If royalty have a kid out of wedlock, will they get to become kings/queens, princes/s?

Question

Say if a crown prince/princess had a kid outside of marriage and then gets married and has kids with a hubby/ wife. will their previous kids become the queen, king eventually? or do they only count babies born into marriage as royals?

Answer 1

No - a child must be legitimate to inherit a title. Charles II did have a lot of bastards, and created them dukes (some of their descendants are still around - the Dukes of Grafton, Beaumont and Richmond) but none were eligible for the throne. George IV only had illegitimate children and was succeded by his brother when he died.

Incidentally, there was a Lord Berkeley whose marriage was declared invalid and had to re-marry his wife, and the title went to the first son born after the re-marriage. However he refused to use it, as doing so acknowledged the illegimacy of his elder brothers.

Answer 2

Another point is that Henry VIII's will left the succession to Edward, Mary, and then Elizabeth in turn. Though the princesses had been officially bastards later in Henry's reign, they were named to the succession, and this was sanctioned by Parliament, thus becoming law. They were both considered legitimate at the time of their birth, and Mary had functioned as Princess of Wales (heiress to the throne) though never actually given the title, before the birth of Elizabeth and Edward.

Answer 3

usually the legitimate (born in wedlock) will be the heirs but the illegitimate (born out of wedlock) can be on the list or not at all because if their parent are the king/queen then they can do practically whatever they want just look at king henry VIII he declared his legitimate daughter mary illegitimate but when he died he still put her in the order of seccesion as the second to take the throne same with elizabeth

Answer 4

For centuries kings have been sleeping around. Only the children born from the royal marriage are usually considered heirs.

Answer 5

Historically it was rare for illegitimate children included in the succession unless all other options were exhausted. It wasn't uncommon for them to receive titles...in England it was to my knowledge always a peerage and not being made a prince(ss). They also usually had surnames like "FitzGeorge" if they were a bastard child of a King George. In some counties of continental Europe they were created a "prince of x" but this wasn't equal to the title a legitimate prince would be.

Now...in the 21st century, and indeed in the early 20th century the Principality of Monaco faced a succession issue. Louis II, Ruling Prince of Monaco had an illegitimate daughter who was his only "heir" during his reign (which ended in 1949). Until then the state had never had a female sovereign princess...let alone an illegitimate one. He had to admen the constitution (negotiating it with France as their treaty had previously required a male heir or Monaco would revert to French control) so that he could adopt his daughter Charlotte. Complications still there because she was not a male heir so she married a distant cousin who was created a Prince of Monaco, thereby they would theoretically co-rule under the terms that they would not retain the throne but pass it to Charlotte and his son, the future Renier III (who married Grace Kelly). Now flash forward to a few years ago and they changed their laws AGAIN. Before Rainier died the constitution was amended so that in order for an illegitimate child to become legal and able to ascend the throne the parents must marry - eliminating the option of just adopting the child. Rainier's son, the current Ruling Prince of Monaco, Albert II, has fathered a daughter with a married waitress from California who was visiting the south of France like 15 years ago or so...and a son with a flight attendant from Togo in West Africa. He's apparently supported them financially for years but didn't make it public until the press did. He has made it clear they will not be in the line of succession, nor be titled, as both would require him to marry their respective mothers. It is unlikely he will father a legitimate heir in the future. In my personal opinion it doesn't seem as if he's terribly concerned with it. Monegasque law would allow the throne to pass to his sister, Caroline, The Princess of Hanover, Hereditary Princess of Monaco making her the first real ruling princess. Then pass to her two sons and daughter from her second marriage (or first if you count the earlier one being annulled)...those children are not titled though media does sometimes refer to them as "Charlotte of Monaco, Pierre of Monaco, etc." Her current marriage to HRH The Prince of Hanover has produced a daughter HRH The Princess Alexandra of Hanover (though legally only a surname but even within Germany he is widely given the proper respect of a prince of his rank - even Queen Elizabeth II addressed him as such when approving he and Caroline's marriage). After Caroline and her children, is Princess Stephanie who has a couple illegetimate children which considering both she and their father have married since makes it unlikely they would marry to make the kids legal. These children cannot be titled or be in succession. IF Albert II were to have a child that took the throne it would cut Caroline and Stephanie and their children from the succession. If they were to find themselves without an heir the crown council would select from people who were most recently in the succession. Rainier's sister, Princess Antoinette, Baroness de Massy was until Albert II took the throne in the line of succession as were her children...but immediately lost their place.

Answer 6

Yes, and her name was Elizabeth I, the daughter of King Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. She was born on 7 September 1533 at Greenwich Palace. Henry wanted a son, desperately. Anne Boleyn could not give Henry a son, and he had Anne brought up on false charges of adultery and had her beheaded. Anne's marriage to Henry was nullified, and Elizabeth became 'illegitimate' in the eyes of many people at that time. Her father's third marriage produced a son, who died very young. Though he had a daughter named Mary, from his first marriage, she later died of an illness, probably cancer, and this left Elizabeth, his only living child, heiress to his throne. She ruled 40 years and it was known as the Golden Age. Her rule was both famous and infamous. Elizabeth considered herself married to her country and never wed.

Answer 7

from what I know, only kids born legitimately. Like Charles II of England. He had an enormous amount of "bastards" ( there are 14 acknowledged ones) but had no children with his wife. The English throne ended up going to his brother, James II.

Answer 8

I believe that if the father is a king, and he acknowledges the illegitimate child as his own, and there are no other heirs, that child could become king or queen. I don't know what happens if the mother is a queen and the father is not. It would also depend on the laws in the country in question.

Answer 9

In most cases, no. The only children entitled to a title are those born within wedlock.

Answer 10

It is within the royal prerogative to nominate the illegitimate children as heirs in the case of England (Britain), where there is no written constitution. However, it would be unheard of in the context of the unwritten constitution. In the past, if the King was without legitimate issue (children), his legitimate next of kin became King. In the case of Elizabeth I, it was her cousin's son, James VI of Scotland. In the case of Charles II, it was his brother, James II of England, even though Charles had six or seven illegitimate children by his mistress Lady Monmouth (this was in itself almost a constitutional crisis, as his brother was a Catholic and at the time, Britain was majority Protestant; Charles actually made the decision himself to let his brother, not his son, succeed him); in the case of Queen Anne, it was her nearest relative (her second cousin).

The story of Lady Jane Grey is interesting. Mary I was declared illegitimate (even though she was legitimate) because her mother's marriage to her father was annulled. Elizabeth I was declared illegitimate by those who believed that her mother's marriage to her father was illegitimate/bigomous because her father was still married to Queen Catherine). Lady Jane was never crowned, but was next Protestant in line for succession to the throne (her maternal grandmother was Henry VIII's sister). Another interesting aspect of this is that Mary Tudor's marriage to Charles Brandon was considered illegitimate by many because she had not sought the King's (her brother's) permission to marry. Indeed, the Privy Council voted to have she and her husband executed for treason. Although Henry was said to be enraged, he was so fond of her (named the main ship in the English armada after her; named his first daughter after her, etc), he (as King) and Cardinal Wolsley (as de facto leader of the Anglican church) intervened.

I have only covered the English/British crown here, I'm sure there are variations around the world.

JF is correct that the children of English nobility were often given the "Fitz" moniker. The "Fitz"'es in my own genealogy, however, were the illegitimate children of aristocrats whose own titles were not ancestral. For example, when William of Normandy (Guillaume de la Falaise, who was himself illegitimate), conquered England, he gave most of his soldiers land and titles which they then passed down to their legitimate heirs. The illegitimate children did not inherit their fathers' titles. If a man who was given title and land because he was in the King's favor was named "Herbert", his legitimate son would be named "Herbert" and his illegitimate son would be called "Fitzherbert". Herbert the elder could will land to Fitzherbert, but Fitzherbert would not inherit the title Herbert.