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 don't think knowledge of the law is the issue here. Muckraking and spreading rumours, maybe.

Just as well the Parker Bowles kids are Catholic or by the same logic and imagination they could then DNA test Camilla’s kids, discover Charles is their Dad and they leap frog William and Harry and their families in the line of succession

She is discussing a potential outcry if an illegitimate child was not included in the line of succession.

Yes

" maybe that is what Rishi Sunak is grappling with .... "

God alive.

Because this is absolutely the first time in history that an heir to the throne has fathered a bastard child?
Ots never been an issue before

Would there be an ' outcry' though? It's more likely to be an outcry over having a Monarchy in the first place than to stick another child into this ridiculous merry-go-round that we will then have to pay for forever. Illegitimate children need to be provided for financially. That's it. Roses husband may sue for all the money he has expended in her upbringing. I doubt William would want to change the law to put illegitimate children into the LoS. The Royals are always shagging around. It would be a disaster for them. If people are really getting their knickers in a twist about this enough to demand a change in the law, maybe they shoukd be thinking about all the other illegitimate children who's fathers aren't paying child support for them.

Oooh maybe thats the consitutional change! No links to the church of england.

It's just as unpleasant. And ridiculous. Get a hobby.

This is not correct, except in rare circumstances.

Yes it remains the law that births of DC to unmarried parents should be re-registered if the parents subsequently marry. But the fine is all of £2 and no-one has been prosecuted for yonks

It makes no difference to inheritance for the overwhelming majority, because claims from DC - whether legitimate, legitimated or illegitimate (to use old terminology) - are all valid now.

Only exceptions are succession to the Crown and certain aristocratic titles (and entailed estates)

I don't think the rules around line of succession to the Crown were set up with any form of morality in mind. Rather it's to provide clarity on who stands where.

What a nasty thread. That poor child, does nobody care about the MH of that child now and in the future? Those that are pedalling that gossip are worse than bitches.

For my part, it’s because in their opening post they declared something as a “Massive constitutional headache” when it fact the law on this point is clear and settled and has been for centuries?

It's the "centuries" bit that op is calling into question. Times have changed. Hence the possibility of a constitutional crisis if it arises.

@TheSuggestedAmendment not commenting on this thread, but just writing to say please ignore the 'if you are a lawyer, blah blah' comments on here.

As another poster has said, it is used by those wanting to shut down the discussion who don't possess the intellect with which to engage the topic.

also, lawyers have been on a recent, long list of professions some people on mn won't date/marry. so that was telling.

also, see anyone who posts on mn who is not on benefits or breadline. any indication of a good salary is treason on here.

If it hadn't been there'd not have been an Exclusion crisis in the 1680s when a lot of people were very unhappy about the heir to the throne being an RC. Charles II could simply have declared the Duke of Monmouth his heir and after that all the other sons he had were in line of succession (questionable whether DoM would have been more or less disastrous as a monarch than James II...)

Should we have two separate topics- the Royal Family for Royalists and the Royal Family for other people? Every single discussion that isn't absolutely gushing with sympathy gets a pile on and posters accused of bullying.
These people are FABULOUSLY WEALTHY and literally consider themselves anointed by God to rule.
Bullying them would be absolutely impossible- and since they don't even pay their taxes while we fund their lifestyle and let them sign off our laws, surely we are entitled to at least discuss their constitutional position?

Rishi is grappling with the probable annihilation of his party at the next election, not this. Although it is an interesting point, now that we have reliable DNA testing.

It hasn’t arisen though, has it? So where is the crisis?

It's a theoretical discussion.

How would there be a constitutional crisis, though? Even if an illegitimate child turned up?

Should we have two separate topics- the Royal Family for Royalists and the Royal Family for other people?

What makes someone a 'royalist' and what makes someone 'other people'? and good luck with keeping people off boards they fancy posting on. Ask Black MN and the MNs without children boards about how hard that is.

It has been discussed on this thread, so why not have a read.

And also, as I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, exactly this situation has arisen in Monaco (just one example) where Prince Albert’s illegitimate children are actually older than his legitimate children. There was no crisis there though - no outcry at all that the law should be changed.

It can be a new Netflix series!

Yeah I think the best thing to do is refrain from engaging with the "how nasty" posts. They have nothing to add to this discussion.

If Mordaunt is the answer, what the hell was the question?

Bullying them would be absolutely impossible- and since they don't even pay their taxes while we fund their lifestyle and let them sign off our laws, surely we are entitled to at least discuss their constitutional position?

Why do you think anyone who sees the premise of this thread disingenuous and sensationalist as a " Royalist ".

I'm no Royalist but I know an internet, gossip shit storm when I see one. And a sensationalist OP to boot.

" constitutionalist chaos " What? Based on TikTok?

But interested ( no not really ) to see this discussion of " the constitutional position . "