Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Would the "Royal Succession" change if (Original Post) no_hypocrisy May 2023 OP
or this guy and his descendants lapfog_1 May 2023 #1
I don't think so Freddie May 2023 #2
True LeftishBrit May 2023 #8
No - illegitimate children have never counted in the royal succession muriel_volestrangler May 2023 #3
UK (England) doesn't bastard king much. They used "Fitz" appendage to denote them in royal cases Bernardo de La Paz May 2023 #4
I haven't paid much attention to these claims. Is there DNA analysis to support the story? hlthe2b May 2023 #5
It's all an argument about who and how society is organized bucolic_frolic May 2023 #6
Then there is Harry. Sneederbunk May 2023 #7

Freddie

(9,691 posts)
2. I don't think so
Sat May 20, 2023, 04:34 AM
May 2023

King William IV (?) - George III’s son - had a number of children with a girlfriend but no “proper” heir. He hastily married the requisite German princess but they were unable to produce a child that lived past infancy, so the throne went to his niece Victoria, daughter of George III’s youngest son Prince Edward, who’d died fairly young. Queen Victoria was King Charles’ 3x-great grandmother.

LeftishBrit

(41,303 posts)
8. True
Sat May 20, 2023, 03:41 PM
May 2023

Though actually a descendent of one of William IV's illegitimate children did sort-of end up ruling Britain; it was David Cameron!

muriel_volestrangler

(102,475 posts)
3. No - illegitimate children have never counted in the royal succession
Sat May 20, 2023, 04:39 AM
May 2023

Charles II had loads, but they didn't get considered for succession (one, the Duke of Monmouth, did try a rebellion against James II, Charles' younger brother, resulting in the last battle on English soil at Sedgemoor, but he had to fight, not just inherit). George IV was rumoured to have some, but they weren't considered for the throne.

The law controls the inheritance of the crown far more than it does for monetary inheritance for the rest of us. I haven't heard of this man, and it seems unlikely that Camilla could have given birth without it being generally known, but whenever it was supposed to have happened, it wouldn't change things.

Bernardo de La Paz

(50,894 posts)
4. UK (England) doesn't bastard king much. They used "Fitz" appendage to denote them in royal cases
Sat May 20, 2023, 05:27 AM
May 2023

The word or word fragment came from the Norse French and Latin for "son of" and only occasionally denoted bastardy (which is never the fault of the child, hence I don't use "bastard" as an insult).

Its use during the period of English surname adoption led to its incorporation into patronymic surnames, and at later periods this form was adopted by English kings for the surnames given some of their recognized illegitimate children, and by Irish families when anglicizing their Gaelic patronymic surnames.


several illegitimate children of the Norman and early Angevin kings were called 'fitz Roy', "son of the king" in Anglo-Norman French, examples being Henry fitz Roy, son of Henry I, and Richard fitz Roy, son of king John.


From the Stuart era (1603–1714) and later, there was a revival of the adoption of Fitz surname forms, particularly for illegitimate children of kings, princes, or high nobility, for example Fitzroy for the children of Charles II and one of his mistresses, the Duchess of Cleveland; FitzJames, for the illegitimate children of king James II (1685–1688) and Arabella Churchill; FitzClarence for those of Duke of Clarence, later King William IV (1830–1837) by Mrs. Jordan; and FitzGeorge, for the sons born to the legally prohibited marriage of Prince George, Duke of Cambridge (1819–1904) with Sarah Fairbrother, who would refer to herself as Mrs. FitzGeorge. This practice by the late royalty gave rise to the erroneous belief that historical instances of Fitz surnames also denoted illegitimacy, which was not the case.[3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitz



bucolic_frolic

(46,970 posts)
6. It's all an argument about who and how society is organized
Sat May 20, 2023, 05:58 AM
May 2023

The nobility fought at one time, but now it's organization by wealth.

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»United Kingdom»Would the "Royal Successi...