This isn’t quite what’s being looked for here, but it’s always fascinated me: Charlemagne’s daughters had many illegitimate children with “friends” in court, mainly because he would not allow them to get married. Charlemagne apparently tolerated this and even doted on his illegitimate grandchildren. I don’t think any of these grandchildren could have ever succeeded to the throne, even if Charlemagne’s son Louis hadn’t survived—from what I know of Salic Law it wouldn’t have been allowed even if they were legitimate. Still, the whole situation is a fascinating little window into that era and that court.
I found my copy of the book. Their arguments in favor of Victoria’s illegitimacy:
- The Duke of Kent was obviously not a hemophiliac, and there’s no evidence of hemophilia in the Duchess’s family history.
- Neither of the Duchess’s other two children appeared to inherit the gene.
- The Duke of Kent could have been infertile: his mistress of 27 years bore him no children.
- The gene for porphyria seems to have disappeared with Victoria, at the same time the gene for hemophilia appeared.
- Some speculation on the character and behavior of the Duchess and the sexual mores of the aristocracy.
In favor of her legitimacy:
- She looks like the portraits of the Duke of Kent and George III.
- The Kents were in London when Victoria was probably conceived, and their activities were well-documented, and there is no record of a likely hemophiliac candidate for the father.
The authors admit it’s unlikely that the Duchess would have had a liaison with a mysterious hemophiliac man, but they argue that a spontaneous mutation, combined with Victoria’s failure to inherit the gene for porphyria, is even more unlikely. Even if you dismiss this idea, the book is an interesting read, as it traces hemophilia as it spreads from Victoria’s children to the royal families of Europe.
Nobody remembered William the Bastard :)? He took England by conquest, but was illegitimate even as heir to Normandy.
At that William’s son Henry I and/or some of his advisors seem to have seriously considered naming his eldest bastard and favorite, Robert of Gloucester heir in the wake of the deaths of first William Audelin and then William Clito. In hindsight he probably would have been the best choice, though the church would have had a conniption fit.
Hard to say in that case. Lack of any other legitimate contender if Louis had died might have made it possible, though difficult. The biggest stumbling block may have been that of the two potential candidates Drogo was 13 when Charlemagne died, Hugh 12, so neither would have had time to accumulate any adult constituency. By contrast Louis was 36 with an established powerbase.
That Arnulf, an illegitimate Carolingian, succeeded in driving a legitimate male Carolingian in Charles III from power, indicates that under the right circumstances it could be possible. But of course it appears Arnulf succeeded in large part due to Charles III’s own failure to produce a legitimate male heir or get his bastard Bernard legitimized. Arnulf enfeoffed his own illegitimate son, Zwentibold, with Lotharingia, but that ended in Z’s childless death a few years later.
Other Carolingian bastards faired less well. For example Lothar II of Lotharingia’s illegitmate son, Hugh, made several plays to seize royal power in Lotharingia and was repeatedly put down by his legitimate peers, definitively by Charles III ( who finally had him blinded ).
Oh, duh. psychonaut did. My apologies :).
But let’s go back a generation. While it now seems pretty clear that George III suffered from porphyria, were any of his children known to have it? Did it show up in any of his descendants from lines other than the Duke of Kent and Queen Victoria?
If it just disappeared from Victoria’s lineage, but was still present in other descendants of George III, that might support the argument.
But if it doesn’t appear to have been present in any of the other lineages, perhaps that’s an indication that whatever caused it in George III was not easily transmitted.
There were many rumors at the time that the infant son of James II was illegitimate. This was politically expedient as James II, a Catholic, was forcibly deposed in 1688, the crown descending to his Protestant daughter Mary II and her husband William of Orange.
Point taken. It’s worth noting, however, that William was third in line for the Crown in his own right, after his wife and her younger sister Anne. [He was the son of Charles I’s eldest daughter, and Mary and Anne’s first cousin.] By Anne agreeing to yield her place to William (“swapping places,” as it were, so she became his heiress presumptive instead of his being hers), William’s demand that he and his wife be co-monarchs, rather than he being her consort, could be met by vesting the Crown in a sort of tenancy by the entireties where the couple as a unit acceded to it, with Anne as heiress presumptive in default of their issue. (In the event, neither Mary nor Anne had children who survived them, resulting in the Hanoverian succession.)
Not wanting to comment on the illegitimacy or otherwise of Harry. But I do have a question.
Given his position, how likely is it that he has been genetically tested? What would be the implications for the monarchy (as opposed to under law) if he really were illegitimate and William were to die?
None, because the law presumes that the child of a married woman is legitimate. If it were discovered that Harry were illegitimate, the family would be under no obligation to publicize this fact.
Of course they wouldn’t be under any obligation…but taking that out of the equation and assuming the public found out and it was an incontrovertible fact.
But as a thought game…the line of progression goes through Charles, if the sprog isn’t his - yet is slated to be king (like in the case of Charles, Liz and Wills being killed in a plane crash)
How would the public react? What about the house of lords?
Would it make a difference if the father was Dodi or if it was the body guard?
And for bonus points - given the ease of genetic testing today, do you think that royals should be tested as a matter of course?
Not forgetting of course that if it did happen to be Dodi - he is not English.
How would Dodi being not-English matter?
Harry was born in 1984. Diana and Dodi got together in 1997. So I think it’s quite unlikely that Dodi had any part in Harry’s conception.
If by “the bodyguard” you mean James Hewitt, the person often suggested to be Harry’s “real father” - seems highly unlikely to me, and there’s no actual evidence that he had anything to with Diana until a couple of years after Harry was born.
This is a question for Great Debates, not General Questions.
From “Shakester”: Last edited by Shakester; Today at 06:09 AM. Reason: … rouge comma
What is a rouge comma?
A spelling mistake.
I put a rogue comma in the original text, saw it, removed it, and then completely messed up the attempted witticism. Clearly I’m better at punctuation than spelling.
,
IIRC, Prince Albert was possibly illegitimate. What’s the SD on that. Asking it here instead of a new thread.
To ad to the Queen Victoria discussion: yeah, 1:50.000 really isn’t all that rare, that translates to several cases every year.
Compared to the idea that Victorias fiercely ambitious and controlling mother would risk everything by having an affair - well, I’m firmly on the “spontaneous mutation” camp.
I mean, even if we entertain the idea that the Duke of Kent was infertile, and she was trying to get pregnant by someone else in a hurry (which I’ll concede as a not impossible scenario), surely she would have chosen a man in obvious good health, and who resembled the Duke, who prided himself on his vigor and sprightliness? Even if a hemophiliac managed to survive to adulthood (very unlikely), he would have been obviously crippled and sickly - not likely breeding material, in other words.
Unmedicated hemophilia isn’t really something you can hide.
Given that Diana was putting herself about not long after the marriage.
Kensinton Palace duty log shows that she snuck out when she thought her police minders were asleep.
They weren’t, and followed her to a “Gentlemans” flat in Sloane St. where she spent the night with the lights out, before sneaking back to Ken Pal early in the morning before the staff got up,
(The Windsors knew about this but weren’t fussed, it was a dynastic marriage, not a marriage for love)
So I would think that it is quite likely that the boys have been tested, if only to prevent problems years later if someone out to cause trouble challenged their parentage officially when he was due to take the throne.
But, that’s only my guess.
On the matter of Victoria’s gene for haemophilia, I have read a theory that the gene was inherited from her mother’s mother’s mother in her official pedigree; and that, as expected, about half the males born to these women did have haemophilia but were not so diagnosed because the condition was little understood then. Many of these males died young. (My Google-fu is poor and I can’t find a cite easily. Charlotte Zeepvat may be a relevant search-term but her book seems to have a pay-wall.)
Not that it adds anything to the thread, but it is generally accepted (leastways in the pubs of the Scottish Highlands) that the relationship between Queen Victoria and her Scottish ghillie, John Brown, went far beyond what would be considered normal for Victorian times.
Fortunately, her childbearing years were already behind her by the time the John Brown relationship commenced.
I cannot refrain from recounting an ancient joke which I (over)heard for the first time as a child
Queen Victoria and John Brown were taking a stroll along the banks of the River Dee, when they come upon an angler sitting on the river bank. “Hello, Hamish” says John “have you caught anything today” ?
“No” says Hamish, “I had one hooked, but it got away”. “Was it a big one?” asks John.
"About the size of your cock, John " says Hamish.
The couple move on and Victoria turns to John and says " what a rude man".
“Aye,” says John, " but that was one monster fish he had "…
I’ll get my coat …