to discuss this, along with the personal insults and craven digs.

Some people are kind of infatuated with that family, and will always try to shut down commentary beyond how nice Kate's shoes are. So no point engaging really.

I think it's the way these online campaigns work. It is the same when the Meghan bashing threads start. Quantity of threads is supposed to lend legitimacy to the claims presented.

In my opinion it doesn't but I'm not a social media expert.

I've got an idea. Ditch the royal family as part of the constitution (ie become a republic) and all of this nonsense becomes totally irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned they are all irrelevant to me anyway 💁‍♀️

I don't know why people still bring this up. Diana didn't meet James Hewitt until after Harry was born.

The thing is that the "good old Sunday Sport" published things about the royals that turned out to be true, no matter how salacious. People refused to believe them at the time because they were so ludicrous.
And yet here we are.

Odd!

It is a huge issue for hereditary power.

In and of itself of course it is.
( though it's been successfully leap frogged by every generation of royal since time began )

But it's no more relevant this week than it ever was UNLESS of course you are invested in the rumours.

And don't me that sensational OP is someone wanting to discuss FACTS.

Oh and the only family I'm infatuated with is my own.

You may not have noticed OP but Louis has no less than two older siblings. The chances of both of them dying without issue is incredibly low. Hardly a constitutional crisis..

don't tell me

What I particularly take issue with is that everyone finds this whole thing relevant or even cares.

This is an internet generated shit show in an echo chamber of its own making.

" huge public/social splits on the issue "

Doubt it when it is barely being discussed OFF LINE.

IKR😺

True

Has no one ever heard of Charles II? Or the dozens of bastards sired by the children of George III?

There is a whole crazy conspiracy theory that Archie & Lili aren't legit because they were born from surrogates.

I just feel bad for the poor kids involved in this lunacy.

I think there are some stupid people on this thread who can't separate an interesting constitutional question with accusing the OP of gossip.
They are asking for proof when the OP did not state any 'facts' just asked a question.
Laws evolve and I think the OP is correct and treating an illegitimate child as 'inferior' would not go down at all well these days.
One last question - why do people come on to a thread with a clear title in a board called the Royal Family to tell posters they're not interested in the Royal Family? Do they think it makes them cool and edgy or something?

I hope you’re not a family lawyer? All children in the uk born out of wedlock are legally illegitimate. I was told as such when we registered our child. When we do get married, by law we have to re-register him. At that point he will be made legitimate and will have a claim to inherit from his father’s family. As it stands now, he does not. Bit embarrassing you didn’t know that TBH given that you’re a lawyer and all.

I think there are some stupid people on this thread who can't separate an interesting constitutional question with accusing the OP of gossip.?

Crack on discussing this 'interesting constitutional question.'

And ooops it didn't make it into the Legal Board @Katypp .

😂

I think the OP knows that. But clever you.
She is discussing a potential outcry if an illegitimate child was not included in the line of succession.
Up to Charlotte's birth, males took precedence. This was not regarded as acceptable nowadays and the law was changed
The OP is asking if the law might be changed again. I am sure she knows the law and does not need a lecture on it from you or any of the others who seem incapable of considering a theoretical question.

So why does this rumour keep coming back 🤷🏽‍♀️

Because it's very useful if your aim to to seriously weaken the monarchy to the point that people are seriously calling for it to be abolished (which they may be, I haven't kept up).

And OP is as much a lawyer in constitutional affairs as I am (which is not at all).

So if william divorces kate, remarries rose and iris is his, they can reregister iris and she is legitimate

But not in the line of succession as the rules stand but presumably that could change.

Why do posters keep implying the OP dors not know the law?

What do you mean?

Because ad hominem attacks are their go-to when trying to shut a discussion down.

Apparently the monarchy is so weak now that even theoretical discussion is a threat.