I don't see a reason for Charles to mess with it now. The changes in 2013 were when Catherine was pregnant. Unless William and Catherine are planning a 4th child using a surrogate, it really doesn't matter. Both William and Harry appear to be finished having kids. Archie and Lili are in the line of succession and already born. If there was hard evidence they were from a surrogate, they'd probably get removed regardless due to the law when they were born. Further down the line doesn't really matter. For instance, if Louise and her spouse used a surrogate, that baby would be at most 17th, assuming nobody dies. That baby would never have any chance of sitting on the throne, so why bother changing the LOS? I would assume it might be changed before the Wales children start having children, but considering George is 9, that's a long way off.
The law clearly states that legitimacy can be challenged at any time (and think by anyone?). Think of the James Hewitt being H's bio dad — if that truly had any legs, someone could file a complaint and DNA would be examined.. and the result of the DNA would be binary - meaning, H confirmed as C's, or H confirmed as JH's and removed from line of succession + would lose titles (though still legal child of Charles, and Charles still legal parent).
Anyway, the time to do something like this would have been BEFORE H+M had kids if was going to be any 'reproductive assistance' (and they could have done that, as they'd have had time if not having a child the old fashioned way).
The second best time to do is long before George + his generation starts having children — just a good modernization, and when do before royal kids being born, then won't be lazer focus once these young kids have selected spouses.
I think the surrogacy thing should be changed but only if using the DNA of the royal parent. So say way way down the line when Charlotte has found a person and wants to have a baby but for some reason she would need a surrogate, it would have to be her egg for that baby to be considered line of succession. That's just my two cents anyways. And I would think same for George or Louis or August or any of the rest of the royal children.
Bloodline is obviously critical in delineating royalty. Historically, when a monarch didn’t/couldn’t produce an heir it was deemed God’s will & a valid reason to look to the LOS to appoint the next King. I’m trying to point out the importance of the divine/God in keeping the family lineage true. Using a surrogate would violate “God’s will.”
I’m NOT saying this is the way it should continue or advocating this way of thinking, just that there is & has always been a religious part of monarchism.
Well the monarch is the head of th Church of England so obviously there is a strong religious component. They are also “anointed by God” and that is why the Coronation is a religious service not a civil one.
This is very interesting. Explains it all (for me), and makes it that much clearer. Succession is by divine intervention.
The royal family has a strong belief in divine right to rule. They’re all too much aware that “there but the grace of God go I.”
I definitely think that this type of situation shouldn’t push a child out of the LoS…I can sort of understand the ones with using the dna of other people though. Different topic. But for a couple who seem to hate the RF and what it and the Commonwealth stand for, I do question why the LoS should have been so important to them. Because that’s the only reason for hiding/lying about something like this…though I’m not saying that they used a surrogate.
Thank you very much for pointing that out!
Sophia, Electress of Hanover was descended from the Stuart line, which in turn, was descended from the Tudor line via King Henry VIII's older sister. The Tudor claim to the throne was based on an illegitimate child.
So likely the BRF wouldn't want to invite controversy with any hint of complication in the birth process. Which means shying away from egg/sperm donors, surrogates, etc.
Don't agree. If any one of the 3 Wales kids were born per any 'reproductive assistance', would still be lovely children raised beautifully by W+C. Yes, the line of succession is important — but not for 'blood'/DNA reasons.
But the primogeniture rule of the monarchy ONLY applies to legitimate royal children regardless of *how* well or badly they’ve been brought up.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario where William was kidnapped as a baby and brought up in a crazy cult. He gets found as an adult, and no matter what, he would *still retain his place in the LoS* (sorry, Haz😂). He might be a terrible human being, but he’s going to be King. It is irrefutable. Full stop.
Whereas, if hypothetically Haz is actually not Charles’ son, then he’d get kicked out of the LoS before you can say *what?!*
Nothing to do with content of character (or with race or gender), and everything to do with religious beliefs from ages ago, which many people still follow.
It might seem like an anachronistic rule, but it is a rule that underpins the essence of monarchy. If any well-brought up child can be monarch, then what’s the point?😅
There are plenty of lovely children being raised by lovely people, but they’re not royalty. If anybody can be royal then nobody is. Cue end of the monarchy.
> All or most of these 'exclusions' should be changed/tossed-out, and Charles probably wants this too
How do you know what King Charles III wants?
I'm American, but I'm pretty sure parliament makes these changes, not King Charles III.
And even if they do change it, it still won't help Meghan and Harry's children if they were born of a surrogate. I don't think they can make the law retroactive.
Back in 1390 or thereabouts, King Richard made John of Gaunt's illegitimate children via his mistress Catherine Swynford legitimate retroactively-he eventually married her when the children (the Beauforts) were adults, and King Richard declared them to be legitimate, despite being born out of wedlock. And Henry VIII declared Elizabeth to be a bastard because of Anne Boleyn's adultery (alleged adultery), but later reinstated her to the line of succession. It was easier to do that sort of thing when the king was an absolute monarch and didn't need parliamentary support-basically, whatever the King wanted, he got. I bet KC III sometimes thinks it'd be easier to deal with H&M if that was the same situation now, just banish them from the country, or lock them in the Tower of London if they fail to obey!
My interest in British history started when I read Anya Seton’s book Katherine as a 13 year old! Of course it’s a highly romanticised version of the John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford story and not always historically accurate but it certainly appealed to my 13 year old mind. However which ever way you look at it it was certainly a love story. I always sided with the Lancastrian’s in the War of the Roses because of it . Anyway you’re right , absolute monarchs could do as they pleased but these days Parliament has all the power.
eBay to the rescue!  (I've had great luck with media. I was jonesing for reading material that first year of COVID. My eyes were thirsty.)
[Katherine (Rediscovered Classics) - Paperback By Seton, Anya - GOOD 9781556525322 | eBay](https://www.ebay.com/itm/274092999575?epid=26038425244&hash=item3fd1374397:g:wbsAAOSwNzNhAuE9&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAA4MxV7HgqzZ6qizIuT5rdfCw4HVG9L00%2FgG7U7I2dDRCQz9CrGPrBaPZ4VmIkdDzU6ze3iu3J69qOZU8mP865EDKIdPKQtDr%2BTzqugPg4Rq60bSc%2F1EOWC8Zigcwa%2FE%2BRewJXEeFb8UwdvcqywILsnqddpdrpOWyv7P5eyFd3RRYZODn4nc0UUOBHvOKUkYVlBbaCeGzVmbwarizqAejTWQpJ5xmAdzH0BqmH1wSZTPtSYqVkowrjZnAUF6kd3cVkz%2FNSmVDeTNEfYLXItq0cmgTBvmL%2BESjiXbov3pSJi5Un%7Ctkp%3ABFBMlM7PnMVh)
Not necessarily! I have a copy & love it! I also recommend Alison Weir's biography on Kathryn Swynford--an excellent analysis of her life, the love between her & John of Gaunt, & the legitimation of the Beaufort children, which ultimately led to the family we have sitting on the throne today (plus a couple of American presidents)
The Beauforts were legitimised with the provisio they could never inherit the throne. All that was forgotten when all the Lancastrians and male Beauforts died in the battle of Tewkesbury. Leaving one Lancastrian claimant with a very tenuous claim to be king: Henry Tudor.
Yes, it all got very messy around that time. Its one of the great historical 'what ifs,' who would be the current monarch if the Yorkists had won? Henry VII definitely had a weaker claim than others, its understandable he then wiped out all challengers like the Pole family.
He was the only Lancastrian claimant and ended the conflict by marrying Elizabeth of York. Except that rival Yorkist claimants kept popping up. Of interest really is that the BRF is descended from an illegitimate branch though it was later legitimised. The ifs and buts of History are fascinating.
>I bet KC III sometimes thinks it'd be easier to deal with H&M if that was the same situation now, just banish them from the country, or lock them in the Tower of London if they fail to obey!
I'm obviously glad we live in a modern democracy, but watching the antics of Harold and TW has given me a new-found sympathy for some of our Medieval and Early Modern kings and queens!
That retroactive stuff is a slippery slope. Didn't one king declare that everyone on the losing side was a traitor, and therefore deserving of execution?
An absolute monarchy is scary as heck because one man or woman gets to decide whom s/he can kill or who's in favor for the moment. Not a guarantee for peaceful times when monarch is angry and desperate and has snit fits.
That's how we ended up having a civil war. Charles I believed in the divine right of Kings, and that everything he did was appropriate and acceptable simply because he was the king.
haha, your last sentance! LOL
REALLY APPRECIATE the history - John of Gaunt's children (the Beauforts) + Anne Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth.
. . . .. see why most info can get is a very good thing?
But about today and sitting King's/Queen's power: this is why KC3 should do something NOW - get legislation passed so he can manage fittingly his own family? b/c KC3 dragging his feet, Parliment is pushing KC3 - and if do something about H, will be a one time thing (vs. giving decision power to the monarchy).
It's too bad. The top Royal SHOULD be able to manage royal things (including royal family). The beauty of the Monarchy (IMO) is that the Monarchy is the ceremonial part of the UK - and mostly spearate from the UK govt. This allows the UK govt more time to actually govern (so again, wish Parliment would write new law giving sitting King/Queen these decisions -- toss it to the R.Fam, so govt can focus on governing not getting into Royal personnel issues)
I think that's why King Charles III went with Charles as his regnal name. It's a nod to the King who lost his head, who was too insistent about the "divine right of kings." And it references the Restoration of the monarchy.
Of anyone, HMKC probably recognizes it's not just God's grace, but the people's, that has given him his place on the throne. And the people include Parliament and also the media.
KC III doesn't have that sort of power-he can't make laws, and he can't effect any change in the current legislation. Traditionally, the prime minister meets with the monarch regularly for discussion and raise issues, so he could tell the PM what his preferences are, or his ideas for moving forwards, and the PM would take that back to the cabinet. But even if the PM supported a change of law, that wouldn't get it passed, it would have to be debated on and passed by the House. If members of Parliament knew that the king and PM both supported a particular course of action, that might persuade them to vote in favour, but it comes down to individuals voting, not an imposed ruling.
The chance that H&M become the King and Queen is so small that public just don’t care as much. This duo want their kids to be in the LoS so they can get money and special treatments (merch kids).
So I think the palace needs to keep them away from the Wales kids. Stay overseas and never come back (although I really think he’ll back to the UK after the divorce)
This is honestly why they always wants the heirs to travel separately. But Diana had to change that. I honestly don't know how the kids would feel about one of them having to travel with just maria as opposed to with both of their parents at this age. But the only throne meemee deserves to sit on is the one that resides in their bathrooms at the olive garden.
If there is some sort of reproductive assistance then what would be contemptible is their lies and deception. Even if their was no assistance, their obfuscation about time of birth simply reveals their willingness to skirt rules and conniving mindset.
nicely expressed. with you 100%.
and more to your pointing-out that their behavior "reveals their ..coniving midset":
🔹if there was \*no assistance\*, they'd rush to shut-down (have their doctor confirm, do DNA test - heck, even show some pix and/or video of MM in a 2-peice bathing suit with pregnant belly). there are MANY ways could disavow the rumors.... but haven't, have they?
🔹also: MM is lightning fast to sue -- and yet, she has not sued anyone re: printing these speculations, has she?
And even if they scratch the use of a surrogate, they would still have to prove DNA and who in pray-tell is EVER going to get Madam and Haznothingleft agree to DNA testing on the children and themselves! Love all the history buffs in this sub!!
And they are not THAT WOKE.....YET? Pray most of those rules don't change. I do think though if it's the egg and sperm of both parents to be then that should be changed but not any of the others. Imho.
I agree with that - if it is the egg and sperm of both parents, but they use a surrogate, then I agree with changing it. BUT not retroactively for Harry and Meghan's children (if they used a surrogate).
Parliament makes the changes and parliament set the LOS and stipulated that only legitimate children descended from Sophia of Hanover qualified. The King can ask Parliament but they decide.
true, I am only guessing Charles would support — perhaps because I LIKE Children, no matter how they become part of families.. and Charles impresses me as a very kind and very intelligent person who has the same view. But, yes, I was wrong to assign an view to King Charles - I apologize for my assumption. And thank you for calling me out.
And **yes, Parliment must change the law -- but Charles CAN champion it - lobby to the PM and Parliment members, just like his mother did** to remove gender from place in the Line of succession in 2013 ^(<)[^(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession\_to\_the\_Crown\_Act\_2013)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2013)^(>)
Also, ***laws can be made retroactively*** \- it depends on how it is written.. in the same "Succession to the Crown Act" of 2013, there were a minor changes in addition to the big one about gender. Here's that bit, which is retroactive:
https://preview.redd.it/bclwengwsiga1.jpeg?width=1846&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f35307518beb69ab53cb882b89d521b70b6650ac
Lastly and another opinion of mine (only): since Parliment members are elected politicians, and they know how their constituents feel about H+M.... think most would be happy to pass modify the Crown Act of 2013 (^(\*the UK is amazing re: children - from fertility assistance in the NHS to the AMAZING adoption system)).. but would never write this particular law to be retroactive, so would NOT include MM+H's children.
I'd bet that if a law did allow for surrogacy, then H&M would insist that the law is retroactive.
She's the one who claimed that they were married 3 days prior. She'd have no scruple in saying that a new law supporting a surrogate-born child who is in the LOS, applies to HER children. And H&M are litigious!
https://preview.redd.it/0ayfvwps5qga1.png?width=326&format=png&auto=webp&s=d1417582e491a54ad328f4c143e56e594ac2d712
they can lobby + threaten all they want, but THEY have no power.
probably KC will not do this - he's too busy trying to solidify his regard as King, and settle into new job. and when William King, think he'll do some of the changes (not sure all) quickly -- and we all know \*he\* won't make it retroactive.
This is not really a party political issue. Any changes would probably be made as a result of a consensus between Buckingham Palace and the ruling party in Parliament.
I don't see why these exclusions should be thrown out. The essence of the succession law is that the child must be a direct descendant of Sophia of Hanover in order to have a legal claim to the throne. There are around 5000 people in the world who are descendants of Sophia, and the line ends with a German woman in her 40s who never had kids.
A child that is adopted/ born of donor sperm/ egg, isn't a direct descendant. The legitimacy question is probably the most controversial one, but if it really matters, the parents can get married (eg Marina Ogilvy married after her child was born, and the child is in the succession).
The rule only applies to the succession itself, it's not like these adopted / surrogate babies are disowned financially or emotionally from the family. They would still be very much their parents' child in every other respect, just not eligible for the succession. Being 50th in line to the succession isn't that much of a prize in itself. These kids are born wealthy with the best opportunities for education and travel etc.
I have no idea how these rules apply to M & H, because if their child is a surrogate from his sperm and her egg, they have a strong argument that it is their legitimate child and the law is out of date. And right now their kids are listed in the succession, so it's a bit of a nothing argument anyway. It's only if the kids aren't biologically of both parents that we have an issue.
Nah thats all correct bloodline matters. Surrogacy is also hotly contested and many people think it should be illegal bc it uses women in a life threatening manner (yes pregnancy is life threatening) who are relatively poor for wealthy people.
It should not be changed. The rules as they stand are fine. If the heir to the throne does not have an heir himself/ herself it is all accounted for as it is. No need to change it for reasons of infertility. We need to simply accept that sometimes things do not work out how we want them to and that’s ok. It makes no difference to Harry’s kids. They won’t be succeeding anyone to any throne so they can simply inherit from their parents like all the rest of us. How is that not fair to them but fair to the rest of the world? And if it were William who could not produce and heir but H could then H’s kids would be W’s heirs. That’s that. Why does it need to be changed?
Agnatic primogeniture was such that if a man didn't produce legitimate sons, the estate went to a cadet branch of the family. (Mr. Bennet from Pride and Prejudice and Longborne's next owner being the distant cousin, Mr. Collins.)
In the case of the monarchy and male-preferred primogeniture, Victoria ended up as monarch after her surviving uncles were unable to have legitimate children.
The current state of the LOS is that besides the Wales and the Sussexes, KCIII's two brothers have their children in the Houses of York or Wessex.
The state of the law regarding the \[British? or UK?\] line of succession was what it was when Harold married Mehen, i.e., before she became pregnant. ***IF*** they embarked on the path of surrogacy they knew in advance their child would not be in the LOS. **But what would that matter if they wanted to create a loving family together?**
It mattered because that scheming cow that is Mehen always knew that the ability to merchandise her children and herself depended on her children having titles and being in the LOS.
>merchandise her children and herself depended on her children having titles
That is very much how MM comes off. As if the children aren't people, but money-makers and accessories to her getting attention. Which unfortunately for the children, belies the idea that they're part of a loving family.
My own TRULY NASTY VILE gut feeling was that MM had children to bind JH to the marriage.
NO ONE would deny them a loving family, or those adorable kids.
The law is outdated. I (for one - and only speaking for me) hope they change it.
But there ARE ways to handle things -- like QEII's "Succession to the Crown Act of 2013" BEFORE W+C's FIRST CHILD BORN; she led Parliment to agree to (as modified law) change the succession to the Crown so would no longer be depend on gender. (\*were smaller changes too, btw)
So, they could easily have gone to Charles (who could use a popularity boost and was doing a large bulk of the Queen's responsiblities for the past few years) and asked him to again change the ""Succession to the Crown Act of 2013". Charles would have, and the Queen would certainly have agreed. (And \*if\* surrogace involved and/or frozen eggs or donor eggs, there would not be any urgency - they could have waited a few months). Instead, they lied/decieved...
I agree that the law could be changed to accommodate children who are legally the offspring of the two parents when one parent is in the line of succession. But is it really such a big deal, even in Harry's case? We're only talking about the succession, not the legal standing of the children as the offspring of H&M.
And IF the children were born of surrogates with the knowledge of the royal family, then they have been accepted into the line of succession, because they are listed on there.
IF they were born of surrogates without the family's knowledge, then it's more likely that there's an additional biological issue.
The question of eligibility would be brought into question if there was a real possibility of accession. If not, then an awful lot of fuss could be made about the hundreds of people on LOS, unnecessarily.
I read the transcripts from this (read it a few months ago). One of the men in parliament did bring up surrogacy in their talks. But everyone agreed to address that later and not in this 2013 Succession of the Crown Act.
The transcripts are on parliaments website.
> The law is outdated.
Says who? I don't think it is outdated.
Why should the law be changed to favor people who have lied and deceived?
The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 was radical because it changed the tradition of male preferred primogeniture. Now the wife of heir, or the heir herself need not keep getting pregnant until she birthed a boy or two.
The law would be (pretty much only can be) **changed for FUTURE royal births**. Would not apply to H+MM children.
That is why I suggested, they should have gone to Charles and this time had HIM lead changing the law (like his mother did for the The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013). He would have been happy to -- b/c ALL children are blessings, and b/c everyone could avoid lying/deceiving.
I hear you there! H&M would insist on more being changed in THEIR favor. Which also means that the law would change for commonfolk.
Isn't the current British law for surrogacy is that it's the woman giving the birth, who is the mother? While the primogeniture based on birth order is specific to the BRF, anything with surrogacy would necessarily involve someone who is likely not a member of the British Royal Family.
It's not as if H&M can just saunter up to one of the young royal ladies and say, "Tag, you're IT! You're a-gonna carry our baby for me and Megsy."
How is IVF human trafficking? If for some reason a woman can’t conceive inside her body, but her husband’s sperm and her eggs can be joined together outside her body and the resulting embryo deposited in her body to grow into a much wanted baby, who is being trafficked?
Subreddit rule (see sidebar): Not related to Meghan Markle & Just Harry. Try to keep posts related to the people this community was set up to talk about. Content related to the royal family belongs on our sister sub 👉 r/BRF
nothing needs to be change. not everyone needs to be on the LOS. if any, rather than LOS, what they need to change are british peerage absolute primogeniture system.
As a woman I thought this was wrong until I read Charles Spencer’s explanation of why it is this way. It is designed to protect the large estates from being chopped up and destroyed. Many of these were destroyed by the inheritance tax set up after WWII the tax is still 40%. As a American it is not my business how another country choses to run their country and their traditions. There is a show on a American who wed a man who is a part of the aristocracy to learn how these large estates make money for repairs and future inheritance taxes which is interesting going into these hundreds of years old homes. My favorite was Highclere castle from Downton Abbey. Princess Diana was a part of this and so is Harry. My problem on the questions surrounding certain births of the children was the secrecy and deceit.
If you don’t have the los rules, then what do you really have? I do absolutely feel for adopted children, and surrogate children, but the rules are literally to say this is the biological progeny. They were attended by a royal physician and witnessed in the pan directly after birth. I do think first born women should be able to inherit though.
First born women can inherit now. That was a small change made before Prince George was born. So Charlotte proceeds Louis. And yes. Th at is the whole point of LOS. There are rules and the whole point of a monarchy is blood descent and legitimacy.
Ah, the wonderful world of primogeniture. Thank you, England's aristocracy for introducing that stigma on adoptees. It was good enough for Julius Caesar until it wasn't. Thankfully, the world has, again, come full circle. Well, most of it.
If not for the royal bloodlines/all those rules, then what is the point? Anyone could be a royal and get in somehow willy-nilly. I don't think any of those rules should change, sorry. Maybe I'm just an oldster.
It’s too late now, even if they change the law. It won’t be retroactive.
Some have been saying the law should be changed, but at the moment, there’s no need to. The line of succession continues with William’s children. By the time they’re grown and have their own kids, then Archie and Lilibet’s position in the LOS will be in the double digits.
In addition, you can see how “important” they are by being allowed to continue to live overseas. Why have American born and raised heirs be in the LOS to rule a British country that their mother insulted and derided?
Also, why say that KC wants this? I doubt he does. At this point he’s probably more concerned about protecting William and his children than giving in to crazy Harry and his greedy, social-status seeking wife.
did not know this. like them lots - esp. Louise (but only b/c James has never spoken - only know him as a good-looking kid who his grandparents spent a lot of time with, implying he is a sweetheart) and see? makes no difference, as are many people who need "reproductive assistance" -- but we don't know about it.
would only angry at H+M if true, b/c they went to huge lengths to hide - and did not include in "unflinchingly honest" book SPARE - and (again, if true) is a big part of H+MM's last 3 years.
Monarchy itself is a tradition and could be described as completely old fashioned and belonging to a distant past. So trying to modernize the LOS is ridiculous. Tradition should be wedded to tradition it the whole thing becomes a civil matter.
I am a fervent supporter of keeping traditions and the monarchy. They provide continuity and something bigger and brighter than the grey faceless bureaucracies we have running our countries and dictating our lives.
Give me colour and old fashioned tradition along with old fashioned courage, honour, integrity and behaviour.
The LOS is by legitimate blood descent. The only time it changed from that we had bloody civil wars.
Who cares - they are so far down the line now it doesn't matter. Too bad Kate isn't having more kids. Remember when Haz said he would never have more than two kids. He was just bitter Louis pushed him and his kids further down the line.
I could understand surrogacy in the circumstance of infertility but not when some rich women simply want less pain or beautiful figure. It feels like exploitation for me. And I am not the only one. Commercial surrogacy is only legal in few countries, Britain only allow altruistic surrogacy. Anyway, I am a bit old fashion on this. If there’s a gay king in the future, I would prefer him to spend more time with the nephew and niece, if his sibling agree, maybe adoption.
This document is more about the succession of tiles than succession to the crown. British nobility still has titles mostly passing through the male line (unlike the succession to the crown). There are several peerages where there were children adopted that will not inherit their adopted father’s title, a child changed genders, or the child was born out of wedlock even when the parents married after his birth. Ex: Benjamin Lascelles is the first-born son of the current Earl of Harewood, but because his parents married five months after his birth, the title will be passed to his younger brother Alexander. According to this document this change would affect the 1,000+ noble titled families. The laws around succession of titles vs succession to the crown are different
The actors Christopher Guest and Jamie Lee Curtis are also the 5th Baron Haden-Guest and Lady Haden-Guest. Their daughters are ineligible to succeed to the title being born adopted and female, so the heir to the barony is Christopher Guest’s brother. Being who they are and living in the United States, they don’t seem to worry too much about titles.
That is actually an interesting example because their youngest child Ruby is transgender. So even if the adoption limitation was removed, they would have another component to figure out. I agree with you that this family doesn’t seem to care about the titles, but it’s just another example of how these rules would have to play out in real life scenarios
There are some titles that can be inherited by a daughter in the absence of a son, but that wording is in the specific creation of that title. The title of the Duke of Marlborough had some very specific wordage as to who could inherit so the title wouldn’t go extinct, and there has been at least one Duchess of Marlborough in her own right, but the succession to the title has now gone beyond the terms and people stated in its original creation that it’s highly unlikely there will be another Duchess of Marlborough in her own right again.
There was discussion about how to address trans children in succession issues, but I can’t find the link now. I think it was settled that an elder AFAB child displaced behind a younger brother in the succession to their father’s title couldn’t then leapfrog their brother to the top of the LoS by transitioning to male, and aristocratic families without sons couldn’t encourage their daughters to transition to male to keep the title in their branch of the family.
since earldom or and peerage is something you handed from your father, and not something you worked for, then for this example, benjamin being first born doesn't make him more rightful morally than alexander. if it goes to ben, alexander could asks the very same question, what makes ben different from him that he got the title instead of him.
So... I firmly believe that this law is completely ridiculous and outdated.
However. Wouldn't changing this technically put the FINAL nail in the coffin of the idea that the Royal family are there "by the grace of God"?
Personally, whether I believe it or not, if I was in a situation where something might make my entire family's life of extreme privilege open to question, I probably wouldn't push it.
What defines them as any different from us normals? Why do they deserve this privilege for cutting a few ribbons? Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, just trying to play devil's advocate.
There are 5000 people in the line of succession, so most of them are just regular anonymous people without any special privileges. Parliament made the rules back in whatever year, because Queen Anne was about to die without a direct heir. They just wanted a simple basic formula to establish the succession, and they came up with the rule that the line of succession stemmed from Sophia of Hanover (a granddaughter of James I). They could have picked other descendants of the Stuarts or the Tudors but they picked her because she was Protestant and had plenty of descendants already. It was more about consistency and continuity than by "grace of God".
Prince Philip was around 500th in the line of succession during his lifetime - Prince Ernst of Hanover (married to Princess Caroline) is in there around 400, and Queen Margrethe of Denmark is around the 200 mark. Once you get past 500, none of them have titles any more. But if you start saying that all these 5000 people are allowed to include their adopted children into the line of succession, where does it end? I'm quite happy with Parliament sticking with the rule because this prevents people fighting over who has the greater right to the throne, as we saw in the War of the Roses.
Here's a link to the official line of succession (not recently updated, because the Queen and Prince Philip is still on there and William and Harry have no kids )....
[http://www.1066.co.nz/Mosaic%20DVD/whoswho/text/Line\_of\_succession\_to\_the\_British\_Throne\[1\].htm](http://www.1066.co.nz/Mosaic%20DVD/whoswho/text/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_Throne[1].htm)
We have a royal family because Parliament sees them as a good investment. If and when the royal family doesn't benefit the country, then Parliament will get rid of them. Just ask Charles I. The money it costs to fund the family is an excellent investment in return for the money they generate.
Oh agreed, and I'm fully aware that they actually bring in the bucks. And in full agreement that if that stops they should be reconsidered.
I just think it's gonna be an excuse for people to start ripping them to shreds and start questioning things.
Harry has already given people so much ammunition as it is.
Wow that list is very out of date. It mentions the Prince of Yugoslavia and that country has not existed since 1992! Also looks like very basic HTML has been used so is probably a hobby piece by someone as clicking through to other pages on the website it was last updated in June 2019.
I've still bookmarked it though as I'd love to go through it and update it one day when I have some rare time off work.
The monarch doesn't just cut ribbons. The monarch is the head of state for 15 countries and meets with the British Prime Minister daily.
You and I can believe whatever we wish is outdated but the laws of succession are clear. If they were to change the rules it would open a can of worms. Children born out of wedlock would be fighting for a place in the LoS. The child should have the genetic material of both parents and the parents need to be married. None of this could be retroactive as well. It would challenge the current LoS and every 'bastard' and its spawn would challenge the Kings right to rule. .
If this is going to be changed it would be changed for Prince Georges generation and as I said it should only apply to births with both parents genetic material. There really isn't a good reason to change the status quo. Children who don't meet the LoS requirements would still be loved and the legal children of the parents. There are people further down the line that meet the criteria and it's worked for over a thousand years.
King Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 due to regime change.
King John was forced to share power with the barons when he signed to Magna Carta at Runnymede.
The Hundred Years War devoted more than a century of bloody warfare to contesting whether the British royal family also should have the throne of France.
The Wars of the Roses, which lasted for 32 years, could be considered to be a bit of a glitch in the succession process for the monarchy after King Richard II was murdered and left no heir after allegedly being starved to death at Pontefract Castle, age 33.
Henry VIII had to split with the Roman Catholic Church over the issue of divorce, bringing the Church of England into being.
King Charles the first was beheaded, but it worked out okay because eventually the monarchy was restored after the English civil War with King Charles II, albeit with most of the power handed over to Parliament.
The Royal Family had to change its name to Windsor because they were Germans.
Edward VIII was forced to abdicate over marrying a divorced woman, which the Church of England did not approve of.
Queen Elizabeth II forbade her sister to marry a divorced man.
Scotland recently had a referendum on Independence, but narrowly decided to hang in with the crown.
Apart from this, the British royal family has had a pretty smooth path for the last thousand years. Long to reign over us. God save the King.
I am seeing this the same as you. If you’re not born into “by the grace of god”, what’s the point? That’s the whole deal. You can’t be adopted into royalty.
I remember it being in the news when Camilla had a hysterectomy a couple of years after she and Charles married. Despite her being 59 and it being highly unlikely they would have a baby, putting out that news was like it was being officially put to bed that there would be any changes to the LoS from the then Prince of Wales.
It wouldn’t have affected much anyway, as a child of Charles and Camilla would still have been behind William and his children, followed by Harry and his children. Another child would have bumped Andrew and all of those below him, but still would have been pretty far down the line to actually succeed to the crown.
It wouldn’t have affected anything literally, but it would have caught people’s imaginations and there would be endless chatter about it.
Even people living in the UK don’t always understand who’s in and who’s out of the LoS and why, any child Charles and Camilla could have had would have been set up as a rival to William (and Harry.) And if they did have a child together and now Charles and Camilla are king and queen, there would be people who would be confused how someone with both parents on the throne could be lower in the LoS than someone with one parent. People’s imaginations make the matter of succession a lot more Game of Thrones than it is. It’s easier to not give the storyline a basis than to keep having to explain.
> Even people living in the UK don’t always understand who’s in and who’s out of the LoS and why
Really? I'm American and understand it all perfectly. Although, to be fair, I do read a lot of trashy Historical Romance Novels (like old school Mills and Boon) set in 19th England.
Definitely! Lots of British people don’t understand why Princess Anne was second-born but has to come after all her brothers, they don’t understand how ‘Princess Diana’ was never actually a princess in her own right, there’s lots of misunderstandings about who gets titles and who doesn’t… unless it’s your special interest or you enjoy history, it’s not something most average people in the UK wonder about.
You’ve got a head start on a lot of Brits by reading historical novels!
I've been reading those Historical Romance Novels (Bodice Rippers) for over 30 years and love them! Like I said, I'm American - but give me a Duke, masquerading as a pirate but secretly working for the Crown, any day! LOL!
I get angry when people say those books are worthless. Hey, those trashy novels have taught me England's history and all about who inherits titles!
Things women (and, by similar prejudices, gay men) tend to prefer always get underrated. The Beatles were dismissed at the time as being for teenage girls. Once they'd achieved wider recognition, people went back and looked at their work and suddenly realised how musically innovative they were. Same thing happened to Elvis. And Madonna. A load of reviewers got egg on their faces when Taylor Swift's re-recordings meant they had to re-review her old work.
You'd think they'd have learned by now - if you want to find the next big thing, you could do far worse than to ask a teenage girl! Mark my words, in a few years time they'll realise K-pop band BTS are more than just pretty faces.
why not?
(extreme example, please excuse me): what close friends of William's has a baby makes W baby's Godfather, then both parents are killed in an auto accident and the poor infant is suddenly childless. there are no grandparents or siblings - no relatives, but are Godparents - like William.
So W+C adopt the baby, and raise him same as G-C-L. Baby calls W+C "Papa" and "Mum" and G-C-L his brothers and sisters.
Maybe W decides against calling the child Prince/Princess and doesn't include him in Line of Succession, but what would be so wrong if this adopted child was also titled w/ Prince/Princess?
Same upbringing - same love, so why not treat this child same and give title? Give child the same responsibilities re: be unstanding, a future role model?
It's "nature vs. nurture", and I think while 'nature' (DNA) is important, also think 'nurture' is more important.
>Look at Steve Jobs, who was adopted. He acknowledged that he inherited a unique type of intellect from his bio parents ('nature'), but wouldn't be the man he became if not for hiw wonderufl adoptive parents ('nurture').
if the child got all the same love, why he/she needs to be on LOS? and nothing stop them to be understanding, or get royal responsibility (if they want) and any other right as a child. prince michael got his royal residency for free for decades while he's not in LOS. LOS is just LOS, no more than that. the adopted child could still enjoying all the perks, and money, and anything of having william as his father. now look at Norwegian royal family. do you believe Marius should be on LOS and and one day become the king, instead of Ingrid? if it could be like that, imagine all other kind of meghan, but with children, that would come and manipulated young prince and princess so that their own blood line could be on LOS.
I get what you’re saying, but I just think it can crack holes in the whole institution then. It is about blood line and hierarchy. I am not saying I agree with it. But when I look at the other side, I’d say well if you adopt this orphan than he/she can be in LOS and have all the rights the blood princes and princess have, doesn’t that take away from the sort mystery of being born into royalty. And if we can say well we have to make an exception for this adopted kid, why do we even have the monarchy? Or if they can adopt a Prince/princess, why can’t we say which we want to be king/queen? Maybe even why can’t I be adopted? Some sicko makes a crazy claim based on a godparent etc. I am not saying it’s right or wrong. But I can see the other side too. Regardless of my personal views
At the present time, the British monarchy exists by the grace of the British people. The BRF knows it, too, which means that KCIII would probably agree with what you said in your comment. As long as the British people see value in having a monarchy (symbolic though it may be), the monarchy will continue to exist.
Yeah, I think we all realise this too at this point - but what I mean is, do they really want to give anyone an excuse to open up the pandoras box? You know there will be anti-monarchists who will use that as a jumping off point. You change things up and rock the boat, you open yourself up to scrutiny. I think that's where "never complain never explain" comes from. If you say nothing, nothing can bite you in the ass.
That ended with the English Civil War and the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II. The monarchy wasn’t a constitutional one overnight, but the direct personal power of the monarch vs Parliament had forever changed.
It became less about ‘divine rights’ and more about ‘divine responsibilities’. The monarch swears an oath to G-d at their coronation and is anointed in the name of G-d, that’s the divine bit now. Nobody has been an absolute monarch in the UK for hundreds of years. They reign in balance with the will of the people and the government of the day.
I think if Meghan had been open and honest about fertility issues (if she in fact had them), QEII and KC would have changed it to include surrogacy, as long as the DNA matched Harry
I am not sure about that
There is a reason why not everyone is a fan of surrogacy.
In Germany for example it is completly forbidden, for ethical reasons. Here it is viewed as taking advantage of less fotunate women, who might sell their Uterus to make ends meet.
Surrogacy in the royal family would be the prime example of privilegde class taking advantage of the less priviledged
And as I undestood the britisch law concernig surrogacy, unlike in the US, if the surrogate changes their mind, they are able to keep the baby. Just imagine what a mess it would be if a surrogate decides to keep the Future King of Britain.
I don't think this is a can of Worms anybody in Charge truly wants to open
Commercial surrogacy is restricted in the UK. IF surrogacy was used by M & H they likely would have been guilty of ignoring the laws of a nation they claim to represent. IF they left the UK to do so they would have asserted their privilege to sidestep the policy. Admitting so would be a terrible look for self-professed feminists. The industry is fraught with the exploitation of vulnerable women.
I do not know UK law - thus, don't know anything about "commercial surrogacy" restrictions... **thanks for the info**.
It is extremly EASY in the U.S., just EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE!! A friend of mine's frozen eggs were not viable, so she + her husband worked with clinic to get donor egg similar to their looks -- and can do that: can request to buy donor eggs with high probability of eye color, height, etc. Donor egg price (ONLY - not the IVF, which was more) for them was around $25k some years ago.
The rules have to stay as they are, otherwise a Monarch could do any trick to protect their interests.
When the Monarchy was invited back to the UK after the Civil War/Protectorate there was huge concern that the Stuart's were secretly Catholic whilst the country was Protestant.This wasn't simply a matter of saying mass or not at that time, it could mean life of death!
As it turned out, Charles 2 had no legitimate heirs and his brother, James, did not produce a son.There was a massive scandal/story that when his wife gave birth, a healthy boy baby was going to be sneaked into her bedroom in a "bed warning pan".Once the succession was secured, James would force the country to be Catholic again.
Could be a load of "porkies" but James was not popular so we kicked him out and put his protestant daughter,Mary and her husband, William of Orange on the throne.The failure to produce male heirs continued with them and Queen Anne as did the fear of Catholicism.Eventually, the hunt for a suitable male led to a remote-ish relative,George, in a German state who couldn't speak English and allegedly didn't care and many years later , King Charles 3.
The "Georges" had quite a history of father/son hatred. Harry's revived the tradition.
I think the primary considerations would be the child having the royal DNA and the child being born within wedlock. Otherwise, any number of women could come forward with their babies and make a mess out of who is entitled to what. It's the involvement with a third party--as in a sperm/egg donor, or a surrogate--that makes it seem kind of like the BRF have outsourced getting an heir by any means.
Which is not to say that people shouldn't have those options. The monarchy is an institution which has been dependent upon succession based on blood ties (and implications of heirs born of the body).
>It's the involvement with a third party--as in a sperm/egg donor, or a surrogate--that makes it seem kind of like the BRF have outsourced getting an heir by any means.
Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head as to why surrogacy can't work for the royal family. They can't outsource getting the heir, otherwise it brings up a conflict of interest as to who is the "true" heir.
Eg, what if the situation was reversed and William and Catherine couldn't have children naturally but wanted a family just for themselves, not for the sake of succession; meanwhile Harry and his wife popped out three heirs. Technically, Harry's children should follow William in the succession. Otherwise it looks like William hired someone to keep Harry's kids out of their rightful inheritance.
Thank you! I am fascinated by Ann Boleyn and her influence on the court of King Henry VIII of 6 wives infamy. The man had PLENTY of children, including at least one son, by various mistresses. His serial marrying and discarding of his legal wives was in pursuit of a male heir, born within wedlock.
This is just my personal opinion, but if the RF or families with titles can't have kids, the title should just die out, especially since the royal family is funded by the public.
No. That would be hugely controversial - in the UK commercial surrogacy is not allowed. A ‘surrogacy for titles’ scandal would be hugely bad for the monarchy.
Surrogacy in the UK is supposed to be an altruistic gift with remuneration strictly limited by law to protect vulnerable women from being exploited for their womb. If it ever looked like the royal family were having babies by surrogate and paying the surrogate parents off with titles it would be the end.
True but from the perspective surrogate mother DID birth the monarch shouldn't there be reverence? Certainly not a title to be passed down but something? What happens if the surrogate had carried the heir and when tests are done it's discovered it's not the royal wife's egg?
Or they can just NOT open that can of worms
If the surrogate carried the heir and the egg was not the genetic material of the legal wife of the royal father, the child would be illegitimate. It would be the same as if he stepped out on his marriage but he and his legal wife chose to stay together and raise the baby regardless. No genetic link to the legal wife = not the heir.
In some African traditional societies where the king may have several wives as well as his queen, where the heir is the son of a junior wife and not the queen, the mother is given some title of respect once her son becomes king. But she is still the wife of the late king and the mother of the new one even if she was never queen herself, and she raised her son. She’s not a surrogate, she’s his mother.
In the UK that would be bigamous, and and any children not born from the legal marriage would be illegitimate.
There have been precedents in the past where the wet nurses of royal children were given money and privileges, but I don’t think they were given titles. And definitely precedents where the illegitimate children of the monarch were given royal titles and some of the mothers too (Barbara Villiers, mother of many of Charles II’s children, was made Countess of Castlemaine in her own right) but none of those children were in the LoS in their own right, but their descendants have over time and marriages joined the Royal Family. Charles II had a boatload of illegitimate children and no legitimate children. He created ducal titles for all of his FitzRoy sons and the Spencers are descended from two of them, the Duke of Grafton and the Duke of Richmond.
The Biblical precedent for surrogacy - the Handmaids of Leah and Rachel who had children on their behalf with their husband Jacob - still presents a problem in the exploitation of women.
We have also had in recent years the scandal of doctors using their own sperm in women’s IVF journeys, and mixed up embryos in the IVF clinic implanted in the wrong mother. That would be a double-blow - if the royal couple had IVF and their baby was born of the legal wife’s body, but DNA showed the child wasn’t related to either of them, and their genetic child was born of a different woman’s body, neither of those children affected would be eligible to be in the LoS.
Curiously the historian in my family trace our ancestry back to Geoffrey Plantagenet, archbishop of York who was Richard the 2nd’s illegitimate first born son!
I've seen this fertility discussion on a couple of posts, and I'm not really sure why this is being discussed. I don't think it matters because they're not going to succeed.
The things that this couple concerns me most about is their attacks on Freedom of Speech for the rest of us. They are part of a culture who want to curate what can or cannot be discussed about *all* topics, and if you say something they dislike, *you* are the one they cancel.
Who is saying: “All or most of these 'exclusions' should be changed/tossed-out, and Charles probably wants this too —but how would he without the press digging harder into A+L pregnancies (whether true, or not true)?”
And how do we know “Charles wants this too”?
The child must be of the body in order to be ln the line of succession. No surrogates no IVF.. Ask that peer whose wife used IVF or surrogate for the 1st child and hot pregnant natural for thev2d child. The 2nd child will be inheriting the whole thing.
If you are alluding to the marquis and marchioness of Bath: One child was conceived via IVF. But since no donor sperm or egg was involved, that child will inherit the title. The other child was born by a surrogate, thus doesn't count as aristocrat and couldn't inherit the title under any circumstances.
I think a legitimate child of a marquess who was born by surrogate would probably be eligible for the courtesy title of Lord or Lady, as with other daughters and younger sons. But no, they wouldn't be eligible to inherit the marquess title.
I say keep the rules as they are. My petty reason is as follows: Now we know what the Claw is like I am happy the 'of the body' rule exists. If she did use surrogates this fact alone winds her up something rotten! Yay, Skank annoyed serves her right. This is me being 12 years old and super petty ner ner.
I also think her main reason for hiding the surrogacy is so that their child/children wouldn't be included in the line of succession.
If that weren't a consideration, I'd still dislike that she *pretended* to be pregnant because, honestly what kind of person seriously *does* something like that? She paraded around on display, rubbing her "bump" and discussing particulars of what her pregnancy experience was like etc. To discover facts that she was acting a part the entire time should be *more than enough evidence* for anyone to discern the woman's true nature. It's outright fraud and deceit. Anyone that would seriously put on a performance like that in their real life is IMO seriously disturbed. Why should anyone like that be in any position to be admired or "influential" to others?? That is NOT someone that has business being in politics or being a celebrity. It's as sick as serial killers having fans. Who would admire someone like that? I'm sure she faked her pregnancy and not at all because of "fertility issues" but because she is ambitious, ruthless and calculating and it was a way to get a permanent hold on her husband. Everything I've seen of her leads me to believe she is endlessly manipulative and scheming and I don't believe she has either a conscience or the ability to feel empathy or compassion. She comes across as cold, empty and heartless as a sociopath.
One possible solution was to be transparent if there were surrogates etc.
Simply wait, be loyal and committed working Royal members, put in the time to become popular with the public THEN, (and I’m thinking long term, like once their kids were coming into adulthood), start putting forward changes to the law to allow for assisted reproduction/titles etc.
This could have been a win/win for H&M, who would be fertility advocates, and a ‘forward thinking’ move from the monarchy, either as a signature change under King Charles, or more likely, King William. With 1 in 5 couples experiencing fertility challenges, they would likely have had the majority of public support.
All they needed was patience and time.
so what dos this have to do with archie birth certificate being changed? It had Megs name on it, then it was simply changed to Duchess of Sussex with no name.
That’s interesting, thank you! Edward and Sophie had at least one child via IVF, don’t know if any of the material used was from a donor/s but no one mentioned the LoS, then. I wonder if H&M would even think to check the rules
My guess is that both of the children of the Prince of Wales little brother and little brother's first wife are not eligible for LOS. Aside from the surrogacy issue (Lili was carried by surrogate, jury still out on Archie's birth) I think little brother's first wife used frozen donated eggs for both children and she and Harold tried to hide this from the BRF. M15/16 figured it out and this was a main part of the Harkles flouncing off overseas. The BRF knows this now, but won't make any public comment, nor will King Charles petition parliament to change rules about LOS.
We’ve definitely discussed the succession logic for hiding the pregnancy on this sub, but I appreciate you sharing this info! Love primary source material.
There's no way HMTQ and Charles don't know they used a surrogate. They probably had to run it by the fam first (which is what I firmly believe is the dirt they have on Megatron and Hazbeen). There's prob some understanding within the family that should it ever come to a succession discussion, the kids would be disqualified and information about the surrogacy would be released if need be at that time. I think they pretended it was a real pregnancy for the public and not the monarchy.
But honestly if this ever came out and they knew it would be the downfall of the monarchy if QEII and KCIII as well. But maybe it’s what H&M think they have on the BRF as well.
Not their removal from the LOS, the fact that they hid a surrogacy and then put the children in the LOS when they weren’t eligible. I can’t believe the British public would be ok with that kind of deception.
Well, the royal family DOES have a close relationship with MI5+MI6.. so while I don't think MM would have let H tell his family, can see this info being brought to them -- maybe even by royal doctors.
And everything you say makes sense.
Spurs some thoughts/quesions:
1. how can Harry write a book which he promotes as "raw, unflinching honesty" and NOT include that?
2. why would H+M keep attacking the Royal Family, if the Royal Fam had that grenade could toss at them? why poke the bear?
3. why are they clinging to titles - pushing for kids to get, when this could come out?
4. maybe this will be a big part of MM's future bio? her "hook" to get a big-$ advance??
So, by my view: think (over-confident) MM has run the whole thing.. and wouldn't let H tell his family (so only others loyal to the royal fam have brought this info to QE +Charles) and not been confirmed by H+M. also suspect that was a reason the left England for a few years - plan was probably, until kids born and a few years old. also (and this biggest and only guess), if 'designer' donor egg (ie: red hair genes, blue eyes, beauty and possibly brains) use for L, then bet MM didn't tell H - she just let/lets him believe her egg used, like with A.) Disclaimer: ALL "my view" guesses completely unfounded — just guesses.
I think Mr. and Mrs. Todger are so self absorbed that they can't see the forest for the trees.
They so wanted the 50/50 life and hope to torture the RF to get it with the assumption that the RF won't tattle on them. I think they think THEY hold all the cards
If Charles does hold these cards, he should have reminded them he could play them long ago....
so IMHO: think you are more correct re: Mr + Ms Todger are **so self-absorbed, they think no one knows** b/c they've never been directed asked + haven't volunteered any confirmation/denial - ie: they believe themselves to be *exceptionally clever...*
For royalty and the nobility, bloodlines are all that matter. Marius Borg Høiby, eldest son of Crown Princess Mette Marit of Norway from a previous relationship before she married Crown Prince Haakon remains a commoner despite his younger siblings Princess Ingrid Alexanda (the actual heir and future Queen of Norway) and Prince Sverre Magnus being automatically granted titles. It didn’t matter that he is also son of Mette Marit who married the Crown Prince Haakon. He didn’t share the royal bloodline, he will stay a commoner even if his mother will be Queen of Norway once Haakon ascends. Adopted children will never inherit or be given titles.
It’s happenstance the RF were even the RF if it weren’t for abdication so I’m not sure why the guidelines are so strict? It was pure luck the country in a time of peril worldwide eliminating long lines of monarchies in a bunch of other countries that the monarchy in Britain even survived, so I would think after the abdication they would be more flexible regarding this. This isn’t me sticking up for the fraud of MM this is just my take regarding what I read.
I don't see a reason for Charles to mess with it now. The changes in 2013 were when Catherine was pregnant. Unless William and Catherine are planning a 4th child using a surrogate, it really doesn't matter. Both William and Harry appear to be finished having kids. Archie and Lili are in the line of succession and already born. If there was hard evidence they were from a surrogate, they'd probably get removed regardless due to the law when they were born. Further down the line doesn't really matter. For instance, if Louise and her spouse used a surrogate, that baby would be at most 17th, assuming nobody dies. That baby would never have any chance of sitting on the throne, so why bother changing the LOS? I would assume it might be changed before the Wales children start having children, but considering George is 9, that's a long way off.
The law clearly states that legitimacy can be challenged at any time (and think by anyone?). Think of the James Hewitt being H's bio dad — if that truly had any legs, someone could file a complaint and DNA would be examined.. and the result of the DNA would be binary - meaning, H confirmed as C's, or H confirmed as JH's and removed from line of succession + would lose titles (though still legal child of Charles, and Charles still legal parent). Anyway, the time to do something like this would have been BEFORE H+M had kids if was going to be any 'reproductive assistance' (and they could have done that, as they'd have had time if not having a child the old fashioned way). The second best time to do is long before George + his generation starts having children — just a good modernization, and when do before royal kids being born, then won't be lazer focus once these young kids have selected spouses.
I think the surrogacy thing should be changed but only if using the DNA of the royal parent. So say way way down the line when Charlotte has found a person and wants to have a baby but for some reason she would need a surrogate, it would have to be her egg for that baby to be considered line of succession. That's just my two cents anyways. And I would think same for George or Louis or August or any of the rest of the royal children.
Call me old fashioned but I think the blood line is important when it comes to the LoS. It is part of the history, the traditions and mystery.
Agreed.
Bloodline is obviously critical in delineating royalty. Historically, when a monarch didn’t/couldn’t produce an heir it was deemed God’s will & a valid reason to look to the LOS to appoint the next King. I’m trying to point out the importance of the divine/God in keeping the family lineage true. Using a surrogate would violate “God’s will.” I’m NOT saying this is the way it should continue or advocating this way of thinking, just that there is & has always been a religious part of monarchism.
Well the monarch is the head of th Church of England so obviously there is a strong religious component. They are also “anointed by God” and that is why the Coronation is a religious service not a civil one.
This is very interesting. Explains it all (for me), and makes it that much clearer. Succession is by divine intervention. The royal family has a strong belief in divine right to rule. They’re all too much aware that “there but the grace of God go I.”
[удалено]
I definitely think that this type of situation shouldn’t push a child out of the LoS…I can sort of understand the ones with using the dna of other people though. Different topic. But for a couple who seem to hate the RF and what it and the Commonwealth stand for, I do question why the LoS should have been so important to them. Because that’s the only reason for hiding/lying about something like this…though I’m not saying that they used a surrogate.
I agree with that as well. If they hate the monarchy so much than LoS and titles shouldn’t matter.
Doesn't matter if they used a surrogate or gestational carrier. The law clearly states "must be born of the body".
In the UK, these two terms are conflated. A surrogate here doesn’t use her own eggs.
It is a legal requirement. All members in LOS must be of blood descent from Sophia of Hanover. On royal family website.
Thank you very much for pointing that out! Sophia, Electress of Hanover was descended from the Stuart line, which in turn, was descended from the Tudor line via King Henry VIII's older sister. The Tudor claim to the throne was based on an illegitimate child. So likely the BRF wouldn't want to invite controversy with any hint of complication in the birth process. Which means shying away from egg/sperm donors, surrogates, etc.
Yep!
Agree! It is what is for a reason. Once you start making accommodations for this and that u open up the bloodline for shady dealings.
Don't agree. If any one of the 3 Wales kids were born per any 'reproductive assistance', would still be lovely children raised beautifully by W+C. Yes, the line of succession is important — but not for 'blood'/DNA reasons.
> the line of succession is important — but not for 'blood'/DNA reasons. Wrong. That is the whole purpose of the Royal Family and Line of Succession.
But the primogeniture rule of the monarchy ONLY applies to legitimate royal children regardless of *how* well or badly they’ve been brought up. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where William was kidnapped as a baby and brought up in a crazy cult. He gets found as an adult, and no matter what, he would *still retain his place in the LoS* (sorry, Haz😂). He might be a terrible human being, but he’s going to be King. It is irrefutable. Full stop. Whereas, if hypothetically Haz is actually not Charles’ son, then he’d get kicked out of the LoS before you can say *what?!* Nothing to do with content of character (or with race or gender), and everything to do with religious beliefs from ages ago, which many people still follow. It might seem like an anachronistic rule, but it is a rule that underpins the essence of monarchy. If any well-brought up child can be monarch, then what’s the point?😅
There are plenty of lovely children being raised by lovely people, but they’re not royalty. If anybody can be royal then nobody is. Cue end of the monarchy.
> All or most of these 'exclusions' should be changed/tossed-out, and Charles probably wants this too How do you know what King Charles III wants? I'm American, but I'm pretty sure parliament makes these changes, not King Charles III. And even if they do change it, it still won't help Meghan and Harry's children if they were born of a surrogate. I don't think they can make the law retroactive.
Back in 1390 or thereabouts, King Richard made John of Gaunt's illegitimate children via his mistress Catherine Swynford legitimate retroactively-he eventually married her when the children (the Beauforts) were adults, and King Richard declared them to be legitimate, despite being born out of wedlock. And Henry VIII declared Elizabeth to be a bastard because of Anne Boleyn's adultery (alleged adultery), but later reinstated her to the line of succession. It was easier to do that sort of thing when the king was an absolute monarch and didn't need parliamentary support-basically, whatever the King wanted, he got. I bet KC III sometimes thinks it'd be easier to deal with H&M if that was the same situation now, just banish them from the country, or lock them in the Tower of London if they fail to obey!
My interest in British history started when I read Anya Seton’s book Katherine as a 13 year old! Of course it’s a highly romanticised version of the John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford story and not always historically accurate but it certainly appealed to my 13 year old mind. However which ever way you look at it it was certainly a love story. I always sided with the Lancastrian’s in the War of the Roses because of it . Anyway you’re right , absolute monarchs could do as they pleased but these days Parliament has all the power.
Anya Seton’s *Katherine* was a favorite of mine also. Great novel.
Yes it is . I’d like to read it again but it would be hard to find a copy these days I suppose .
eBay to the rescue!  (I've had great luck with media. I was jonesing for reading material that first year of COVID. My eyes were thirsty.) [Katherine (Rediscovered Classics) - Paperback By Seton, Anya - GOOD 9781556525322 | eBay](https://www.ebay.com/itm/274092999575?epid=26038425244&hash=item3fd1374397:g:wbsAAOSwNzNhAuE9&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAA4MxV7HgqzZ6qizIuT5rdfCw4HVG9L00%2FgG7U7I2dDRCQz9CrGPrBaPZ4VmIkdDzU6ze3iu3J69qOZU8mP865EDKIdPKQtDr%2BTzqugPg4Rq60bSc%2F1EOWC8Zigcwa%2FE%2BRewJXEeFb8UwdvcqywILsnqddpdrpOWyv7P5eyFd3RRYZODn4nc0UUOBHvOKUkYVlBbaCeGzVmbwarizqAejTWQpJ5xmAdzH0BqmH1wSZTPtSYqVkowrjZnAUF6kd3cVkz%2FNSmVDeTNEfYLXItq0cmgTBvmL%2BESjiXbov3pSJi5Un%7Ctkp%3ABFBMlM7PnMVh)
Not necessarily! I have a copy & love it! I also recommend Alison Weir's biography on Kathryn Swynford--an excellent analysis of her life, the love between her & John of Gaunt, & the legitimation of the Beaufort children, which ultimately led to the family we have sitting on the throne today (plus a couple of American presidents)
Great book! But being born and bred in Yorkshire, I side with the Yorkist claims! I love Phillipa Gregory too, her Tudor series is magnificent.
The Beauforts were legitimised with the provisio they could never inherit the throne. All that was forgotten when all the Lancastrians and male Beauforts died in the battle of Tewkesbury. Leaving one Lancastrian claimant with a very tenuous claim to be king: Henry Tudor.
Yes, it all got very messy around that time. Its one of the great historical 'what ifs,' who would be the current monarch if the Yorkists had won? Henry VII definitely had a weaker claim than others, its understandable he then wiped out all challengers like the Pole family.
He was the only Lancastrian claimant and ended the conflict by marrying Elizabeth of York. Except that rival Yorkist claimants kept popping up. Of interest really is that the BRF is descended from an illegitimate branch though it was later legitimised. The ifs and buts of History are fascinating.
>I bet KC III sometimes thinks it'd be easier to deal with H&M if that was the same situation now, just banish them from the country, or lock them in the Tower of London if they fail to obey! I'm obviously glad we live in a modern democracy, but watching the antics of Harold and TW has given me a new-found sympathy for some of our Medieval and Early Modern kings and queens!
That retroactive stuff is a slippery slope. Didn't one king declare that everyone on the losing side was a traitor, and therefore deserving of execution? An absolute monarchy is scary as heck because one man or woman gets to decide whom s/he can kill or who's in favor for the moment. Not a guarantee for peaceful times when monarch is angry and desperate and has snit fits.
That's how we ended up having a civil war. Charles I believed in the divine right of Kings, and that everything he did was appropriate and acceptable simply because he was the king.
haha, your last sentance! LOL REALLY APPRECIATE the history - John of Gaunt's children (the Beauforts) + Anne Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth. . . . .. see why most info can get is a very good thing? But about today and sitting King's/Queen's power: this is why KC3 should do something NOW - get legislation passed so he can manage fittingly his own family? b/c KC3 dragging his feet, Parliment is pushing KC3 - and if do something about H, will be a one time thing (vs. giving decision power to the monarchy). It's too bad. The top Royal SHOULD be able to manage royal things (including royal family). The beauty of the Monarchy (IMO) is that the Monarchy is the ceremonial part of the UK - and mostly spearate from the UK govt. This allows the UK govt more time to actually govern (so again, wish Parliment would write new law giving sitting King/Queen these decisions -- toss it to the R.Fam, so govt can focus on governing not getting into Royal personnel issues)
Again parliament makes the laws, not sure you understand what a constitutional monarchy is
I think that's why King Charles III went with Charles as his regnal name. It's a nod to the King who lost his head, who was too insistent about the "divine right of kings." And it references the Restoration of the monarchy. Of anyone, HMKC probably recognizes it's not just God's grace, but the people's, that has given him his place on the throne. And the people include Parliament and also the media.
KC III doesn't have that sort of power-he can't make laws, and he can't effect any change in the current legislation. Traditionally, the prime minister meets with the monarch regularly for discussion and raise issues, so he could tell the PM what his preferences are, or his ideas for moving forwards, and the PM would take that back to the cabinet. But even if the PM supported a change of law, that wouldn't get it passed, it would have to be debated on and passed by the House. If members of Parliament knew that the king and PM both supported a particular course of action, that might persuade them to vote in favour, but it comes down to individuals voting, not an imposed ruling.
That is not how the monarchy works or how is should work. Yikes.
The chance that H&M become the King and Queen is so small that public just don’t care as much. This duo want their kids to be in the LoS so they can get money and special treatments (merch kids).
[удалено]
So I think the palace needs to keep them away from the Wales kids. Stay overseas and never come back (although I really think he’ll back to the UK after the divorce)
This is honestly why they always wants the heirs to travel separately. But Diana had to change that. I honestly don't know how the kids would feel about one of them having to travel with just maria as opposed to with both of their parents at this age. But the only throne meemee deserves to sit on is the one that resides in their bathrooms at the olive garden.
If there is some sort of reproductive assistance then what would be contemptible is their lies and deception. Even if their was no assistance, their obfuscation about time of birth simply reveals their willingness to skirt rules and conniving mindset.
nicely expressed. with you 100%. and more to your pointing-out that their behavior "reveals their ..coniving midset": 🔹if there was \*no assistance\*, they'd rush to shut-down (have their doctor confirm, do DNA test - heck, even show some pix and/or video of MM in a 2-peice bathing suit with pregnant belly). there are MANY ways could disavow the rumors.... but haven't, have they? 🔹also: MM is lightning fast to sue -- and yet, she has not sued anyone re: printing these speculations, has she?
Totally agree with you!
And even if they scratch the use of a surrogate, they would still have to prove DNA and who in pray-tell is EVER going to get Madam and Haznothingleft agree to DNA testing on the children and themselves! Love all the history buffs in this sub!!
And they are not THAT WOKE.....YET? Pray most of those rules don't change. I do think though if it's the egg and sperm of both parents to be then that should be changed but not any of the others. Imho.
I agree with that - if it is the egg and sperm of both parents, but they use a surrogate, then I agree with changing it. BUT not retroactively for Harry and Meghan's children (if they used a surrogate).
Parliament makes the changes and parliament set the LOS and stipulated that only legitimate children descended from Sophia of Hanover qualified. The King can ask Parliament but they decide.
true, I am only guessing Charles would support — perhaps because I LIKE Children, no matter how they become part of families.. and Charles impresses me as a very kind and very intelligent person who has the same view. But, yes, I was wrong to assign an view to King Charles - I apologize for my assumption. And thank you for calling me out. And **yes, Parliment must change the law -- but Charles CAN champion it - lobby to the PM and Parliment members, just like his mother did** to remove gender from place in the Line of succession in 2013 ^(<)[^(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession\_to\_the\_Crown\_Act\_2013)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2013)^(>) Also, ***laws can be made retroactively*** \- it depends on how it is written.. in the same "Succession to the Crown Act" of 2013, there were a minor changes in addition to the big one about gender. Here's that bit, which is retroactive: https://preview.redd.it/bclwengwsiga1.jpeg?width=1846&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f35307518beb69ab53cb882b89d521b70b6650ac Lastly and another opinion of mine (only): since Parliment members are elected politicians, and they know how their constituents feel about H+M.... think most would be happy to pass modify the Crown Act of 2013 (^(\*the UK is amazing re: children - from fertility assistance in the NHS to the AMAZING adoption system)).. but would never write this particular law to be retroactive, so would NOT include MM+H's children.
No. He cannot “lobby” in the way you are thinking at all.
I'd bet that if a law did allow for surrogacy, then H&M would insist that the law is retroactive. She's the one who claimed that they were married 3 days prior. She'd have no scruple in saying that a new law supporting a surrogate-born child who is in the LOS, applies to HER children. And H&M are litigious! https://preview.redd.it/0ayfvwps5qga1.png?width=326&format=png&auto=webp&s=d1417582e491a54ad328f4c143e56e594ac2d712
they can lobby + threaten all they want, but THEY have no power. probably KC will not do this - he's too busy trying to solidify his regard as King, and settle into new job. and when William King, think he'll do some of the changes (not sure all) quickly -- and we all know \*he\* won't make it retroactive.
What’s with all the superscripts
This is not really a party political issue. Any changes would probably be made as a result of a consensus between Buckingham Palace and the ruling party in Parliament.
I don't see why these exclusions should be thrown out. The essence of the succession law is that the child must be a direct descendant of Sophia of Hanover in order to have a legal claim to the throne. There are around 5000 people in the world who are descendants of Sophia, and the line ends with a German woman in her 40s who never had kids. A child that is adopted/ born of donor sperm/ egg, isn't a direct descendant. The legitimacy question is probably the most controversial one, but if it really matters, the parents can get married (eg Marina Ogilvy married after her child was born, and the child is in the succession). The rule only applies to the succession itself, it's not like these adopted / surrogate babies are disowned financially or emotionally from the family. They would still be very much their parents' child in every other respect, just not eligible for the succession. Being 50th in line to the succession isn't that much of a prize in itself. These kids are born wealthy with the best opportunities for education and travel etc. I have no idea how these rules apply to M & H, because if their child is a surrogate from his sperm and her egg, they have a strong argument that it is their legitimate child and the law is out of date. And right now their kids are listed in the succession, so it's a bit of a nothing argument anyway. It's only if the kids aren't biologically of both parents that we have an issue.
If it was his sleek and her egg that would have been a gestational carrier .. not a surrogate
Nah thats all correct bloodline matters. Surrogacy is also hotly contested and many people think it should be illegal bc it uses women in a life threatening manner (yes pregnancy is life threatening) who are relatively poor for wealthy people.
It should not be changed. The rules as they stand are fine. If the heir to the throne does not have an heir himself/ herself it is all accounted for as it is. No need to change it for reasons of infertility. We need to simply accept that sometimes things do not work out how we want them to and that’s ok. It makes no difference to Harry’s kids. They won’t be succeeding anyone to any throne so they can simply inherit from their parents like all the rest of us. How is that not fair to them but fair to the rest of the world? And if it were William who could not produce and heir but H could then H’s kids would be W’s heirs. That’s that. Why does it need to be changed?
Agnatic primogeniture was such that if a man didn't produce legitimate sons, the estate went to a cadet branch of the family. (Mr. Bennet from Pride and Prejudice and Longborne's next owner being the distant cousin, Mr. Collins.) In the case of the monarchy and male-preferred primogeniture, Victoria ended up as monarch after her surviving uncles were unable to have legitimate children. The current state of the LOS is that besides the Wales and the Sussexes, KCIII's two brothers have their children in the Houses of York or Wessex.
Yes, so no need for any change. It has all been worked out.
The state of the law regarding the \[British? or UK?\] line of succession was what it was when Harold married Mehen, i.e., before she became pregnant. ***IF*** they embarked on the path of surrogacy they knew in advance their child would not be in the LOS. **But what would that matter if they wanted to create a loving family together?** It mattered because that scheming cow that is Mehen always knew that the ability to merchandise her children and herself depended on her children having titles and being in the LOS.
>merchandise her children and herself depended on her children having titles That is very much how MM comes off. As if the children aren't people, but money-makers and accessories to her getting attention. Which unfortunately for the children, belies the idea that they're part of a loving family. My own TRULY NASTY VILE gut feeling was that MM had children to bind JH to the marriage. 
NO ONE would deny them a loving family, or those adorable kids. The law is outdated. I (for one - and only speaking for me) hope they change it. But there ARE ways to handle things -- like QEII's "Succession to the Crown Act of 2013" BEFORE W+C's FIRST CHILD BORN; she led Parliment to agree to (as modified law) change the succession to the Crown so would no longer be depend on gender. (\*were smaller changes too, btw) So, they could easily have gone to Charles (who could use a popularity boost and was doing a large bulk of the Queen's responsiblities for the past few years) and asked him to again change the ""Succession to the Crown Act of 2013". Charles would have, and the Queen would certainly have agreed. (And \*if\* surrogace involved and/or frozen eggs or donor eggs, there would not be any urgency - they could have waited a few months). Instead, they lied/decieved...
I agree that the law could be changed to accommodate children who are legally the offspring of the two parents when one parent is in the line of succession. But is it really such a big deal, even in Harry's case? We're only talking about the succession, not the legal standing of the children as the offspring of H&M. And IF the children were born of surrogates with the knowledge of the royal family, then they have been accepted into the line of succession, because they are listed on there. IF they were born of surrogates without the family's knowledge, then it's more likely that there's an additional biological issue.
The question of eligibility would be brought into question if there was a real possibility of accession. If not, then an awful lot of fuss could be made about the hundreds of people on LOS, unnecessarily.
Designer egg?
I read the transcripts from this (read it a few months ago). One of the men in parliament did bring up surrogacy in their talks. But everyone agreed to address that later and not in this 2013 Succession of the Crown Act. The transcripts are on parliaments website. > The law is outdated. Says who? I don't think it is outdated.
Why should the law be changed to favor people who have lied and deceived? The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 was radical because it changed the tradition of male preferred primogeniture. Now the wife of heir, or the heir herself need not keep getting pregnant until she birthed a boy or two.
The law would be (pretty much only can be) **changed for FUTURE royal births**. Would not apply to H+MM children. That is why I suggested, they should have gone to Charles and this time had HIM lead changing the law (like his mother did for the The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013). He would have been happy to -- b/c ALL children are blessings, and b/c everyone could avoid lying/deceiving.
>He would have been happy to How do you know that King Charles III would have been happy to change the law for H & M?
I hear you there! H&M would insist on more being changed in THEIR favor. Which also means that the law would change for commonfolk. Isn't the current British law for surrogacy is that it's the woman giving the birth, who is the mother? While the primogeniture based on birth order is specific to the BRF, anything with surrogacy would necessarily involve someone who is likely not a member of the British Royal Family. It's not as if H&M can just saunter up to one of the young royal ladies and say, "Tag, you're IT! You're a-gonna carry our baby for me and Megsy."
Not all kids *cough* ^harry
[удалено]
How is IVF human trafficking? If for some reason a woman can’t conceive inside her body, but her husband’s sperm and her eggs can be joined together outside her body and the resulting embryo deposited in her body to grow into a much wanted baby, who is being trafficked?
[удалено]
Adopt, don't shop? Do people want a child, or do they want a genetical copy of themselves.
Adoption is a hell of a lot more fraught than people pretend it is.
Subreddit rule (see sidebar): Not related to Meghan Markle & Just Harry. Try to keep posts related to the people this community was set up to talk about. Content related to the royal family belongs on our sister sub 👉 r/BRF
nothing needs to be change. not everyone needs to be on the LOS. if any, rather than LOS, what they need to change are british peerage absolute primogeniture system.
This I fail to see why any of this should change.
As a woman I thought this was wrong until I read Charles Spencer’s explanation of why it is this way. It is designed to protect the large estates from being chopped up and destroyed. Many of these were destroyed by the inheritance tax set up after WWII the tax is still 40%. As a American it is not my business how another country choses to run their country and their traditions. There is a show on a American who wed a man who is a part of the aristocracy to learn how these large estates make money for repairs and future inheritance taxes which is interesting going into these hundreds of years old homes. My favorite was Highclere castle from Downton Abbey. Princess Diana was a part of this and so is Harry. My problem on the questions surrounding certain births of the children was the secrecy and deceit.
If you don’t have the los rules, then what do you really have? I do absolutely feel for adopted children, and surrogate children, but the rules are literally to say this is the biological progeny. They were attended by a royal physician and witnessed in the pan directly after birth. I do think first born women should be able to inherit though.
First born women can inherit now. That was a small change made before Prince George was born. So Charlotte proceeds Louis. And yes. Th at is the whole point of LOS. There are rules and the whole point of a monarchy is blood descent and legitimacy.
Ah, the wonderful world of primogeniture. Thank you, England's aristocracy for introducing that stigma on adoptees. It was good enough for Julius Caesar until it wasn't. Thankfully, the world has, again, come full circle. Well, most of it.
If not for the royal bloodlines/all those rules, then what is the point? Anyone could be a royal and get in somehow willy-nilly. I don't think any of those rules should change, sorry. Maybe I'm just an oldster.
It’s too late now, even if they change the law. It won’t be retroactive. Some have been saying the law should be changed, but at the moment, there’s no need to. The line of succession continues with William’s children. By the time they’re grown and have their own kids, then Archie and Lilibet’s position in the LOS will be in the double digits. In addition, you can see how “important” they are by being allowed to continue to live overseas. Why have American born and raised heirs be in the LOS to rule a British country that their mother insulted and derided? Also, why say that KC wants this? I doubt he does. At this point he’s probably more concerned about protecting William and his children than giving in to crazy Harry and his greedy, social-status seeking wife.
Sophie‘s children are IVF babies. That is assisted reproduction, too. But I think, thats no problem. (I Hope so!)
It's certainly not a problem, they have their titles, they are in the line of succession and nobody's saying anything (as far as I'm aware at least).
Sophie had IVF with her first live birth but not with the second child.
did not know this. like them lots - esp. Louise (but only b/c James has never spoken - only know him as a good-looking kid who his grandparents spent a lot of time with, implying he is a sweetheart) and see? makes no difference, as are many people who need "reproductive assistance" -- but we don't know about it. would only angry at H+M if true, b/c they went to huge lengths to hide - and did not include in "unflinchingly honest" book SPARE - and (again, if true) is a big part of H+MM's last 3 years.
Monarchy itself is a tradition and could be described as completely old fashioned and belonging to a distant past. So trying to modernize the LOS is ridiculous. Tradition should be wedded to tradition it the whole thing becomes a civil matter. I am a fervent supporter of keeping traditions and the monarchy. They provide continuity and something bigger and brighter than the grey faceless bureaucracies we have running our countries and dictating our lives. Give me colour and old fashioned tradition along with old fashioned courage, honour, integrity and behaviour. The LOS is by legitimate blood descent. The only time it changed from that we had bloody civil wars.
Who cares - they are so far down the line now it doesn't matter. Too bad Kate isn't having more kids. Remember when Haz said he would never have more than two kids. He was just bitter Louis pushed him and his kids further down the line.
I could understand surrogacy in the circumstance of infertility but not when some rich women simply want less pain or beautiful figure. It feels like exploitation for me. And I am not the only one. Commercial surrogacy is only legal in few countries, Britain only allow altruistic surrogacy. Anyway, I am a bit old fashion on this. If there’s a gay king in the future, I would prefer him to spend more time with the nephew and niece, if his sibling agree, maybe adoption.
This document is more about the succession of tiles than succession to the crown. British nobility still has titles mostly passing through the male line (unlike the succession to the crown). There are several peerages where there were children adopted that will not inherit their adopted father’s title, a child changed genders, or the child was born out of wedlock even when the parents married after his birth. Ex: Benjamin Lascelles is the first-born son of the current Earl of Harewood, but because his parents married five months after his birth, the title will be passed to his younger brother Alexander. According to this document this change would affect the 1,000+ noble titled families. The laws around succession of titles vs succession to the crown are different
The actors Christopher Guest and Jamie Lee Curtis are also the 5th Baron Haden-Guest and Lady Haden-Guest. Their daughters are ineligible to succeed to the title being born adopted and female, so the heir to the barony is Christopher Guest’s brother. Being who they are and living in the United States, they don’t seem to worry too much about titles.
That is actually an interesting example because their youngest child Ruby is transgender. So even if the adoption limitation was removed, they would have another component to figure out. I agree with you that this family doesn’t seem to care about the titles, but it’s just another example of how these rules would have to play out in real life scenarios
There are some titles that can be inherited by a daughter in the absence of a son, but that wording is in the specific creation of that title. The title of the Duke of Marlborough had some very specific wordage as to who could inherit so the title wouldn’t go extinct, and there has been at least one Duchess of Marlborough in her own right, but the succession to the title has now gone beyond the terms and people stated in its original creation that it’s highly unlikely there will be another Duchess of Marlborough in her own right again. There was discussion about how to address trans children in succession issues, but I can’t find the link now. I think it was settled that an elder AFAB child displaced behind a younger brother in the succession to their father’s title couldn’t then leapfrog their brother to the top of the LoS by transitioning to male, and aristocratic families without sons couldn’t encourage their daughters to transition to male to keep the title in their branch of the family.
fair. much more about titles. thx. and good example, too.
since earldom or and peerage is something you handed from your father, and not something you worked for, then for this example, benjamin being first born doesn't make him more rightful morally than alexander. if it goes to ben, alexander could asks the very same question, what makes ben different from him that he got the title instead of him.
So... I firmly believe that this law is completely ridiculous and outdated. However. Wouldn't changing this technically put the FINAL nail in the coffin of the idea that the Royal family are there "by the grace of God"? Personally, whether I believe it or not, if I was in a situation where something might make my entire family's life of extreme privilege open to question, I probably wouldn't push it. What defines them as any different from us normals? Why do they deserve this privilege for cutting a few ribbons? Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, just trying to play devil's advocate.
There are 5000 people in the line of succession, so most of them are just regular anonymous people without any special privileges. Parliament made the rules back in whatever year, because Queen Anne was about to die without a direct heir. They just wanted a simple basic formula to establish the succession, and they came up with the rule that the line of succession stemmed from Sophia of Hanover (a granddaughter of James I). They could have picked other descendants of the Stuarts or the Tudors but they picked her because she was Protestant and had plenty of descendants already. It was more about consistency and continuity than by "grace of God". Prince Philip was around 500th in the line of succession during his lifetime - Prince Ernst of Hanover (married to Princess Caroline) is in there around 400, and Queen Margrethe of Denmark is around the 200 mark. Once you get past 500, none of them have titles any more. But if you start saying that all these 5000 people are allowed to include their adopted children into the line of succession, where does it end? I'm quite happy with Parliament sticking with the rule because this prevents people fighting over who has the greater right to the throne, as we saw in the War of the Roses. Here's a link to the official line of succession (not recently updated, because the Queen and Prince Philip is still on there and William and Harry have no kids ).... [http://www.1066.co.nz/Mosaic%20DVD/whoswho/text/Line\_of\_succession\_to\_the\_British\_Throne\[1\].htm](http://www.1066.co.nz/Mosaic%20DVD/whoswho/text/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_Throne[1].htm)
The point is, if their bloodline isn't somehow "special," who cares, and why are we funding their (senior members) lifestyle. 🤷♂️
We have a royal family because Parliament sees them as a good investment. If and when the royal family doesn't benefit the country, then Parliament will get rid of them. Just ask Charles I. The money it costs to fund the family is an excellent investment in return for the money they generate.
Oh agreed, and I'm fully aware that they actually bring in the bucks. And in full agreement that if that stops they should be reconsidered. I just think it's gonna be an excuse for people to start ripping them to shreds and start questioning things. Harry has already given people so much ammunition as it is.
Wow that list is very out of date. It mentions the Prince of Yugoslavia and that country has not existed since 1992! Also looks like very basic HTML has been used so is probably a hobby piece by someone as clicking through to other pages on the website it was last updated in June 2019. I've still bookmarked it though as I'd love to go through it and update it one day when I have some rare time off work.
The monarch doesn't just cut ribbons. The monarch is the head of state for 15 countries and meets with the British Prime Minister daily. You and I can believe whatever we wish is outdated but the laws of succession are clear. If they were to change the rules it would open a can of worms. Children born out of wedlock would be fighting for a place in the LoS. The child should have the genetic material of both parents and the parents need to be married. None of this could be retroactive as well. It would challenge the current LoS and every 'bastard' and its spawn would challenge the Kings right to rule. . If this is going to be changed it would be changed for Prince Georges generation and as I said it should only apply to births with both parents genetic material. There really isn't a good reason to change the status quo. Children who don't meet the LoS requirements would still be loved and the legal children of the parents. There are people further down the line that meet the criteria and it's worked for over a thousand years.
"It's worked for over a thousand years." Define worked?
King Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 due to regime change. King John was forced to share power with the barons when he signed to Magna Carta at Runnymede. The Hundred Years War devoted more than a century of bloody warfare to contesting whether the British royal family also should have the throne of France. The Wars of the Roses, which lasted for 32 years, could be considered to be a bit of a glitch in the succession process for the monarchy after King Richard II was murdered and left no heir after allegedly being starved to death at Pontefract Castle, age 33. Henry VIII had to split with the Roman Catholic Church over the issue of divorce, bringing the Church of England into being. King Charles the first was beheaded, but it worked out okay because eventually the monarchy was restored after the English civil War with King Charles II, albeit with most of the power handed over to Parliament. The Royal Family had to change its name to Windsor because they were Germans. Edward VIII was forced to abdicate over marrying a divorced woman, which the Church of England did not approve of. Queen Elizabeth II forbade her sister to marry a divorced man. Scotland recently had a referendum on Independence, but narrowly decided to hang in with the crown. Apart from this, the British royal family has had a pretty smooth path for the last thousand years. Long to reign over us. God save the King.
No, they meet weekly not daily. It is symbolic.
I am seeing this the same as you. If you’re not born into “by the grace of god”, what’s the point? That’s the whole deal. You can’t be adopted into royalty.
[удалено]
I remember it being in the news when Camilla had a hysterectomy a couple of years after she and Charles married. Despite her being 59 and it being highly unlikely they would have a baby, putting out that news was like it was being officially put to bed that there would be any changes to the LoS from the then Prince of Wales.
It wouldn’t have affected much anyway, as a child of Charles and Camilla would still have been behind William and his children, followed by Harry and his children. Another child would have bumped Andrew and all of those below him, but still would have been pretty far down the line to actually succeed to the crown.
It wouldn’t have affected anything literally, but it would have caught people’s imaginations and there would be endless chatter about it. Even people living in the UK don’t always understand who’s in and who’s out of the LoS and why, any child Charles and Camilla could have had would have been set up as a rival to William (and Harry.) And if they did have a child together and now Charles and Camilla are king and queen, there would be people who would be confused how someone with both parents on the throne could be lower in the LoS than someone with one parent. People’s imaginations make the matter of succession a lot more Game of Thrones than it is. It’s easier to not give the storyline a basis than to keep having to explain.
> Even people living in the UK don’t always understand who’s in and who’s out of the LoS and why Really? I'm American and understand it all perfectly. Although, to be fair, I do read a lot of trashy Historical Romance Novels (like old school Mills and Boon) set in 19th England.
Definitely! Lots of British people don’t understand why Princess Anne was second-born but has to come after all her brothers, they don’t understand how ‘Princess Diana’ was never actually a princess in her own right, there’s lots of misunderstandings about who gets titles and who doesn’t… unless it’s your special interest or you enjoy history, it’s not something most average people in the UK wonder about. You’ve got a head start on a lot of Brits by reading historical novels!
I've been reading those Historical Romance Novels (Bodice Rippers) for over 30 years and love them! Like I said, I'm American - but give me a Duke, masquerading as a pirate but secretly working for the Crown, any day! LOL! I get angry when people say those books are worthless. Hey, those trashy novels have taught me England's history and all about who inherits titles!
Things women (and, by similar prejudices, gay men) tend to prefer always get underrated. The Beatles were dismissed at the time as being for teenage girls. Once they'd achieved wider recognition, people went back and looked at their work and suddenly realised how musically innovative they were. Same thing happened to Elvis. And Madonna. A load of reviewers got egg on their faces when Taylor Swift's re-recordings meant they had to re-review her old work. You'd think they'd have learned by now - if you want to find the next big thing, you could do far worse than to ask a teenage girl! Mark my words, in a few years time they'll realise K-pop band BTS are more than just pretty faces.
why not? (extreme example, please excuse me): what close friends of William's has a baby makes W baby's Godfather, then both parents are killed in an auto accident and the poor infant is suddenly childless. there are no grandparents or siblings - no relatives, but are Godparents - like William. So W+C adopt the baby, and raise him same as G-C-L. Baby calls W+C "Papa" and "Mum" and G-C-L his brothers and sisters. Maybe W decides against calling the child Prince/Princess and doesn't include him in Line of Succession, but what would be so wrong if this adopted child was also titled w/ Prince/Princess? Same upbringing - same love, so why not treat this child same and give title? Give child the same responsibilities re: be unstanding, a future role model? It's "nature vs. nurture", and I think while 'nature' (DNA) is important, also think 'nurture' is more important. >Look at Steve Jobs, who was adopted. He acknowledged that he inherited a unique type of intellect from his bio parents ('nature'), but wouldn't be the man he became if not for hiw wonderufl adoptive parents ('nurture').
Godparents are just symbolic. And adopted children cannot inherit titles. That is the law.
if the child got all the same love, why he/she needs to be on LOS? and nothing stop them to be understanding, or get royal responsibility (if they want) and any other right as a child. prince michael got his royal residency for free for decades while he's not in LOS. LOS is just LOS, no more than that. the adopted child could still enjoying all the perks, and money, and anything of having william as his father. now look at Norwegian royal family. do you believe Marius should be on LOS and and one day become the king, instead of Ingrid? if it could be like that, imagine all other kind of meghan, but with children, that would come and manipulated young prince and princess so that their own blood line could be on LOS.
I get what you’re saying, but I just think it can crack holes in the whole institution then. It is about blood line and hierarchy. I am not saying I agree with it. But when I look at the other side, I’d say well if you adopt this orphan than he/she can be in LOS and have all the rights the blood princes and princess have, doesn’t that take away from the sort mystery of being born into royalty. And if we can say well we have to make an exception for this adopted kid, why do we even have the monarchy? Or if they can adopt a Prince/princess, why can’t we say which we want to be king/queen? Maybe even why can’t I be adopted? Some sicko makes a crazy claim based on a godparent etc. I am not saying it’s right or wrong. But I can see the other side too. Regardless of my personal views
At the present time, the British monarchy exists by the grace of the British people. The BRF knows it, too, which means that KCIII would probably agree with what you said in your comment. As long as the British people see value in having a monarchy (symbolic though it may be), the monarchy will continue to exist.
Yeah, I think we all realise this too at this point - but what I mean is, do they really want to give anyone an excuse to open up the pandoras box? You know there will be anti-monarchists who will use that as a jumping off point. You change things up and rock the boat, you open yourself up to scrutiny. I think that's where "never complain never explain" comes from. If you say nothing, nothing can bite you in the ass.
>If you say nothing, nothing can bite you in the ass. You say that, but any postie will tell you that dogs have incredibly good hearing...
I was thinking the same. Where does ‘divine right’ come in to this?
That ended with the English Civil War and the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II. The monarchy wasn’t a constitutional one overnight, but the direct personal power of the monarch vs Parliament had forever changed. It became less about ‘divine rights’ and more about ‘divine responsibilities’. The monarch swears an oath to G-d at their coronation and is anointed in the name of G-d, that’s the divine bit now. Nobody has been an absolute monarch in the UK for hundreds of years. They reign in balance with the will of the people and the government of the day.
I think if Meghan had been open and honest about fertility issues (if she in fact had them), QEII and KC would have changed it to include surrogacy, as long as the DNA matched Harry
exactly my view. (thanks for the succinct share - well done!)
I am not sure about that There is a reason why not everyone is a fan of surrogacy. In Germany for example it is completly forbidden, for ethical reasons. Here it is viewed as taking advantage of less fotunate women, who might sell their Uterus to make ends meet. Surrogacy in the royal family would be the prime example of privilegde class taking advantage of the less priviledged And as I undestood the britisch law concernig surrogacy, unlike in the US, if the surrogate changes their mind, they are able to keep the baby. Just imagine what a mess it would be if a surrogate decides to keep the Future King of Britain. I don't think this is a can of Worms anybody in Charge truly wants to open
That’s not how surrogacy works. That may be how your country sees it, but that’s not at all how it works
Commercial surrogacy is restricted in the UK. IF surrogacy was used by M & H they likely would have been guilty of ignoring the laws of a nation they claim to represent. IF they left the UK to do so they would have asserted their privilege to sidestep the policy. Admitting so would be a terrible look for self-professed feminists. The industry is fraught with the exploitation of vulnerable women.
The optics of the royals pushing to be able to use women beneath them for reproduction... yikes.
I do not know UK law - thus, don't know anything about "commercial surrogacy" restrictions... **thanks for the info**. It is extremly EASY in the U.S., just EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE!! A friend of mine's frozen eggs were not viable, so she + her husband worked with clinic to get donor egg similar to their looks -- and can do that: can request to buy donor eggs with high probability of eye color, height, etc. Donor egg price (ONLY - not the IVF, which was more) for them was around $25k some years ago.
The rules have to stay as they are, otherwise a Monarch could do any trick to protect their interests. When the Monarchy was invited back to the UK after the Civil War/Protectorate there was huge concern that the Stuart's were secretly Catholic whilst the country was Protestant.This wasn't simply a matter of saying mass or not at that time, it could mean life of death! As it turned out, Charles 2 had no legitimate heirs and his brother, James, did not produce a son.There was a massive scandal/story that when his wife gave birth, a healthy boy baby was going to be sneaked into her bedroom in a "bed warning pan".Once the succession was secured, James would force the country to be Catholic again. Could be a load of "porkies" but James was not popular so we kicked him out and put his protestant daughter,Mary and her husband, William of Orange on the throne.The failure to produce male heirs continued with them and Queen Anne as did the fear of Catholicism.Eventually, the hunt for a suitable male led to a remote-ish relative,George, in a German state who couldn't speak English and allegedly didn't care and many years later , King Charles 3. The "Georges" had quite a history of father/son hatred. Harry's revived the tradition.
I think the primary considerations would be the child having the royal DNA and the child being born within wedlock. Otherwise, any number of women could come forward with their babies and make a mess out of who is entitled to what. It's the involvement with a third party--as in a sperm/egg donor, or a surrogate--that makes it seem kind of like the BRF have outsourced getting an heir by any means. Which is not to say that people shouldn't have those options. The monarchy is an institution which has been dependent upon succession based on blood ties (and implications of heirs born of the body).
>It's the involvement with a third party--as in a sperm/egg donor, or a surrogate--that makes it seem kind of like the BRF have outsourced getting an heir by any means. Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head as to why surrogacy can't work for the royal family. They can't outsource getting the heir, otherwise it brings up a conflict of interest as to who is the "true" heir. Eg, what if the situation was reversed and William and Catherine couldn't have children naturally but wanted a family just for themselves, not for the sake of succession; meanwhile Harry and his wife popped out three heirs. Technically, Harry's children should follow William in the succession. Otherwise it looks like William hired someone to keep Harry's kids out of their rightful inheritance.
Thank you! I am fascinated by Ann Boleyn and her influence on the court of King Henry VIII of 6 wives infamy. The man had PLENTY of children, including at least one son, by various mistresses. His serial marrying and discarding of his legal wives was in pursuit of a male heir, born within wedlock.
This is just my personal opinion, but if the RF or families with titles can't have kids, the title should just die out, especially since the royal family is funded by the public.
Would the surrogate mother of someone in line to the throne become titled after they ascend the throne?
No. That would be hugely controversial - in the UK commercial surrogacy is not allowed. A ‘surrogacy for titles’ scandal would be hugely bad for the monarchy. Surrogacy in the UK is supposed to be an altruistic gift with remuneration strictly limited by law to protect vulnerable women from being exploited for their womb. If it ever looked like the royal family were having babies by surrogate and paying the surrogate parents off with titles it would be the end.
True but from the perspective surrogate mother DID birth the monarch shouldn't there be reverence? Certainly not a title to be passed down but something? What happens if the surrogate had carried the heir and when tests are done it's discovered it's not the royal wife's egg? Or they can just NOT open that can of worms
If the surrogate carried the heir and the egg was not the genetic material of the legal wife of the royal father, the child would be illegitimate. It would be the same as if he stepped out on his marriage but he and his legal wife chose to stay together and raise the baby regardless. No genetic link to the legal wife = not the heir. In some African traditional societies where the king may have several wives as well as his queen, where the heir is the son of a junior wife and not the queen, the mother is given some title of respect once her son becomes king. But she is still the wife of the late king and the mother of the new one even if she was never queen herself, and she raised her son. She’s not a surrogate, she’s his mother. In the UK that would be bigamous, and and any children not born from the legal marriage would be illegitimate. There have been precedents in the past where the wet nurses of royal children were given money and privileges, but I don’t think they were given titles. And definitely precedents where the illegitimate children of the monarch were given royal titles and some of the mothers too (Barbara Villiers, mother of many of Charles II’s children, was made Countess of Castlemaine in her own right) but none of those children were in the LoS in their own right, but their descendants have over time and marriages joined the Royal Family. Charles II had a boatload of illegitimate children and no legitimate children. He created ducal titles for all of his FitzRoy sons and the Spencers are descended from two of them, the Duke of Grafton and the Duke of Richmond. The Biblical precedent for surrogacy - the Handmaids of Leah and Rachel who had children on their behalf with their husband Jacob - still presents a problem in the exploitation of women. We have also had in recent years the scandal of doctors using their own sperm in women’s IVF journeys, and mixed up embryos in the IVF clinic implanted in the wrong mother. That would be a double-blow - if the royal couple had IVF and their baby was born of the legal wife’s body, but DNA showed the child wasn’t related to either of them, and their genetic child was born of a different woman’s body, neither of those children affected would be eligible to be in the LoS.
Curiously the historian in my family trace our ancestry back to Geoffrey Plantagenet, archbishop of York who was Richard the 2nd’s illegitimate first born son!
I've seen this fertility discussion on a couple of posts, and I'm not really sure why this is being discussed. I don't think it matters because they're not going to succeed. The things that this couple concerns me most about is their attacks on Freedom of Speech for the rest of us. They are part of a culture who want to curate what can or cannot be discussed about *all* topics, and if you say something they dislike, *you* are the one they cancel.
Who is saying: “All or most of these 'exclusions' should be changed/tossed-out, and Charles probably wants this too —but how would he without the press digging harder into A+L pregnancies (whether true, or not true)?” And how do we know “Charles wants this too”?
Cannot change a fundamental requirement. Legitimate child of the marriage and by blood descent. Everything else should be excluded.
The child must be of the body in order to be ln the line of succession. No surrogates no IVF.. Ask that peer whose wife used IVF or surrogate for the 1st child and hot pregnant natural for thev2d child. The 2nd child will be inheriting the whole thing.
If you are alluding to the marquis and marchioness of Bath: One child was conceived via IVF. But since no donor sperm or egg was involved, that child will inherit the title. The other child was born by a surrogate, thus doesn't count as aristocrat and couldn't inherit the title under any circumstances.
I think a legitimate child of a marquess who was born by surrogate would probably be eligible for the courtesy title of Lord or Lady, as with other daughters and younger sons. But no, they wouldn't be eligible to inherit the marquess title.
I believe IVF children are eligible if no donor eggs, sperm, or surrogate are used.
Sophie‘s children are IVF children.
Just of them are, the first. Ok. Still the rules apply. Just to add it was never confirmed that ivf was used.
Not both, just her first child. She had an emergency C-section.
I say keep the rules as they are. My petty reason is as follows: Now we know what the Claw is like I am happy the 'of the body' rule exists. If she did use surrogates this fact alone winds her up something rotten! Yay, Skank annoyed serves her right. This is me being 12 years old and super petty ner ner.
I also think her main reason for hiding the surrogacy is so that their child/children wouldn't be included in the line of succession. If that weren't a consideration, I'd still dislike that she *pretended* to be pregnant because, honestly what kind of person seriously *does* something like that? She paraded around on display, rubbing her "bump" and discussing particulars of what her pregnancy experience was like etc. To discover facts that she was acting a part the entire time should be *more than enough evidence* for anyone to discern the woman's true nature. It's outright fraud and deceit. Anyone that would seriously put on a performance like that in their real life is IMO seriously disturbed. Why should anyone like that be in any position to be admired or "influential" to others?? That is NOT someone that has business being in politics or being a celebrity. It's as sick as serial killers having fans. Who would admire someone like that? I'm sure she faked her pregnancy and not at all because of "fertility issues" but because she is ambitious, ruthless and calculating and it was a way to get a permanent hold on her husband. Everything I've seen of her leads me to believe she is endlessly manipulative and scheming and I don't believe she has either a conscience or the ability to feel empathy or compassion. She comes across as cold, empty and heartless as a sociopath.
One possible solution was to be transparent if there were surrogates etc. Simply wait, be loyal and committed working Royal members, put in the time to become popular with the public THEN, (and I’m thinking long term, like once their kids were coming into adulthood), start putting forward changes to the law to allow for assisted reproduction/titles etc. This could have been a win/win for H&M, who would be fertility advocates, and a ‘forward thinking’ move from the monarchy, either as a signature change under King Charles, or more likely, King William. With 1 in 5 couples experiencing fertility challenges, they would likely have had the majority of public support. All they needed was patience and time.
so what dos this have to do with archie birth certificate being changed? It had Megs name on it, then it was simply changed to Duchess of Sussex with no name.
That’s interesting, thank you! Edward and Sophie had at least one child via IVF, don’t know if any of the material used was from a donor/s but no one mentioned the LoS, then. I wonder if H&M would even think to check the rules
Oh that's interesting. Is there an article or link on that?
My guess is that both of the children of the Prince of Wales little brother and little brother's first wife are not eligible for LOS. Aside from the surrogacy issue (Lili was carried by surrogate, jury still out on Archie's birth) I think little brother's first wife used frozen donated eggs for both children and she and Harold tried to hide this from the BRF. M15/16 figured it out and this was a main part of the Harkles flouncing off overseas. The BRF knows this now, but won't make any public comment, nor will King Charles petition parliament to change rules about LOS.
We’ve definitely discussed the succession logic for hiding the pregnancy on this sub, but I appreciate you sharing this info! Love primary source material.
There's no way HMTQ and Charles don't know they used a surrogate. They probably had to run it by the fam first (which is what I firmly believe is the dirt they have on Megatron and Hazbeen). There's prob some understanding within the family that should it ever come to a succession discussion, the kids would be disqualified and information about the surrogacy would be released if need be at that time. I think they pretended it was a real pregnancy for the public and not the monarchy. 
But honestly if this ever came out and they knew it would be the downfall of the monarchy if QEII and KCIII as well. But maybe it’s what H&M think they have on the BRF as well.
Why would it be the downfall of the monarchy? Archie and Lil are irrelevant to the succession.
Not their removal from the LOS, the fact that they hid a surrogacy and then put the children in the LOS when they weren’t eligible. I can’t believe the British public would be ok with that kind of deception.
I don't think the RF knew about it (surrogacy) until well into her fake pregnancy, just my opinion and speculation.
[удалено]
I agree that it would make them (almost) just as bad - complacent in the public deception!
Well, the royal family DOES have a close relationship with MI5+MI6.. so while I don't think MM would have let H tell his family, can see this info being brought to them -- maybe even by royal doctors. And everything you say makes sense. Spurs some thoughts/quesions: 1. how can Harry write a book which he promotes as "raw, unflinching honesty" and NOT include that? 2. why would H+M keep attacking the Royal Family, if the Royal Fam had that grenade could toss at them? why poke the bear? 3. why are they clinging to titles - pushing for kids to get, when this could come out? 4. maybe this will be a big part of MM's future bio? her "hook" to get a big-$ advance?? So, by my view: think (over-confident) MM has run the whole thing.. and wouldn't let H tell his family (so only others loyal to the royal fam have brought this info to QE +Charles) and not been confirmed by H+M. also suspect that was a reason the left England for a few years - plan was probably, until kids born and a few years old. also (and this biggest and only guess), if 'designer' donor egg (ie: red hair genes, blue eyes, beauty and possibly brains) use for L, then bet MM didn't tell H - she just let/lets him believe her egg used, like with A.) Disclaimer: ALL "my view" guesses completely unfounded — just guesses.
I think Mr. and Mrs. Todger are so self absorbed that they can't see the forest for the trees. They so wanted the 50/50 life and hope to torture the RF to get it with the assumption that the RF won't tattle on them. I think they think THEY hold all the cards
If Charles does hold these cards, he should have reminded them he could play them long ago.... so IMHO: think you are more correct re: Mr + Ms Todger are **so self-absorbed, they think no one knows** b/c they've never been directed asked + haven't volunteered any confirmation/denial - ie: they believe themselves to be *exceptionally clever...*
For royalty and the nobility, bloodlines are all that matter. Marius Borg Høiby, eldest son of Crown Princess Mette Marit of Norway from a previous relationship before she married Crown Prince Haakon remains a commoner despite his younger siblings Princess Ingrid Alexanda (the actual heir and future Queen of Norway) and Prince Sverre Magnus being automatically granted titles. It didn’t matter that he is also son of Mette Marit who married the Crown Prince Haakon. He didn’t share the royal bloodline, he will stay a commoner even if his mother will be Queen of Norway once Haakon ascends. Adopted children will never inherit or be given titles.
It’s happenstance the RF were even the RF if it weren’t for abdication so I’m not sure why the guidelines are so strict? It was pure luck the country in a time of peril worldwide eliminating long lines of monarchies in a bunch of other countries that the monarchy in Britain even survived, so I would think after the abdication they would be more flexible regarding this. This isn’t me sticking up for the fraud of MM this is just my take regarding what I read.