# Hypothetical illegitimate heirs to the British throne

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-illegitimate-heirs-to-the-british-throne/277292>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [November 30, 2004, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-illegitimate-heirs-to-the-british-throne/277292 "2004-11-30T06:02:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\
**Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-illegitimate-heirs-to-the-british-throne/277292/1 "2004-11-30T06:02:31Z")

</div>

If it were ever proven that Princes William and/or Harry had not been fathered by Charles, would they still be heirs to the throne? Does it count that they were the sons of Diana, who was married to Charles at the time? And does it count that Charles has been their father their entire lives, as opposed to their biologican father? How important is it that they don’t possess any of Charles’ DNA?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\
**Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-illegitimate-heirs-to-the-british-throne/277292/2 "2004-11-30T06:18:44Z")

</div>

Nothing new here. The rumours have as much longevity as the royal family. So long as “the firm” are in charge, there will be no DNA tests.

A bit more [salacious gossip here.](http://www.student.city.ac.uk/~rc391/jubbly/filth/filth_cb.html)

> [@gossip factory](#):
>
> According to the republican movement “Throneout”, Prince Philip and Princess Alexandra’s affair and the Queen’s dalliances with Lord Porchester and Baron Plunket mean Her Majesty’s own marriage has been tempestuous.
> 
> Currently campaigning for royal DNA tests to be compulsory, “Throneout” believes the Queen’s sons should be known as Andrew Porchester and Edward Plunket.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\
**Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-illegitimate-heirs-to-the-british-throne/277292/3 "2004-11-30T07:08:16Z")

</div>

IIRC, under British law you are legally the child of your mother’s husband, regardless of who contributed half your DNA. Since Charles and Diana were married when both the princes were born, that means Charles is their father in every legal sense of the word – including inheritance of royal titles.

For the record, there seems to be little reason to believe either prince is not the son of Charles. Diana’s affairs all seem to have begun after William and Harry were born.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\
**Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-illegitimate-heirs-to-the-british-throne/277292/4 "2004-11-30T08:32:26Z")

</div>

> [@Mississippienne](#):
>
> IIRC, under British law you are legally the child of your mother’s husband, regardless of who contributed half your DNA . . .

There’s a \<i\>presumption\</i\> that the child of a married woman is the child of her husband. That presumption can, however, be rebutted by evidence.