Should illegitimate children be allowed to succeed to a throne?

Jan 2009
1,234
#31
for the upper reach of the aristocracy , sex and love has nothing to do with marriage
it's all about succession , primogeniture and inheritance
Exactly, and I'd argue that this is still partially true today; marriage is a way of organizing the inheritance rights.

Definitely, they should have the same right the fault lies with the parents not the child.
But this robs the legitimate spouse and her (since let's face it, it is going to be the male monarch sleeping around causing those bastards, more likely than not) legitimate children of their rights. It is even worse in a monarch's family, since it is not as if they can simply split the crown. So thanks to the King having a one-night stand, the Queen and her unborn children, can be robbed of their birthright. It is even worse in Futurist's original suggestion, where the bastard can already be born, and if the King feels like it, he can legitimize the bastard moments before the legitimate child's birth and ensure that the bastard jumps over the legitimate child in succession.

Furthermore, why would the illegitimate child's right trump those of the King's siblings and nieces and nephews? Why should a King's fling be a better monarch than, say, one of his brothers, who have been raised to the role as a spare monarch and has acted as his brother's representative time and time again? Note that in Futurist's suggestion, the childless King could legitimize a total nobody, claiming the person was his bastard, and then the legitimized bastard would inherit before everyone else.

There are good reasons that the succession rules were as they were, especially in the past.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,515
Sydney
#32
This being an Historical forum , I'll take the Historical view

marriage in the royal mob was often a formal alliance between two dynasties

For Henry the VIII , the problem was that he had married Catherine who happened to be the aunt of Charles V
the very...very big guy in Europe
disrespecting his spouse would be a mortal insult on the guy who had the greatest and best army in Europe
not good ....not good at all

bastard did happen , often acknowledged and given high tittles and positions
some were truly loved and appreciated
Don Juan , acknowledged bastard of the above mentioned Charles V was reckoned as a brilliant guy
everybody loved him on sight and some of the proudest Spanish grandees would fight and die for him ,
but in the dynastic business , the legitimate Philip was it , as don Juan himself totally accepted
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,742
SoCal
#33
Exactly, and I'd argue that this is still partially true today; marriage is a way of organizing the inheritance rights.

But this robs the legitimate spouse and her (since let's face it, it is going to be the male monarch sleeping around causing those bastards, more likely than not) legitimate children of their rights. It is even worse in a monarch's family, since it is not as if they can simply split the crown. So thanks to the King having a one-night stand, the Queen and her unborn children, can be robbed of their birthright. It is even worse in Futurist's original suggestion, where the bastard can already be born, and if the King feels like it, he can legitimize the bastard moments before the legitimate child's birth and ensure that the bastard jumps over the legitimate child in succession.

Furthermore, why would the illegitimate child's right trump those of the King's siblings and nieces and nephews? Why should a King's fling be a better monarch than, say, one of his brothers, who have been raised to the role as a spare monarch and has acted as his brother's representative time and time again? Note that in Futurist's suggestion, the childless King could legitimize a total nobody, claiming the person was his bastard, and then the legitimized bastard would inherit before everyone else.

There are good reasons that the succession rules were as they were, especially in the past.
For what it's worth, I actually would demand a DNA test before legitimizing a royal bastard.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,742
SoCal
#36
Also, the legitimacy rule discriminates against gay royals since they would have to at least postpone their dreams in order to unwillingly marry someone of the opposite sex so that they could produce royal heirs.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,515
Sydney
#37
" not the king and the tanner's hot daughter. "
William the bastard , later called "the conqueror " after his success at Hastings , was the son of a tanner daughter
the story goes that the young duke was overwhelmed by the beauty of the tanner Fulbert daughter Herleva
when she raised her skirt to step into a tanning vat to trample them ,
since it was in full view of the Falaise castle wall , one can raise an eyebrow on the innocence of the fair maid
 
Jan 2009
1,234
#38
For what it's worth, I actually would demand a DNA test before legitimizing a royal bastard.
... which has nothing to do with the fact that the rights of the legitimate spouse are thrown under the bus, along with those of any legitimate children she might have with the king. That is what I am objecting to. That the King can just go and get anyone pregnant and then unilaterally declare that this bastard is now the heir. Even if there is an older legitimate child with the Queen, the legitimized bastard in your scheme would bump the younger siblings out of the running. Even if you bump the legitimized bastard behind all the legitimate children (the least you can do), then you have all the legitimate siblings and their offspring raising a stink about their inheritance rights having been set aside by the bastard (either the King or the illegitimate child, take your pick).

Kings and queens nowadays can marry anyone--even a commoner--no?
No problem for me, as long as they are married.

Also, the legitimacy rule discriminates against gay royals since they would have to at least postpone their dreams in order to unwillingly marry someone of the opposite sex so that they could produce royal heirs.
Contradiction with your DNA testing, isn't it? Unless you are imagining a test tube baby with a surrogate mother. Which, assuming that it is with the consent of all parties, would count as a legitimate child of the Gay King and the Prince Consort, wouldn't it? I am not sure what the laws are concerning surrogates, but my understanding is that even if the sperm or the egg is donated, the child is still considered to be legitimate for the parents.
 
Likes: Futurist